3 ms·

The CDC's role should 100% _not_ be just about informing people. They and equivalent agencies around the world should have the power to take drastic measures in

by franga2000 5y ago

The CDC's role should 100% _not_ be just about informing people. They and equivalent agencies around the world should have the power to take drastic measures in cases like a pandemic. That's their whole point. It's like saying traffic cops should only give warnings. But also, semi-related: they implemented a policy to prevent people from becoming homeless during a global pandemic and it had a negative impact on the people who have been padding their bank accounts for decades by steadily increasing margins on a basic life necessity. Sorry if I don't feel bad.

raxxorraxor 5y ago
Not from the US but I disagree. Even an agency like that needs control. We saw what terrorism could do and the real measurable threat to lives through terrorism doesn't even match going for a walk in a lively city. It still justified overbearing surveillance to this day and there was no correction. These mechanisms stay in place and their original justification is forgotten with time and the surveillance will redirect randomly, for example towards people posting comments on Twitter. At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes. Not every bad decision has a bad intend at the start, but they will happen without any form of opposition.
- franga2000 5y ago
  Power doesn't mean unchecked power - like with any powerful organisation, measures should be taken to prevent abuse, but taking the power away in order to prevent abuse won't end well. > At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes What would their motivation be? Why wouldn't there be any opposition? This isn't like spying where you can do it without people knowing. Even if entirely justified (like we saw during covid), people will oppose such measures - what makes you think they wouldn't of they weren't justified?
  - raxxorraxor 5y ago
    If someone is responsible to ensure the health of the population they tend to focus on that task. If a source tells them that imposing a stay at home mandate throughout the year would save 10,000 lives, they might tend to chose it just to not be responsible for these deaths. Only a strong opposition allows them to come to a balanced choice. Ever noticed that most interior ministers are surveillance freaks? Comes with the job as well. An opposition is actually beneficial for them as the consequences of decisions wouldn't rest on their shoulders alone. So a solution to this dilemma is to limit powers in the first place. Such decisions should ideally go through parliament in democracies. Sure, sometimes acting fast is beneficial, but just as often quick decisions come with costs as well.
b112 5y ago
and it had a negative impact on the people who have been padding their bank accounts for decades This is just plain wrong. * you are painting every landlord with the same brush * you beleive the fabric of our society should treat people differently, predicated upon the above point * you think it is OK to suspend checks on government power, if you happen to dislike a category of people it effects From your attitude, I would presume you believe renting places to live, to be wrong? That anyone doing so, must be effectively stealing from people? You need to get your head on straight. I know lots of landlords which have one house the rent out, or a duplex (where they live in the top). If you want to be anti-profit about everything, why aren't you railing on about grocery stores? Schools? Clothes manufacturers?
- ttttttthu66ttt 5y ago
  All your examples are not rent-seeking business. People justifiably, in my opinion, look down at that business as it is a zero sum game where people with access to credit bid up access to a fundamental human need.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scotuswroteus 5y ago
Sorry if I ignore anyone who compares the authority CDC should have to that of a cop

raxxorraxor 5y ago

Not from the US but I disagree. Even an agency like that needs control. We saw what terrorism could do and the real measurable threat to lives through terrorism doesn't even match going for a walk in a lively city. It still justified overbearing surveillance to this day and there was no correction. These mechanisms stay in place and their original justification is forgotten with time and the surveillance will redirect randomly, for example towards people posting comments on Twitter. At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes. Not every bad decision has a bad intend at the start, but they will happen without any form of opposition.

franga2000 5y ago
Power doesn't mean unchecked power - like with any powerful organisation, measures should be taken to prevent abuse, but taking the power away in order to prevent abuse won't end well. > At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes What would their motivation be? Why wouldn't there be any opposition? This isn't like spying where you can do it without people knowing. Even if entirely justified (like we saw during covid), people will oppose such measures - what makes you think they wouldn't of they weren't justified?
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  If someone is responsible to ensure the health of the population they tend to focus on that task. If a source tells them that imposing a stay at home mandate throughout the year would save 10,000 lives, they might tend to chose it just to not be responsible for these deaths. Only a strong opposition allows them to come to a balanced choice. Ever noticed that most interior ministers are surveillance freaks? Comes with the job as well. An opposition is actually beneficial for them as the consequences of decisions wouldn't rest on their shoulders alone. So a solution to this dilemma is to limit powers in the first place. Such decisions should ideally go through parliament in democracies. Sure, sometimes acting fast is beneficial, but just as often quick decisions come with costs as well.

b112 5y ago

and it had a negative impact on the people who have been padding their bank accounts for decades This is just plain wrong. * you are painting every landlord with the same brush * you beleive the fabric of our society should treat people differently, predicated upon the above point * you think it is OK to suspend checks on government power, if you happen to dislike a category of people it effects From your attitude, I would presume you believe renting places to live, to be wrong? That anyone doing so, must be effectively stealing from people? You need to get your head on straight. I know lots of landlords which have one house the rent out, or a duplex (where they live in the top). If you want to be anti-profit about everything, why aren't you railing on about grocery stores? Schools? Clothes manufacturers?

ttttttthu66ttt 5y ago
All your examples are not rent-seeking business. People justifiably, in my opinion, look down at that business as it is a zero sum game where people with access to credit bid up access to a fundamental human need.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

scotuswroteus 5y ago

Sorry if I ignore anyone who compares the authority CDC should have to that of a cop