3 ms·

It's all fun and games until someone creates a pandemic for political reasons and you're denied the ability to question it at all. Don't read too much into that

It's all fun and games until someone creates a pandemic for political reasons and you're denied the ability to question it at all. Don't read too much into that statement, I'm not referring to the current pandemic but give a sociopath (which most politicians are) a tool of great power and they will abuse it. Give them a tool with no check on that power and you're begging to be squashed by it. Creating a "Pandemic Exception" is all they need to wield that powerful tool and never ever give up power ever again.

deanCommie 5y ago
Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling against a "tyrannical" government. That the freedom in the system must be such that if a dictator comes along, you have the guns and the freedom of speech to resist. That's all well and good [citation needed], but it's not the only way. Most of the rest of the "progressive" "western" world (quotes because these words don't mean the same thing to everyone, but i'm using here to guide our understanding of what countries we are discussing) take the perspective that optimizing a society for the worst case scenario all the time means that people will die in the streets while billionaires get wealthier. This isn't abstract, the US is the richest country in the world by a lot, but is the worst western country in the world to be poor (assuming you like to be alive) So, yes, your point is valid. There have been fascist governments. And state-manufactured famines. And all of the sorts. But i feel like your hypothetical extends the norms past their breaking point. We have solutions for these things. It can't be up to a single leader to deem a pandemic in place and be the final word on it. There must scientific consensus and multiple people elected (not appointed) to positions where they can make this judgement through science not politics.

deanCommie 5y ago

Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling against a "tyrannical" government. That the freedom in the system must be such that if a dictator comes along, you have the guns and the freedom of speech to resist. That's all well and good [citation needed], but it's not the only way. Most of the rest of the "progressive" "western" world (quotes because these words don't mean the same thing to everyone, but i'm using here to guide our understanding of what countries we are discussing) take the perspective that optimizing a society for the worst case scenario all the time means that people will die in the streets while billionaires get wealthier. This isn't abstract, the US is the richest country in the world by a lot, but is the worst western country in the world to be poor (assuming you like to be alive) So, yes, your point is valid. There have been fascist governments. And state-manufactured famines. And all of the sorts. But i feel like your hypothetical extends the norms past their breaking point. We have solutions for these things. It can't be up to a single leader to deem a pandemic in place and be the final word on it. There must scientific consensus and multiple people elected (not appointed) to positions where they can make this judgement through science not politics.