See I was right Trump has got the virus, he was living it up with Bolsanaro the other day, who was diagnosed yesterday. Off with his head.

Updated: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Denies Reports He Tested Positive For Coronavirus After Trump Meeting

I appreciate the fair analysis of my arguments. It’s a rarity around here, it seems.

There is not much I can object to, but a few points which may be cause for discussion.

I do not think the individual knows best, only that he knows what’s best for himself and his own interests. I do not think think this principle precludes collective action. After all, collectives are composed of individuals, and it is in our nature to cooperate with others and engage in common enterprise.

I also think we should be wary of equivocating between a central authority and collective action. This, to me, seems like a contradiction in terms, just by the fact that a vast majority of the collective, of individuals, are not a part of the central authority and left out of any decision making, often to the detriment of their own interests and liberties. My main contention on this point is that individuals can indeed band together to form, say, a traffic agency, but that they can do so without monopolizing their authority. I’m not (yet) a proponent of free market roads, but perhaps a sort of pluralism of authorities would suffice, though I haven’t really given it enough thought of how that might work in practice, so I will concede to your point about traffic.

As for a pandemic, I do not see how a central authority is the only answer to fighting it. Individual actions such as washing hands and staying away from crowds are more than enough to suppress the spread of virus, no state-sanctioned suppression of movement or gatherings are required. The question is whether individuals are informed and responsible enough to perform these actions, and of that we can almost be sure that they are not.

But I think the pandemic will reveal a lot in regards to the central authority approach to combatting it. The CCP, one of the most powerful central authorities in world history, still bungled their efforts and suppressed the rights of countless millions in order to do so. Italy’s world-renowned government healthcare system is overwhelmed, and the people are on lockdown. The heavy-handed approach to mitigation may be effective, but at what cost and at whose expense?

Again, thanks for the fair shake.

Did I say anything wrong there?

I think journalism and a free press are deeply important, but the problem is you pretend my criticism of fake news in particular is an indictment on journalism in general. So not only do you cherry pick, but you are unable to differentiate between the simplest of concepts.

Right. So everybody points out your ideas are stupid as fuck but you claim it's because they don't understand you. Or, alternatively, your ideas are indeed stupid or you're incapable of expressing yourself in English.

Did I claim they don’t understand me? Nope. I said you cherry picked, and in your efforts to remain blind to the rest of my argument didn’t realize I was speaking theoretically. Do I need to dumb it down a little for you?

You can't have your cake and eat it too with fake news media on the one hand and journalists being the main source of correct information for a pandemic on the other. All your arguments are, what they call in Dutch a gelegenheidsargument, eg. arguments for expediency to fit a world view that is simply not logically consistent (or as @Maw put it succinctly, stupid).

As usual you’ve cherry picked, and in your efforts to remain blind to the rest of my argument didn’t realize I was speaking theoretically. As a famous American once said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity“.

Now you got me totally confused? What are you implying here?

That it's a measure of EITHER the federal agencies OR local authorities handle the issue? That's nonsense!

Look, a central coordinator is needed when face a threat like a pandemic. Local authorities, workplaces and schools etc. can decide themselves what to do just as an individual can decide what to do. Yet tackling a pandemic simply isn't something ONLY left to the individual and various communities. It is about making a uniform quick response. To get ready for a possible larger outbreak. You ideological issues simply

Perhaps it’s best if you addressed what I said and not what you pretend I’ve implied. A central coordinator is not needed because if it makes one mistake the entire thing collapses.

Because you utterly fail to understand the need for a concentrated effort that is simply necessitated by practical reasons here and is in no way a plot to undermine individual liberty or state/communal independence.

Just as it would be preposterous for every 50 states to create their own armed forces with their own command structures, own logistics systems etc without any unification and coordination, so it is whimsical to think that there wouldn't be synergy and genuine benefits in having a single federal institution like the CDC in preventing disease outbreaks and giving guidelines on what to do.

But I guess common sense doesn't mean a thing when it comes ideological issues, so this discussion is rather futile.

I understand your obsequious desire for a central coordinator, but no I am unconvinced that we need one. Your “common sense” in my opinion is not common sense, but rather one degree or other of servility. But yes this is a purely ideological and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

As you might expect I see it differently. I try to think of the countless cases of “letting the government do what they’re supposed to do” and come up with little more than state-sanctioned oppression. But that’s one of the joys of being raised in a relatively free society: one can remain ignorant of the battles it took to achieve it, mostly because he’s too busy enjoying his freedoms to bother fighting for them. It reminds me of the George Bernard Shaw quote: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

But whether it was Apartheid or the Iron Curtain, whether it was Jim Crow or slavery, in nearly ever case the end of oppression and persecution was achieved not because of the government, but in spite of it.

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.

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.

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.

Here’s the results of a similar poll in the last election.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So no leadership then. Well I agree it's better than the alternative, which we saw today.

Well, those who have actually worked directly with the administration on their own efforts, such as the Mayor of New York and the Governor of California, have praised Trump’s coordination. So I suspect your claims are somewhat misguided.

I oppose Trump’s travel ban on the matter. I preferred what he was doing before: leaving it to the states to govern themselves.

Which is depending on government to deal with a pandemic, no?

I’m not sure why a government would hold a parade during a pandemic of such proportions. I can only wonder how it might have been had they not done so. Maybe they aren’t as fallible as we are led to believe.

Surely it would have been better had the parade not occurred. The city should have stopped the parade.

This is unjust and unfair. I have done nothing wrong.

This guy's got to go. His goal here is now clear and painfully obvious. His propaganda is dangerously motivated. I've seen enough to call it what it is...

I get the sinking feeling that perhaps you’re scared of my arguments, and the subsequent realization that you have little to combat them with save for lies and appeals for censorship. But we can turn our disagreement into an opportunity to strengthen our own beliefs.

Unless you have a transformation recently, your support of right-wing extreme politics says that you're a staunch conservative.

As far as freedom viz pandemics, governments, unfortunately/fortunately can help people help themselves. Especially when there is an abundance of prevailing ignorance. It's called public safety you numbnuts!

Sorry I'm busting your balls but you got to tighten up dude

I think your reliance on government for your own safety, even in times of pandemic, is indicative of a growing authoritarian impulse found rife in the Western world. Hopefully you saw the Chinese response and the cries of the people there, as the government stripped them what little rights they had. All I’m saying is we should be careful what we wish for.

I’m not a conservative.

The balance between freedom on the one hand and security on the other is not that contentious of a debate, at least outside of specific bubbles. So I’m not sure what you’re on about save for routine hatred of those who think differently than you and a general taste for histrionics.

That the "Hong Kong" virus killed about 34 000 - 100 000 in the US (and 1 million globally) and didn't cause such drastic measures than the corona-virus tells also something. I'm not sure if corona-virus will kill so many. But it wasn't such a huge thing in 1968-1968 as now.

Question is how much we do for one life saved. At least the economy seems no so important.

I would argue that the citizenry can do better to suppress the spread of the virus than a government. But given that entire generations since then have been raised in a cradle-to-the-grave environment, perhaps these days dependency on authority is stronger than self-reliance.

The director-general of the WHO stated today:

Let me be clear: describing this as a pandemic does not mean that countries should give up. The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.

These warnings should not be taken lightly.

The profound dependence on governments to deal with pandemic is to me more frightening than the pandemic itself.

If drastic actions are taken they might break the tenuous balance between national security and freedom, especially in liberal democracies. If anything, the reactionary responses will set a new precedent for the future.

I suspect that the obsequious manner with which people look to officials for assurance and lullabies indicates an authoritarian impulse that will in many cases justify the minimizing of freedom for the sake of security, as if we need governments to tell us to wash our hands and not to touch our faces. Let’s be careful what we wish for.

In my defense I have hundred more mentions than I do comments, meaning I get thousands of emails notifying me of people commenting to me.

I get it. I’m not welcome here. I can take a hint.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but when you said “we could grant it all, and still discard it as irrelevant information, because that's exactly what it is”, I believed you meant it. But if I was wrong I apologize.

The problem people have with you is that you're intellectually dishonest because you give the impression of being a paid troll. Which is a not unreasonable assumption for someone who comes on here every day almost exclusively to spout Trumpian propaganda. Especially someone who's not American and should have little skin in the game. So, expect to be treated with the contempt you most likely deserve.

Well, I am American. The problem is you believe, without evidence, that I’m a paid troll. This is the impression that you take, invent, fantasize, not that I give.

I love political discourse. I’m here to abide by the rules and to discuss politics with what I mistakenly believed were people capable of having such discussions. But from the get go I’ve been unfairly treated with hostility and contempt. That’s fine, I can take it and I will hit back.

Punshhh has a point, you make a caricature of yourself with this kind of crap. Like a wind-up troll doll set to auto repeat.

Are you unwilling or simply incapable of addressing anything I argue? If it’s not ad hominem, it’s straw men and false accusations. I wonder if you actually think it works or if it is merely an opportunity to display your bona fides to those trapped within your bubble.

Discard the voices of the poor as irrelevant, eh? Then what is relevant? The claims of some life-long politician who has lived off tax-payer dollars the majority of his life? Some other member of the professional-managerial class, perhaps? These people do not care about the poor; they use the poor.

Why don't you agree with folk on occasion and discuss the issues themselves, rather than this false them and us reactionary rhetoric?
You remind me of Dick Dastardly in The whacky Races.
Or is this all part of the Trumpian divide and rule rhetoric?

I don’t call people names and compare them to cartoon characters. That’s the bag of you and your fellow travellers, who opine about character and divisiveness out of one side of the mouth while engaging in snark and ridicule out the other. Politics is all about division. If you cannot handle an opposing opinion it’s probably not for you.

All by itself too... no other forces were at work... it's all individual initiative...

All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken.

Dude. You're a joke. I only laugh at you so I'm certainly not offended by anything you say. I thought I was being helpful towards you to let you know you don't need to reply to me as I have no interest whatsoever to have a discussion with you on any topic.

If you do not want to defend your claims or prove something from your “wealth of research” I get it. I wasn’t even sure I was fully understanding your point. But it was a bold and insulting claim that was befitting a little pushback. I’m sure not everyone hates to see truth collide with error, so no I will not shut up. No one is forcing you to respond.

As the world bank study supports, that depends on opportunity.

A prisoner can escape their confinement and validly claim that it was 100% their individual initiative that allowed them to escape. The ease of their escape would, of course, depend on the available opportunities.

It was a true or false question, but I get why you wouldn’t want to contradict your fellow travellers, especially right after accusing their opponents of being misleading.

I never said nor implied that “initiative” was the only reason people were able escape poverty. I never said nor implied “initiative” always works. I was only disputing the claim that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”. I don’t know why you accuse me of being misleading, unless you are accusing others to mislead.

But no one prisoner can claim that is was 100% opportunity or conditions that made him escape. Initiative is primary to opportunity. Without initiative, conditions and opportunity are wasted.

My aim is not wasting my time on someone who keeps going out of his way to spread lies and disinformation, which is again the case with your qualification. It's telling you qualify it as propaganda. Projection much?

I merely took issue with your absurd claim, which you used as a springboard to launch snark against “people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in the US”. If you can’t handle it, why dish it out?

Actually, having just skimmed the world bank study that you link to, it appears you're being somewhat misleading. The study supports the importance of both initiative and opportunity for upward mobility.

Given this information, is it then true or false that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”?