Another thing that I realized was related to this post was my idea of "tragic libertarianism."

Libertarians believe (and I think they're right) that there are a significant number of social problems that the government shouldn't be trying to fix. There's no cost-effective way to fix them, or intervention is likely to make things worse rather than better, or there's no way to intervene without trampling all over people's rights.

It's a common rhetorical device to then ALSO insist that these problems are harmless, and stretch the evidence to make it look like there's nothing at all to complain about. And I don't like that. It's an example of motivated cognition; it's jumping to a conclusion you have no reason to believe.

Maybe it's not worth spending resources to fix Problem A. Often, that's true. And yes, that means you don't have to lose sleep fretting about A, because at the moment there's nothing to be done. But please don't write a newspaper editorial telling me that A has been overhyped.

Sometimes, just because we can't rush in and fix a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem. People who suffer from it deserve our sympathy and whatever small, individual forms of help we can offer.