Name: What Dan Crenshaw Thinks About Vaccine Passports
Uploaded: 2021-04-06T17:11:17.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'What Dan Crenshaw Thinks About Vaccine Passports' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-04-06. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'What Dan Crenshaw Thinks About Vaccine Passports' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-04-06. Transcript available.

The Joe Rogan Experience
Well, there's a, you know, there's a suspicion, like people have suspicion
about the government.
Like there's a lot of people that don't want to get the vaccine because they're
worried about the government.
That's also, that exists in minority communities and in more poor communities.
What are your thoughts about this vaccine passport concept?
Because a lot of people find that deeply problematic.
Giving the government this ability to let people travel or not travel based on
whether or not you've been vaccinated.
The left cannot let go of COVID.
They can't let go of it.
They want it around.
They want to keep spending money based on this sort of moral stance that we
need to keep supporting communities because of COVID.
And that we need to keep doing things and taking excessive action because of
COVID.
Why do you think that is?
Because they love collectivism and they love centralized control of the economy
and society.
I recall a definition we were looking at earlier.
Yeah, sounds like fascism.
But, and again, I always distinguish between liberals and progressives on this
one.
Okay, I think, I think there is a, there should be an alliance between real
liberals and conservatives in the future.
And that's how we're going to solve problems.
You know, I talk to Brett Weinstein all the time.
Well, Einstein, if you talk to him all the time, you know his fucking last name.
Oh, Jesus.
Well, that may be not bad.
Harvey Weinstein.
Brett Weinstein.
All right.
Anyway, I think, anyway, he's like, I'm a hardcore liberal.
He's like, I'm a radical liberal.
And we just agree on so many things because he's a classical liberal.
And if you're going to describe yourself as liberal, you mean in a classical
sense in most cases.
And you want nice things.
You have the sense of compassion and you want nice things from people.
Maybe it's health care.
Maybe it's to take care of people when they fall in on hard times.
These are good things.
These are not bad things.
These are not things that conservatives even disagree with.
Now, we generally have a different philosophy on how to find solutions for
those problems.
That's the center, I guess.
If we're always, like, grasping for the center, which a lot of people are.
And, you know, I always kind of question, like, what do you mean by that?
But maybe that's the right way to look at it.
Liberals are good at having enough empathy and compassion to see what might
need to be changed.
Conservatives are good at finding the solutions for that change that maintains
the good things that got us here in the first place.
You can't burn down all the foundations of a society just because you're not at
utopia yet.
Remember, utopia is defined in Greek as being nowhere, and you'll always burn
things down to grasp for that.
You can't get to that point.
So I think that's the right alliance.
I kind of forgot what the initial question was, though.
Well, it's all – you're talking about the difference between a classical
liberal.
When you say classical liberal, I always think you're trying to, like, pretend
you're liberal when you're really a conservative.
Because there's a lot of people that use that term, classical liberal, and it's
like, what do you believe?
It's like things get sneaky.
I think there's a real problem with definitions.
There's a real problem with, like –
You've got to focus on the definitions.
What Chris Rock was saying, though, about, like, gangs, like, that you have,
like – I'm more conservative, and I believe – you have these predetermined
patterns of behavior that people subscribe to without any independent thinking,
without any objective thinking.
And it's a real problem with human beings.
Like, I think ultimately what everybody wants is what's good for the community.
They want for themselves, selfishly, but they also want for their friends and
neighbors and loved ones and family members.
They want what's good for everybody, but they can't agree in what is good for
everybody.
And then when people don't have, they look at people who do have, and they go,
well, how the fuck do they have?
And then some grifter will come along, and they have because they've taken from
you.
And that – therein lies the problem, because if you're not educated or if you
haven't, like, deeply researched the ideas, especially with an objective
perspective, you can sort of believe a lot of these grifters, a lot of these
people that come along, and they say crazy shit like, tax the rich or eat the
rich.
And like, oh, Jesus Christ.
But how did they get rich?
It did not taste good.
Did they get rich from stealing, or did they get rich from discipline and hard
work and decades, decades in the trenches?
Because you're dealing with two very different things.
Well, a classically liberal philosophy would ask that question, because there's
a sense of justice involved with any question.
And that sense of justice is, did somebody infringe on your rights?
And what are rights?
Well, life, liberty, property, generally speaking, in the classical sense.
Now, you can go further back in time before classic Enlightenment principles
came about in the, you know, 18th century.
But then you're dealing with feudalism.
Then you're dealing with tribalism.
Then you're dealing with what I think a lot on the left want to bring us back
to, the sort of subjugating people into different identities and hierarchies
based on those identities.
That's a really bad place to be.
They want to bring us back to that moment in history.
What the Enlightenment period did was say, look, you can keep dividing people
up all day long.
Eventually, you just get to an individual.
So maybe we should look at how individuals act and then have a really rational
structure about how we define incentives and how we define justice.
Injustice should be defined as somebody infringing, person A infringing on the
rights of person B or person A, you know, making it in a hierarchy for unworthy
reasons, something other than a meritocracy.
That would be an injustice.
I know you said that the left is fascinated by COVID or obsessed with COVID,
but we didn't really cover it.
Like, what do you think about this COVID passport?
That was the original question.
I got really philosophical.
No, it's okay.
That was the original question.
Well, what do you think about it?
It's obviously a bad idea.
It's not.
And it's obviously a bad idea because, like, a lot of the well-intentioned
people on the left tend to, they're well-intentioned, but they do tend to live
like they're still in grad school.
And I know because I went to Harvard in a policy school.
I went to the Harvard Kennedy School after the military.
And there's an infatuation with being able to design the perfect policy on
paper.
Now, that's the first step, of course.
Now, the second step is how do you implement it?
And also, again, whose rights are you infringing on when you implement these
things?
These are the questions they don't ask.
This is what a conservative always asks.
Again, when I talk about how to solve problems through a framework of limiting
principles, this is what I mean.
You have to ask these questions.
And so what is the practicality of this?
And it's not practical at all, frankly, depending on what they mean by a COVID
passport also.
Maybe we should define that first.
But it's one thing to ask people, like, hey, I don't know, wear a green
bracelet if you already got the vaccine and you've already had COVID or both,
either or.
But it's not that.
It's like limiting your ability to travel.
Which is an excessive infringement on your rights.
And also, is it really even scientific, given the trends that we're seeing?
I mean, no matter how you approach this question, it seems like a really bad
idea.
When you say, is it even scientific, what do you mean by that?
Meaning we've been traveling for a year without vaccines.
Well, in a limited aspect.
Some people have.
I travel a lot.
Limited capacity.
Yeah.
I mean, it's somewhat limited.
Somewhat limited.
Well, no.
If you look at the airline trends, it's severely limited.
Fairly.
Yeah.
I spent a lot of time at airports over the last year.
Well, you do.
But that's personal.
But I know how crowded they are every time I'm there.
And yeah, there was definitely a time period where there were ghost towns.
But that hasn't been the case for many, many, many months.
But it's still not even 50% of what it was a year ago.
Yeah.
Or a year and a half ago, I should say.
I don't know the exact numbers.
I don't know what it is either.
I just know that we've been living with it, just like you have to live with a
pandemic.
Yeah.
Because you don't have a choice.
Here's a big difference.
Maybe everything boils down to this difference.
The right believes, look, you don't have a choice.
You got to make the best of it.
You got to keep living.
You got to mitigate risk where you can.
But you can't mitigate risk at the expense of everything else.
And the left says, no, no, no.
You have to mitigate risk at the expense of everything else.
No cost is too high because if it just saves one life.
This is the fundamental difference.
The problem they don't take into account is it costs a lot of lives.
It costs a lot of lives through suicide, depression, drug addiction.
There's a lot of people that-
The school's closing has been excessively bad.
And there's no science to indicate that this is what our kids need.
I have a friend who lives in Nevada.
And their community was ravaged by suicide with young kids.
And they're devastated by it.
And they're trying to figure out like what there's a massive escalation of suicides
in high school age kids because of the pandemic and the lockdown.
You have a higher chance of dying from the flu if you're under 20 years old.
Why doesn't Dr. Fauci ever say that?
Why does it, why does he go, hey, you could die if you're 14.
You could.
Yes, you could.
But you have to contextualize the information you're giving.
This is why America has lost trust in their public health officials because
they never contextualize anything.
They never give you the probability of risk.
Catch new episodes of the Joe Rogan Experience for free only on Spotify.
Watch back catalog JRE videos on Spotify, including clips.
Easily, seamlessly switch between video and audio experience.
On Spotify, you can listen to the JRE in the background while using other apps
and can download episodes to save on data costs all for free.
Spotify is absolutely free.
You don't have to have a premium account to watch new JRE episodes.
You just need to search for the JRE on your Spotify app.
Go to Spotify now to get this full episode of the Joe Rogan Experience.