3 ms·
I 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
by pmiller2 7y ago
I 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 7y 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 7y agoImperfection is not evil.
- bhupy 7y agoIndeed, it is not. To some people, opening the economy is “imperfect”, but acceptable.
- pmiller2 7y 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.