4 ms·

Well, we can't exactly prevent people from dying of a virus that's largely outside of our control. We can enact policies to prevent people from dying due to a

Well, we can't exactly prevent people from dying of a virus that's largely outside of our control. We can enact policies to prevent people from dying due to a lack of basic resources, however. Unfortunately, contrary to what many seem to believe, this isn't a case of choosing between two evils. It's not as if we can avoid economic consequences by simply ignoring the virus. Business as usual won't exist, with or without mandated lockdowns, until the threat of the virus has passed. Neither can we simply defeat the virus by shutting down all economic activity, even if that were possible. The solution to this crisis will likely require a combination of luck, technological progress, and well-executed policy. That said, I'll reiterate that keeping people from dying due to "economic devastation" is very much within our present capabilities and doesn't depend on global economic recovery. Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll (well, those in a position to choose, anyway) make the choice to do so.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>That said, I'll reiterate that keeping people from dying due to "economic devastation" is very much within our present capabilities and doesn't depend on global economic recovery. Very true, but the most likely outcome is that people will not exercise their power to reduce the hardship in the third world. Most people of means did not bother to end starvation in the 3rd world before this, why would they be more likely when they are in worse economic position. How much have you personally donated to end starvation before this? If you haven't, what made you make the choice not to?
- clawedjird 6y ago
  I agree, unfortunately.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  Charity is more of a symptom of than a cure of poverty. Nations that kept the 'charity is a big part of welfare' model typically have high levels of poverty, even if they're wealthy. The US is the standout example of this. Nations that treat it as a basic function of government, and a right of the governed, to be able to eat and receive medicine, don't usually have a problem with that kind of poverty. I think it's about how people think of their rights. If somebody has a right to something, they can't receive it as a gift. It is theirs, no matter who holds it. If it isn't a right, then it can always be legally withheld. Charity celebrates the gift-giving side of the equation, but it conceals the darker side: that charity doesn't make sense if it isn't backed up by people taking property rights more seriously than basic needs. If basic needs are protected by law, it's not a charitable donation, it's a tax.
Accujack 6y ago
>Well, we can't exactly prevent people from dying of a virus that's largely outside of our control. We can prevent some of them from dying by using what control of the virus we DO have. >We can enact policies to prevent people from dying due to a lack of basic resources, however. We "can" in the sense that it's technically possible. The present government is probably not capable of doing this, however - they're too entrenched in their status quo and unable to deal with the possibility of things changing. They want to believe that whatever happens with the virus is only a temporary crisis before they go back to "the way things were".
- clawedjird 6y ago
  I agree. Lockdowns have undoubtedly saved lives, as have efforts to find better forms of treatment. While I don’t expect the present US gov’t to effectively act to mitigate the virus’ economic consequences for those most vulnerable, that reflects a political choice, not limited capability.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

>That said, I'll reiterate that keeping people from dying due to "economic devastation" is very much within our present capabilities and doesn't depend on global economic recovery. Very true, but the most likely outcome is that people will not exercise their power to reduce the hardship in the third world. Most people of means did not bother to end starvation in the 3rd world before this, why would they be more likely when they are in worse economic position. How much have you personally donated to end starvation before this? If you haven't, what made you make the choice not to?

clawedjird 6y ago
I agree, unfortunately.
pasabagi 6y ago
Charity is more of a symptom of than a cure of poverty. Nations that kept the 'charity is a big part of welfare' model typically have high levels of poverty, even if they're wealthy. The US is the standout example of this. Nations that treat it as a basic function of government, and a right of the governed, to be able to eat and receive medicine, don't usually have a problem with that kind of poverty. I think it's about how people think of their rights. If somebody has a right to something, they can't receive it as a gift. It is theirs, no matter who holds it. If it isn't a right, then it can always be legally withheld. Charity celebrates the gift-giving side of the equation, but it conceals the darker side: that charity doesn't make sense if it isn't backed up by people taking property rights more seriously than basic needs. If basic needs are protected by law, it's not a charitable donation, it's a tax.

Accujack 6y ago

>Well, we can't exactly prevent people from dying of a virus that's largely outside of our control. We can prevent some of them from dying by using what control of the virus we DO have. >We can enact policies to prevent people from dying due to a lack of basic resources, however. We "can" in the sense that it's technically possible. The present government is probably not capable of doing this, however - they're too entrenched in their status quo and unable to deal with the possibility of things changing. They want to believe that whatever happens with the virus is only a temporary crisis before they go back to "the way things were".

clawedjird 6y ago
I agree. Lockdowns have undoubtedly saved lives, as have efforts to find better forms of treatment. While I don’t expect the present US gov’t to effectively act to mitigate the virus’ economic consequences for those most vulnerable, that reflects a political choice, not limited capability.