BF2S Forums Pandemic thread

Interesting thing about medical treatment is you can't afford it if you're a poor American.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Though I'm not yet concerned that the US government will start sealing the exits to homes and apartments, as an aside I do wonder at the impact unreliable access to healthcare will have on this country. People too afraid to seek medical attention because of the expense, poor to no coverage, and surprise bills.

It'll mostly be poor people dying, thats how natural selection works.

Is it really, though? Who is more successful in terms of natural selection? Poor people with several children, or a childless upper middle class couple representing the termination of their branches of the family tree?

well you can see where jay is getting his general attitude from. another literal playbook from the dank mouldy corners of his right-wing internet/social media filter. he's basically a kelly-ann conway/sarah sanders bot. you'd think he was angling for a job at the white house at this point.

Last edited by uziq (2020-03-03 07:36:20)

you have such a confused idea of left/right wing that it's honestly l o l.

the left are big government but apparently the right, who are currently in control of the mainstream of politics, and literally have fascism as their extreme example, do not like big government. ok sweetie.

you've heard of libertarianism as an example of right-wing individual thought, but you haven't heard of anarchism as the left-wing equivalent? bless you hun.

how convenient, both you and dilbert are 'pessimists' which justifies just about every inane cynical opinion you ever have. you should talk about how you're also 'scientifically objective'. you two should go golfing together.

Last edited by uziq (2020-03-03 08:18:27)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Really? I think it's just a different mindset in general. If you lean left you're more likely to have a favorable view of government in general, and a more optimistic view of what they can do with the powers they wield. Every crisis is an opportunity to show off just how awesome the government could be.

When you lean libertarian like me, every time the government becomes involved I automatically assume a pessimistic stance and expect them to fuck it up in some way. I'm rarely disappointed. Most people are full of shit and have no idea what they are doing, no matter how credentialed they may be, and our government is chock full of people with credentials a mile long and little actionable real world experience.

Besides, I've already lived through the hysteria for SARS, bird flu, swine flu (which I caught! yay me!), west nile, ebola, every weather event ever etc.

What are the real problems we should be focused on then?

I consider myself to be a minarchist. Basically, a government needs to perform two functions to be legitimate: provide for the common defense and maintain a fair system of justice (and I don't mean re-distributive justice, but old fashion punishment of criminals justice). Everything above and beyond that just diminishes the state and distracts from these core functions.

I don't need the biggest, best, shiniest military in the world, but I do need a competent one whose primary mission is to defend our nation from external threats. I do need a criminal justice system that works, doesn't depend on SWAT teams gearing up for every low level drug warrant, and treats people with respect and dignity.

We get the government that we deserve though. Right now, ours is filled with politicians who are more interested in fancy dress parties and doing favors for people than in actually governing. Frankly, the size, scope and complexity of government has gotten so wildly outsized since the Progressive Era that no Senator or Congressperson or President could ever understand everything that the government does, or hold the government accountable or to task. Instead of doing a handful of things very well, they do most poorly.

So to answer your question, the size and scope of government needs to be scaled back to whatever point allows it to be actually decent at its job functions.

Jay wrote:

I consider myself to be a minarchist. Basically, a government needs to perform two functions to be legitimate: provide for the common defense and maintain a fair system of justice (and I don't mean re-distributive justice, but old fashion punishment of criminals justice). Everything above and beyond that just diminishes the state and distracts from these core functions.

I consider myself a Black Mage. You know something that also doesn't exist.

What would be the monarchist solution to a pandemic?

My phone doesn't recognize monarchist as a word and auto correctes it to monarchist. I think that says a lot about that ideology.

Almost all of the pre-modern libraries were created by monarchies to show off their wealth and prestige. But if someone tried to invent them today, American conservatives would deeply oppose them.

"You are just going to give people books? What makes you think anyone would return one? Why should my taxes go towards your book hobby?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

JohnG@lt

Libertarianism is probably the only ideology I hate. It's a mix of laziness, selfishness, and small mindedness. I actually have more respect for fascist. At least fascist want to actually do things and make big changes.

uziq wrote:

i actually have some time for nozick. i would be happy to discuss his philosophy with jay. but that would mean jay at least acknowledging the pure silliness of his current conception of left and right wing. somehow i don’t think he’s reading much of the philosophy of ‘minarchism’. it seems he’s recycling the poor commentator/pundit level polemics.

There's no silliness to it. The whole left-right dynamic is ridiculous to begin with.

I can only speak for America, both because I live here, and because I frankly don't care about politics in other countries. I have a vague notion of Tory vs Labour vs Lib-Dem in the UK but, frankly, they would all be considered left wing here in America.

If you were to poll the majority of Americans they would describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are little "l" and little "c" labels. If you were to ask them to define what socially liberal (again, little "l") means, they would say they are in favor of freedom. What does that mean? Generally it means that people want to keep to themselves and aren't overly concerned with what their neighbors are doing in the bedroom as long as no one is getting hurt. They like freedom of speech in theory (though less in practice) and believe in freedom of the press etc.

Ok, now what about fiscal conservatism? It means that people are generally concerned about things like the deficit. They do not want the government to spend more than what it takes in in tax revenue and they want the government to minimize fraud and waste.

When you start getting into Big "L" Liberalism and Big "C" Conservatism these definitions wildly change. This is a flaw not with the root meanings of the words, but an issue with co-option by Statists who adopted the terms as their own. Liberalism as a political movement is almost entirely the opposite of liberalism as a political philosophy.

Jay wrote:

People who vote left wing have serious, serious emotional issues as far as i'm concerned. It's a mental illness.