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?
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: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
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.
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.
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.
No, the health bureaucrat can tell if it really is ordinary flu or something more worse, if the information relies on medical facts.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
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.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
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
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 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)
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.
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?
A journalist is not a medical professional.But it is the journalist who informs the people of the facts, or at least should. — NOS4A2
But tackling a pandemic isn't an ordinary health care issue. It simply isn't.I don’t think the analogy is accurate. Healthcare systems often vary from state to state. — NOS4A2
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.
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.
But tackling a pandemic isn't an ordinary health care issue. It simply isn't.
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 talking about informing the public, not deciding responses to infectious diseases. — 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.It is more a healthcare issue than a military invasion. — NOS4A2
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.
So it's regrettable that the Minnesotan had to defend Hawaii from a possible Japanese invasion in 1941.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
Yes. That's what I gathered too.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
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
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.
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.
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.
A move that directly and predictably is resulting in more Americans dying of the disease. What a piece of shit he is. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.