7 ms·

> centralise this power That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of indiv

> centralise this power That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of individual freedoms, and often increased anthropogenic (=human-caused) suffering.

new_stranger 4y ago
If you were wealthier you would understand the importance of centralized power /s
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  There's a big difference between centralized power and coordinated action facilitated by wise leadership. The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.
  - new_stranger 4y ago
    The issue is you and I know this, but they don't
- slickrick216 4y ago
  Or the opposite.
- maxbond 4y ago
  ETA: I made this comment before the author clarified they were being sarcastic. I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general. "You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.
  - reedjosh 4y ago
    Pretty sure the parent comment was just missing a /s
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
mjfl 4y ago
yeah sorry. I'm not going to support a country that can't even talk about Taiwan "centralizing" its power.
astrange 4y ago
What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences? Nb America has too many elected positions; most democracies have fewer (are more “centralized”) but also it’s easier to fire them if you don’t like them (here it’s difficult to impossible). For instance the best reason to elect both a mayor and supervisors of SF is if you want them to fight instead of getting things done, and indeed that’s what they do.
- walterbell 4y ago
  A proposal cited by the EJIL article, previously rejected during a 10-year revision process for IHR: > The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- krnlpnc 4y ago
  Arguably yes. For example declaring a state of emergency does have knock-on if not immediate consequences.
- hammock 4y ago
  >What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences? Great question, and no it doesn't. Part of the UN's push[1] around this treaty is ensuring that it actually has teeth and isn't just hot air. For example, it recommends the involvement of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and International Labour Organization in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of health emergencies: >In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. The UN also raises the question of countries being punished for non-compliance: >[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits. In other words, if you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you DON'T report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions. These proposed rules would incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks. Some would suggest they actively encourage outbreaks. [1]https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C...
runarberg 4y ago
This is a really hard philosophical claim you have here. Especially given the fact that it uses vague terms like freedom and power, which philosophers don’t really know the full ramifications of, and whole books have been written on trying to understand what they even are. I’m gonna call bullshit on this. This sentence can mean anything you want to, while being constructed in such a way to be arise suspicion. That is, unless you care to clarify what you mean by power and freedom here, i.e. is patents on vaccines included in centralization of power? Is my freedom to infect those around me included? And even after you have clarified these terms, some empirical data wouldn’t hurt either. To show a negative correlation with—whatever you call centralization of power and individual freedom (however you define it).
- xanaxagoras 4y ago
  > Is my freedom to infect those around me included? Yes.

new_stranger 4y ago

If you were wealthier you would understand the importance of centralized power /s

TimTheTinker 4y ago
There's a big difference between centralized power and coordinated action facilitated by wise leadership. The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.
- new_stranger 4y ago
  The issue is you and I know this, but they don't
slickrick216 4y ago
Or the opposite.
maxbond 4y ago
ETA: I made this comment before the author clarified they were being sarcastic. I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general. "You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  Pretty sure the parent comment was just missing a /s
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

mjfl 4y ago

yeah sorry. I'm not going to support a country that can't even talk about Taiwan "centralizing" its power.

astrange 4y ago

What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences? Nb America has too many elected positions; most democracies have fewer (are more “centralized”) but also it’s easier to fire them if you don’t like them (here it’s difficult to impossible). For instance the best reason to elect both a mayor and supervisors of SF is if you want them to fight instead of getting things done, and indeed that’s what they do.

walterbell 4y ago
A proposal cited by the EJIL article, previously rejected during a 10-year revision process for IHR: > The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
krnlpnc 4y ago
Arguably yes. For example declaring a state of emergency does have knock-on if not immediate consequences.
hammock 4y ago
>What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences? Great question, and no it doesn't. Part of the UN's push[1] around this treaty is ensuring that it actually has teeth and isn't just hot air. For example, it recommends the involvement of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and International Labour Organization in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of health emergencies: >In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. The UN also raises the question of countries being punished for non-compliance: >[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits. In other words, if you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you DON'T report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions. These proposed rules would incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks. Some would suggest they actively encourage outbreaks. [1]https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C...

runarberg 4y ago

This is a really hard philosophical claim you have here. Especially given the fact that it uses vague terms like freedom and power, which philosophers don’t really know the full ramifications of, and whole books have been written on trying to understand what they even are. I’m gonna call bullshit on this. This sentence can mean anything you want to, while being constructed in such a way to be arise suspicion. That is, unless you care to clarify what you mean by power and freedom here, i.e. is patents on vaccines included in centralization of power? Is my freedom to infect those around me included? And even after you have clarified these terms, some empirical data wouldn’t hurt either. To show a negative correlation with—whatever you call centralization of power and individual freedom (however you define it).

xanaxagoras 4y ago
> Is my freedom to infect those around me included? Yes.