:rofl:

Ummm....the states? So 50 different approaches what to do? And how many borders? Especially when there's only a few without corona-virus cases?

When the framers drafted the Constitution they opposed giving the federal government much power over the states. I think we should try to maintain that as best we can.

Without power to coordinate, what use would the federal government be?

When the framers drafted the Constitution they opposed giving the federal government much power over the states. I think we should try to maintain that as best we can. — NOS4A2

You really think everything is a states right issue? Everything seen from the states vs the federal authority juxtaposition? Of you feel that states rights, individual freedom etc. have to be mentioned here because otherwise combatting a pandemic might cause these freedoms to be diminished? :roll:

Dealing with a pandemic is a clear example of an international endeavor, actually. Starting with things like accurate information, having the ability track where the infections have come from.

International cooperation in fighting against a pandemic isn't a threat to states rights or individual freedoms.

It might have been that most of those people wouldn't have died. So, yes, the government should have stopped it because they, not the citizenry, are ultimately responsible for decisions regarding public health and safety. And the citizenry should be able to reasonably presume if events such as this are given the go-ahead, they're relatively safe. In other words, the government are in a better position to combat pandemics because they have the power cut through confusion and misinformation and act decisively for the public good.

Looking at the response of the Chinese, Iranian and Italian governments give me pause to accepting that claim. I think any citizen who was concerned about his health, given sufficient education, may avoid public gatherings without first being told to do so by some bureaucrat. I think the press, those whose job it is to inform the people, have more responsibility than a government.

So, your position doesn't seem coherent to me. It's part of a government's job to combat massive threats to public safety. Individuals are responsible for their own safety to a large degree obviously, but they can only enact this responsibility in the social and legal context the government creates for them. For example, if the government tells you you can stay home from work, your ability to protect yourself from a pandemic greatly increases. That is not dependency, that's a properly functioning society.

From the perspective of someone who believes in minimum government, I have to disagree. I think that you’re right that a government can enact this responsibly, but their results are so hit and miss that I worry they may exacerbate the problem rather than mitigate it.

You really think everything is a states right issue? Everything seen from the states vs the federal authority juxtaposition?

Dealing with a pandemic is a clear example of an international endeavor, actually. Starting with things like accurate information, having the ability track where the infections have come from.

I never said that. I only think a local government is better equipped to handle local problems than a central authority in the other side of the continent.

I think any citizen who was concerned about his health, given sufficient education, may avoid public gatherings without first being told to do so by some bureaucrat. I think the press, those whose job it is to inform the people, have more responsibility than a government. — NOS4A2

No, the health bureaucrat can tell if it really is ordinary flu or something more worse, if the information relies on medical facts.

It's not the journalist writing the article about that ought to decide if a new strain of a disease is more harmful than others.

I never said that. I only think a local government is better equipped to handle local problems than a central authority in the other side of the continent. — NOS4A2

But just like a war, it isn't a local problem. Would you have left the defence of Hawaii only to Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? Minnesotan's wouldn't have had any worries about the Japanese in 1941.

It would be rather stupid for every local government to have their local version of the CDC to be on the lookout for pandemics. (And of course, Trump has been eager to slash the budget of the CDC btw)

I think any citizen who was concerned about his health, given sufficient education, may avoid public gatherings without first being told to do so by some bureaucrat — NOS4A2

Yes, they may, but we've just established that in practice, they don't. And you've agreed the bureaucrats (government) would have been right to step in and shut down the parade in the example I gave. Again, your position is self-contradictory.

No, the health bureaucrat can tell if it really is ordinary flu or something more worse, if the information relies on medical facts.

It's not the journalist writing the article about that ought to decide if a new strain of a disease is more harmful than others.

But it is the journalist who informs the people of the facts, or at least should.

But just like a war, it isn't a local problem. Would you have left the defence of Hawaii only to Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? Minnesotan's wouldn't have had any worries about the Japanese in 1941.

It would be rather stupid for every local government to have their local version of the CDC to be on the lookout of pandemics. (And of course, Trump has been eager to slash the budget of the CDC)

I don’t think the analogy is accurate. Healthcare systems often vary from state to state.

Yes, they may, but we've just established that in practice, they don't. And you've agreed the bureaucrats (government) were right to step in and shut down the parade in the example I gave. Again, your position is self-contradictory.

I said the government shouldn’t have held a parade during a pandemic. It was the government’s parade, held by the government, and it led to countless deaths. So, by your very example, the government did exacerbate the problem in practice and as a matter of fact. No contradictions.

What? So, if the parade had been privately organized, the government shouldn't have stepped in and stopped it if they knew it would likely cause thousands of deaths?

What? So, if the parade had been privately organized, the government shouldn't have stepped in and stopped it if they knew it would likely cause thousands of deaths?

Sorry, I assumed the government held the parade. Who privately organized the parade, out of curiosity?

But it is the journalist who informs the people of the facts, or at least should. — NOS4A2

A journalist is not a medical professional.

And the bureaucrat or group responsible of advising the political leadership ought to be. The journalist might ask from others in the scientific community to verify the claims of the bureaucrat, but still it's not him or her who decides what infectious disease merits more response than others.

I don’t think the analogy is accurate. Healthcare systems often vary from state to state. — NOS4A2

But tackling a pandemic isn't an ordinary health care issue. It simply isn't.

That parade was organized by the city authorities. I'm asking if it had been privately organized, how would have that made a difference? One way or the other, the local government had the power to either let it go ahead or stop it.

Worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqw-9yMV0sI&feature=youtu.be

Pandemics like our present misfortune make it pretty obvious that we ought to accept obvious and mutually shared sacrifices in freedom (like the freedom to hold a parade), but it isn't always obvious where freedom should be traded for security.

That parade was organized by the city authorities. I'm asking if it had been privately organized, how would have that made a difference? One way or the other, the local government had the power to either let it go ahead or stop it.

I try to avoid counterfactuals but for the sake of argument I suppose it would not have made any difference.

A journalist is not a medical professional.

And the bureaucrat or group responsible of advising the political leadership ought to be. The journalist might ask from others in the scientific community to verify the claims of the bureaucrat, but still it's not him or her who decides what infectious disease merits more response than others.

Again, I’m talking about informing the public, not deciding responses to infectious diseases.

But tackling a pandemic isn't an ordinary health care issue. It simply isn't.

It is more a healthcare issue than a military invasion.

In that case, you are for the bureaucrats stepping in in the case of a pandemic and doing things like controlling public gatherings. The exact thing you seemed to be arguing against earlier.

Again, I’m talking about informing the public, not deciding responses to infectious diseases. — NOS4A2

And you can inform the public annually when influenza season starts. Or that someone's got the plague in New Mexico. When should you be so worried about it...not to participate in the parade welcoming the veterans returning home? Yes, an individual is responsible for oneself, yet isn't responsible for deciding public health matters.

It is more a healthcare issue than a military invasion. — NOS4A2

You are giving no reason why a pandemic would be a normal healthcare issue and to be decided at the local level. Putting the decision let's say to a communal level simply refutes any effective measures to contain a pandemic because a) communities don't have borders and hence b) one community's tougher controls will have no effect when neighbouring community chooses lax measures.

In that case, you are for the bureaucrats stepping in in the case of a pandemic and doing things like controlling public gatherings. The exact thing you seemed to be arguing against earlier.

I know what I am for and what I am against. I am against the bureaucrats stepping in for the same reason I am against any other group stepping in. I am for personal liberty and the responsibilities required to maintain it.

Either way I think the evidence you cited is irrefutable. It is a safer world when the bureaucrats restrict our freedoms for the purpose of maintaining safety. For someone who prefers security over their own liberty this might be favorable. But for someone who prefers liberty over security, this is regrettable.

OK, so you're against doing the thing you just said you're for doing (stopping the parade) because tying yourself up in a pretzel of libertarian rhetoric is preferable to admitting you are not as crazy as you would like us to think you are.

For someone who prefers security over their own liberty this might be favorable. But for someone who prefers liberty over security, this is regrettable. — NOS4A2

So it's regrettable that the Minnesotan had to defend Hawaii from a possible Japanese invasion in 1941.

OK, so you're against doing the thing you just said you're for doing (stopping the parade) because tying yourself up in a pretzel of libertarian rhetoric is preferable to admitting you are not as crazy as you would like us to think you are. — Baden

Yes. That's what I gathered too.

But it's great that someone stands up for liberty, personal freedom and small government! :nerd:

I know what I am for and what I am against. I am against the bureaucrats stepping in for the same reason I am against any other group stepping in. I am for personal liberty and the responsibilities required to maintain it. — NOS4A2

Everyone, it's ok to call this for what it is: fucking stupid, no need to tiptoe around it.

And you can inform the public annually when influenza season starts. Or that someone's got the plague in New Mexico. When should you be so worried about it...not to participate in the parade welcoming the veterans returning home? Yes, an individual is responsible for oneself, yet isn't responsible for deciding public health matters.

Again, I’m speaking about the press, who are better equipped to relay information about current affairs to a vast audience.

You are giving no reason why a pandemic would be a normal healthcare issue and to be decided at the local level. Putting the decision let's say to a communal level simply refutes any effective measures to contain a pandemic because a) communities don't have borders and hence b) one community's tougher controls will have no effect when neighbouring community chooses lax measures.

I never said it was a normal healthcare issue. I only said that healthcare systems vary from state to state, so treating it like a military or federal problem is misguided at best, disastrous at worse. With such a large scale problem federal agencies risk becoming too thin. They might as well use the infrastructure and systems already in place.

OK, so you're against doing the thing you just said you're for doing (stopping the parade) because tying yourself up in a pretzel of libertarian rhetoric is preferable to admitting you are not as crazy as you would like us to think you are.

You had to invent counterfactuals to make a labored point about how great governments are at solving pandemics because you didn’t want to keep repeating that it was the government who held the parade that led to loss of life.

So it's regrettable that the Minnesotan had to defend Hawaii from a possible Japanese invasion in 1941.

This is the second time you’ve brought up Japanese invasion in a thread about a pandemic.

@NOS4A2
Letting the government do the things they're supposed to do and we elect them to do doesn't inhibit freedom, it enhances it. And if a contrary ideology leads to the absurdity of preferring sickness and death to government intervention, dump it. And this goes not only for public health: Just about everything we have that prevents us from living in the woods and being devoured by bears, just about everything that has allowed the notions of "freedom" and "liberty" to flourish has been given to us by successive governments building on a social contract we all benefit from. In other words, the vast majority of what any of us has in modern developed nations, we owe. Your ego may not like that, but that's reality. That doesn't mean government always gets it right—we need to hold it accountable—but ranting about "liberty" every time said concept is invoked is a sign of a profound ignorance of history, civilization, and our social nature. It's a much more serious injury to liberty to be bound by a diseased ideology than to admit you need a little help from your friends up high to get by.

:eyes: :up:

Breaking that the reason covid testing wasn't done earlier was because Trump thought it would harm his reelection chances. A move that directly and predictably is resulting in more Americans dying of the disease. What a piece of shit he is.

" In the case of Alex Azar, he did go to the president in January. He did push past resistance from the president's political aides to warn the president the new coronavirus could be a major problem. There were aides around Trump - Kellyanne Conway had some skepticism at times that this was something that needed to be a presidential priority.

...My understanding is he did not push to do aggressive additional testing in recent weeks, and that's partly because more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall."

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-coronavirus-would-be-a-major-threat-but-response-fell-short

A move that directly and predictably is resulting in more Americans dying of the disease. What a piece of shit he is. — Baden

Yes, what a self-serving, cretinous arsehole!. I remember the archidiot a week or so ago telling the people to attend political rallies, since they are "perfectly safe".