3 ms·
First of all "capitalism" has nothing to do with this. Even a perfectly centrally planned socialist economy might come to the same conclusion. People need goods
by bhupy 6y ago
First of all "capitalism" has nothing to do with this. Even a perfectly centrally planned socialist economy might come to the same conclusion. People need goods and services. Capitalism is one way to deliver them.
Second of all, I'm not really sure where you got "5,250,000+ deaths per year", because current projections with reopening of the economy is about 161,000 by Aug 4[1], and that's about 5 months since the outbreak, so let's call that 386,400 annualized. Let's say we get a vaccine in 2 years, for a total of about 772,800 deaths. That represents 0.2% of US population.
I want to make it clear that I, personally, do not think that it is acceptable for 0.2% of the US population to die, but I want to try and convey to you that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for REASONABLE people to conclude that 0.2% over a one-time 2-year interval is "okay", if they already think that 0.01% of Americans dying per year is already acceptable — because at that rate you reach the same 0.2% figure over 20 years, and it continues to grow unbounded.
> And, what if I believe even one death for the sake of economic activity is too many? What of your argument, then?
It's totally fair for you to have that opinion! But the vast majority of people do not believe that, and you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affected-badly-yes-trump-says-us-must-reopen-coronavirus-deaths-projected-to-hit-100000-in-weeks-2020-05-06 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affect...
- pmiller2 6y agoI did not mean to say that unnecessary deaths were the result of capitalism and only capitalism. I only used the "C" word to highlight that those interested in restarting the economy are those who will benefit the most from it. And, those people are not the vulnerable people on the ground making the sacrifices. Under socialism, the people who would benefit and the people making sacrifices would be identical, and that's the fundamental difference there. Sorry to have been unclear. Regarding 5.25M deaths, I showed my work upthread on that. It's 1.5% of 328.2 million (approximate current US population). This is what the likely result would be if we just "resumed normal activity" and waited for herd immunity, which may or may not come. > you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable. Why not? No one has the moral authority to choose to end my life besides me.
- bhupy 6y ago> Why not? Because it is practically unenforceable, and almost nobody considers 1 death for "economic activity" to be unacceptable, so by extension means that everyone holds an immoral world view, and everyone is violating your supposed natural human law...in which case, of what use is that law? If everyone is evil, then nobody is evil.
- pmiller2 6y agoImperfection is not evil.
- bhupy 6y agoIndeed, it is not. To some people, opening the economy is “imperfect”, but acceptable.
- pmiller2 6y agoI don't consider it acceptable, but the number of people that would die if we literally just shut everything off (including "essential" services and utilities) is unacceptable. "The economy" as it exists today simply leaves too many people behind. When 8 billionaires have as much wealth as half the world, and when wealth is essentially freedom, that's what's unacceptable.