Libertarianism and epidemics

[simplicio]

Is a response to an epidemic a natural opening for large scale, coordinated, efforts of the government?, and conversely can an effective response be left to individuals within society apart from government coordination?

Two high cases from recent history, SARS, and Ebola: Each showed a significant role of the government (complete with its coercive power) in successful containment of the disease.

And the list of diseases, common one century ago, which today pose little threat: TB, smallpox, whooping cough, measles, etc., all show a concerted effort, guided by government as an essential part of the program to control those diseases. And yes, I am aware that diseases such as TB are threatening a comeback.

We often hear any big government initiatives described as socialism, a point I disagree with. The Public Health Service is a uniformed service of the US, its members have rank and pay grades and retirement of the military. (Same for the meteorologists at NOAA)

[Sparko]

Is a response to an epidemic a natural opening for large scale, coordinated, efforts of the government?, and conversely can an effective response be left to individuals within society apart from government coordination?

Two high cases from recent history, SARS, and Ebola: Each showed a significant role of the government (complete with its coercive power) in successful containment of the disease.

And the list of diseases, common one century ago, which today pose little threat: TB, smallpox, whooping cough, measles, etc., all show a concerted effort, guided by government as an essential part of the program to control those diseases. And yes, I am aware that diseases such as TB are threatening a comeback.

We often hear any big government initiatives described as socialism, a point I disagree with. The Public Health Service is a uniformed service of the US, its members have rank and pay grades and retirement of the military. (Same for the meteorologists at NOAA)

In such cases it is not socialism as much as it is authoritarianism. Get your terms straight.

[simplicio]

Is a response to an epidemic a natural opening for large scale, coordinated, efforts of the government?, and conversely can an effective response be left to individuals within society apart from government coordination?

Two high cases from recent history, SARS, and Ebola: Each showed a significant role of the government (complete with its coercive power) in successful containment of the disease.

And the list of diseases, common one century ago, which today pose little threat: TB, smallpox, whooping cough, measles, etc., all show a concerted effort, guided by government as an essential part of the program to control those diseases. And yes, I am aware that diseases such as TB are threatening a comeback.

We often hear any big government initiatives described as socialism, a point I disagree with. The Public Health Service is a uniformed service of the US, its members have rank and pay grades and retirement of the military. (Same for the meteorologists at NOAA)

Conservatives often have a low view of supranational groups, the UN is an example. But the UN's role in Ebola showed an important role for the international group. the effective coordinated effort began after the UN established it Ebola emergency response mission. Public health officials could not quell the public's fears about the spread of ebola.

[simplicio]

In such cases it is not socialism as much as it is authoritarianism. Get your terms straight.

Hehe Authoritarianism always implies a limitation of political freedoms, and is often associated with a less than moral form of governance. If a responsible response to a pandemic implies a role for centralized government authority, is that necessarily authoritarian?

For some reason, many conservatives equate any role for a centralized government action as socialist, the terms are not what I would use, rather I am using the terms as they are used. duh.

[Sparko]

Hehe Authoritarianism always implies a limitation of political freedoms, and is often associated with a less than moral form of governance. If a responsible response to a pandemic implies a role for centralized government authority, is that necessarily authoritarian?

For some reason, many conservatives equate any role for a centralized government action as socialist, the terms are not what I would use, rather I am using the terms as they are used. duh.

I think at times situations require an authoritarian hand. Like in war, you need a military, which is an authoritarian system. An army that worked democratically would not do very well. If you are fighting something like a world wide epidemic, that too can require a centralized authority to do the fighting and coordinate programs and efforts. I don't see that as socialist in the least though. Unless you are saying that Socialism is necessarily Authoritarian. Socialism is more about the economy and private ownership of business and profit (the lack of, that is).

[simplicio]

I think at times situations require an authoritarian hand. Like in war, you need a military, which is an authoritarian system. An army that worked democratically would not do very well. If you are fighting something like a world wide epidemic, that too can require a centralized authority to do the fighting and coordinate programs and efforts. I don't see that as socialist in the least though. Unless you are saying that Socialism is necessarily Authoritarian. Socialism is more about the economy and private ownership of business and profit (the lack of, that is).

While you may not see it as socialist, you have read others using the terms that way. So I am rather surprised to see you object to that part of the OP.

I also think it informative that your response to the OP centered on that, rather than the several points raised in the OP!

[Sparko]

While you may not see it as socialist, you have read others using the terms that way. So I am rather surprised to see you object to that part of the OP.

I also think it informative that your response to the OP centered on that, rather than the several points raised in the OP!

only because you keep making the same mistake, claiming others are equating centralized power with socialism. centralized power can also be any other number of things. Socialism is about economics and the market, not eliminating a disease. You are trying to fit a square block into a round hole.

Even you don't believe it is socialism as you say in your OP, but you seem to insist that "we" do, even after I say we don't.

I did answer your questions by the way. I said at times a central authority is needed to combat something like a disease (or a war) - where democracy can't get anything done because everyone keeps arguing and disagreeing instead of taking action.

[simplicio]

only because you keep making the same mistake, claiming others are equating centralized power with socialism. centralized power can also be any other number of things. Socialism is about economics and the market, not eliminating a disease. You are trying to fit a square block into a round hole.

Even you don't believe it is socialism as you say in your OP, but you seem to insist that "we" do, even after I say we don't.

I did answer your questions by the way. I said at times a central authority is needed to combat something like a disease (or a war) - where democracy can't get anything done because everyone keeps arguing and disagreeing instead of taking action.

"Socialism is about economics and the market".... Since when is that recognized as valid on a discussion board like Tweb? I wonder if you realize that not everyone thinks as you do.

Okay, "central authority is needed to combat like a disease", but is that a legitimate use of governmental authority? And is centralized authority compatible with a democracy? (democracy does have a meaning in the English language, yes we are a democracy, even though we are not modeled after Athens or the New England town hall).

[Sparko]

"Socialism is about economics and the market".... Since when is that recognized as valid on a discussion board like Tweb? I wonder if you realize that not everyone thinks as you do.

Okay, "central authority is needed to combat like a disease", but is that a legitimate use of governmental authority? And is centralized authority compatible with a democracy? (democracy does have a meaning in the English language, yes we are a democracy, even though we are not modeled after Athens or the New England town hall).

Yes.

[Starlight]

Is a response to an epidemic a natural opening for large scale, coordinated, efforts of the government?, and conversely can an effective response be left to individuals within society apart from government coordination?

I was reflecting today that under libertarianism pandemics would simply spread to everywhere.

Even if many people decided they weren't going to travel between infected countries, there would always be some who freely chose to, and as a result spread the virus.

Reason #579 why libertarianism is nuts and wouldn't work, I guess.

[simplicio]

I was reflecting today that under libertarianism pandemics would simply spread to everywhere.

Even if many people decided they weren't going to travel between infected countries, there would always be some who freely chose to, and as a result spread the virus.

Reason #579 why libertarianism is nuts and wouldn't work, I guess.

I listened to the opening of Trump's speech last night. I thought it pretty good for The Donald. I was impressed at the radical shift on this coronavirus.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-tweets-124320

Trump can show some agility on pragmatic policy decisions, Wall Street, school closings, etc. (My local Walmart was out of toilet paper and my favorite beer!) alone were not enough.......

[Sparko]

I was reflecting today that under libertarianism pandemics would simply spread to everywhere.

Even if many people decided they weren't going to travel between infected countries, there would always be some who freely chose to, and as a result spread the virus.

Reason #579 why libertarianism is nuts and wouldn't work, I guess.

We agree on something!

[simplicio]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...administration

Climate change denial, WHO is over reacting.

A prominent lawyer seems to have a handle on this epidemic, from a libertarian slant. His initial estimates were 500 dead, and it has been upgraded to 5000. I do not know about the mathematics of that error, which seems to be the thing that gets all the attention. I am willing to give Epstein room on that, it may have been a calculation error.

But the emphasis on the disparities between responses to flu and SARS-CoV-2 is interesting as well as familiar.

Naive and intuitive science is harmless, as long as no one takes it seriously, or uses it to inform decisions.

[Darth Executor]

In such cases it is not socialism as much as it is authoritarianism. Get your terms straight.

What's the difference?

[seanD]

I was reflecting today that under libertarianism pandemics would simply spread to everywhere.

Even if many people decided they weren't going to travel between infected countries, there would always be some who freely chose to, and as a result spread the virus.

Reason #579 why libertarianism is nuts and wouldn't work, I guess.

You mean anarchism, which is typically a lefty belief. Libertarianism means limited government. Anarchism means no government.