4 ms·

In modern times, you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve. This isn't star trek socialism. It's a survival of the fittest environment. The governm

In modern times, you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve. This isn't star trek socialism. It's a survival of the fittest environment. The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Even among private institutions. Look how many took advantage of the government PPP loans or outright laid off workers just for the hell of it. The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. But because we have to protect the already dying, lets shut down everything and make life miserable for everyone! Lets not just tell these people to stay inside and be shut ins even though we could've!

geofft 5y ago
The economy, as you know it, exists because government says, "Nope, we know best!" It is a survival of the fittest environment solely because the people in charge of the government don't want Star Trek socialism. It is true that the majority of COVID deaths are among the population that one government called "life unworthy of life." But the decision to let them die off for the greater good is, itself, a form of saying "Nope, we know best." When a pandemic hits, you don't get to not choose a response.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Sweden did and theyre fine...
  - geofft 5y ago
    My point is simply that Sweden chose a response. You are absolutely welcome to argue that they chose a better response than what others chose, that they served the greater good for cheaper, that the surviving Swedes are happier. But everyone - most especially the Swedish government ministers who made that choice - will tell you that Sweden said, we think we know better, so we're doing this.
sofixa 5y ago
> The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power Because everyone knew everything in early 2020. Epidemiologists weren't sure about the details of the virus, its spread and how to contain it, but you can retrospectively claim that it couldn't be contained and it didn't make sense to try? Maybe you should revisit the statistics and reporting from Italy or any of the other highly impacted countries early on, the ones with the military hospitals, makeshift morgues, military run hearses and crematoriums, doctors having to choose who has a higher chance of survival under care and take them in, refusing the others. > But most institutions serve people outside of that set No, most institutions serve everybody. In countries with older populations, like Italy, Spain or Portugal, or countries with high percentage of obese or sickly people like the US or Mexico, are you really advocating that they should have sacrificed even 5-10%, or even more of their populations so that... The others could go to the cinema or restaurant? People like you are cold as fuck.
h0l0cube 5y ago
> you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve Sounds like a problem with the economy. Economies are human constructs. With enough consensus they can be shaped in different ways. Quantitive easing is one instrument, but still very much within the rules. The rules can be bent further with consensus > The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Mask mandates and lockdowns in some western democracies outside of the US have worked exceedingly well, but they by-in-large had less quarrelsome (and smaller) populations > The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. It seems you largely agree that there's a moral dimension here. You may not agree there's malleability to how an economy functions - but once again, economies are a part of the social compact. If people decide that their parents, their kids' grandparents, the immunocompromised, etc. are worth saving, they may hold a different view than sheer social darwinism

geofft 5y ago

The economy, as you know it, exists because government says, "Nope, we know best!" It is a survival of the fittest environment solely because the people in charge of the government don't want Star Trek socialism. It is true that the majority of COVID deaths are among the population that one government called "life unworthy of life." But the decision to let them die off for the greater good is, itself, a form of saying "Nope, we know best." When a pandemic hits, you don't get to not choose a response.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Sweden did and theyre fine...
- geofft 5y ago
  My point is simply that Sweden chose a response. You are absolutely welcome to argue that they chose a better response than what others chose, that they served the greater good for cheaper, that the surviving Swedes are happier. But everyone - most especially the Swedish government ministers who made that choice - will tell you that Sweden said, we think we know better, so we're doing this.

sofixa 5y ago

> The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power Because everyone knew everything in early 2020. Epidemiologists weren't sure about the details of the virus, its spread and how to contain it, but you can retrospectively claim that it couldn't be contained and it didn't make sense to try? Maybe you should revisit the statistics and reporting from Italy or any of the other highly impacted countries early on, the ones with the military hospitals, makeshift morgues, military run hearses and crematoriums, doctors having to choose who has a higher chance of survival under care and take them in, refusing the others. > But most institutions serve people outside of that set No, most institutions serve everybody. In countries with older populations, like Italy, Spain or Portugal, or countries with high percentage of obese or sickly people like the US or Mexico, are you really advocating that they should have sacrificed even 5-10%, or even more of their populations so that... The others could go to the cinema or restaurant? People like you are cold as fuck.

h0l0cube 5y ago

> you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve Sounds like a problem with the economy. Economies are human constructs. With enough consensus they can be shaped in different ways. Quantitive easing is one instrument, but still very much within the rules. The rules can be bent further with consensus > The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Mask mandates and lockdowns in some western democracies outside of the US have worked exceedingly well, but they by-in-large had less quarrelsome (and smaller) populations > The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. It seems you largely agree that there's a moral dimension here. You may not agree there's malleability to how an economy functions - but once again, economies are a part of the social compact. If people decide that their parents, their kids' grandparents, the immunocompromised, etc. are worth saving, they may hold a different view than sheer social darwinism