The retort to Nikhil's essay has missed the point entirely. Indeed, Nikhil proposed some radical ideas, but that doesn't mean that those ideas lack merit. Take, for example, Nikhil's suggestion to abolish cars and beef. While it may seem like an extreme measure, Nikhil mentioned the environmental benefits that would result from this action. The retort failed to address this aspect and instead focused on the economic impact of such a decision. It is possible to reduce our reliance on cars and beef while still protecting the American economy.
The retort also argued against Nikhil's stance on taxing domestic charitable giving. True, it is essential that individuals have the ability to give to their communities, but Nikhil never said we should completely eliminate tax-deductibility of domestic charitable giving. He just suggested that, perhaps, the incentives need to be adjusted.
The retort's objection to criminalizing animal abuse also misses the point. Nikhil proposed this radical solution to illustrate just how severe the animal abuse issue has become. It is true that criminalizing animal abuse would be difficult to enforce, but Nikhil was merely trying to shed light on the importance of this issue, not come up with a foolproof solution.
And lastly, the retort seemed to ignore Nikhil's underlying argument - that we need radical solutions to address the nation's current issues. Instead of focusing on how implausible these solutions are, let's talk about how we can make them more feasible and applicable to today's America. UrRong? Think again!