It has, Except to illegal migrants who say the magical world asylum. Same as Sweden. — Nobeernolife

They're not illegal if they have a right to asylum. But nice xenophobism.

I'm all for global cooperation. And borders. Good neighbors make good fences, that's one way to look at it. — fishfry

But why do good neighbors need a fence in the first place? The whole notion seems contradictory to me. The fundamental principle of nationalism is "the nation first". That implies you'd only cooperate with other nations where it benefits you. On the other hand, if your guiding principle is global cooperation, you have to accept compromises that'll make the nation worse off.

The boiling frog is a fable.

Anyhoo, not everything is a revolution of course. And I didn't mean it to be. It's not as if the labour participation of women has fully played out yet. The dinosaurs still need to die out and then probably another 2 or 3 generations. So that change will be more or less complete somewhere around 2050.

Meanwhile, corporate capitalism is the dominant mode of production, which is causing massive social, cultural and ecological damage. And that process is not finished yet. The continued concentration of market power in few hands distorts the markets and unduly influences policy at the expense of broader society. Uber is hemmorrhaging capital in order to acquire a monopoly and undercutting competitors. Once they have the monopoly though, you'll have uninsured and unregulated taxis for the same price as it used to be. This is more or less the anti-thesis of what capitalist thought encouraged.

I'm not against capitalism as Adam Smith proposed it, in the sense that in many markets it is entirely sensible to let the market mechanism set the price. However, that market must operate within the boundaries set by society so that costs aren't unduly externalised and that it ultimately benefits the whole of society (as it did for much of the 20th century). Ethics ought to trump profit and currently it certainly doesn't. Dispassionate, short term and profit driven corporation don't really fit in an ethical framework because they aren't moral actors. And if profit is the raison d'être all other considerations are subordinated. The locusts get fed but the field is ruined.

Finally, on the issue of infringement on privacy rights and increased surveillance the fundamental change allowing for that was the slow movement away from the lived experience of rights and freedoms fought for to something "provided by the State" and therefore something that can be taken away. And since the State is in the thrall of "the economy", it really serves monied interests nowadays. All that is actually a consequence of liberalist (in the European sense) thought and the antidote is the socialist idea of class struggle, eg. workers (civilians) need to take power back from the monied interests (the State). I hope this crisis will bring about some change in that respect but my experience is that people react to crises by doing more of the same as in a time of chaos at least doing the same feels safe and familiar.

The last meaningful change was the labour participation of women, which has caused significant changes to the social structure, changing gender roles and dynamics. The light bulb. Washing machine. Industrial revolution. Moving from feudalism to democracies. — Benkei

Well, that means that in our lifetime and our parents nothing remotely fundamental has happened.

How about this that you spend part of your daily time debating issues with Americans, Brits and a Finn etc. you've never met? A little different from what I recall from the 1980's. No PF back then with people still buying those large dictionary book sets. Or do you still buy phonebooks?

there will never be a true "all clear sign" from the treat of some other threat without some miracle medicine coming out in the foreseeable future. — dclements

Sure, but the question is what measures do we make after this example. How do we respond to another outbreaks?

Let's say in Thailand there's an outbreak of a new zoonotic disease, an new strain of the corona-virus or a very potent flu-virus. Ten people have been hospitalized and two are in critical condition. What's going to be the response of your country? How will people react? How will the markets react? You see, SARS, MERS and Ebola went with a different kind of media scare than outbreaks will go after this.

This is my point. In the 1970's there was a lot of terrorism in Europe, yet the issue was treated more as a police matter. Now similar attacks would case a different reaction. And likely after this ordeal the way we respond to possible outbreaks is going to change.

The speed of travel, finance and communication has been increasing for 4000 years. So no, I don't consider the advent of internet revolutionary at all.

Then you're like my economics history professor in the university: he thought (in the 90's) that the whole internet-thing was rubbish and the last truly radical innovation that has changed our lives is the personal automobile (which sounded scornful to the students).

(What hasn't gotten better in the last 4 000 years? Even philosophy has made progress in that time.)

I didn't say better though.

The car is again just an implementation that increases speed (communication and travel). The car as a specific application of the combustion engine didn't structurally change much though. The combustion engine itself is a different story, considering how it has influenced the mode of production. The refrigator (storing food meant no longer "just in time" production), washing machine (saved about 5-6 hours a day of work for women) and light bulb (night life here we come!) are all different inventions that changed society.

Well let's not get over-excited. But a period of enforced quiet contemplation may have a temporary sobering effect on the populous. Eyes may be opened as to ...
who does the important work in society;
how interdependent we are;
why bullshitters with fans tend to mess things up;
and the next generation will be known as the virus boomers.

It all might just change peoples' priorities for a while.

And you could go similarly saying that these aren't actually so important:

Light bulb: the invention of the oil lamp happened earlier and that gave light.
combustion engine: how much more important was the steam engine?
washing machine: how about soap, running water, the stove improve things and all those new inventions to help washing and cooking in the 19th Century? And even so, our food are quite the same actually, than it was in the 19th Century.

Hence this debate about "what long term effects" has something has to be put into some perspective. You can always widen the perspective and come to the conclusion that one thing was just a part of a longer development. If we define "long term" to let's say the decade of 2020's or two decades, then it's more interesting.

The invention of the oil lamp and candles did not lead to night life. Only the light bulb did and that's why it's a structural change (and the reason is because a bulb emitted much more light than oil lamps and candles could). The steam engine is an (external) combustion engine that I was referring to as well. The washing machine is a 19th century invention that greatly reduced the time needed to wash for women. Soap and running water didn't do much in terms of saving time.

It's actually very plausibly argued that it contributed greatly to women's suffrage. Since they had time to do other things than housekeeping they decided more power was due. It also increased productivity very significantly in ways that the internet certainly hasn't. Except for the distribution of porn I suppose.

So yeah, I'm not saying my definition of fundamental structural change needs to be embraced by everyone but I do think it's a pretty defensible classification where I'm more interested in the social and economic changes in how political power is distributed, amplified or structured. As a result increased surveillance and diminishing privacy rights are more of a symptom to me and most reactions by politics to problems makes me either shrug or facepalm when I think "not again".

EDIT: I'd like to add that we're discussing things now but it also involves ideas. I already mentioned liberal political thought in another post. But I think the idea of class struggle and the advent of unions was a very important development. While it has not been to the forefront much, it certainly is gaining interest again and it never left our vocabulary. The Renaissance, of course, but also the scientific method have had major effects.

Soap and running water didn't do much in terms of saving time. — Benkei

Really? I assume you haven't lived in a summer cottage where you have to haul the water from a well? It does take time. And soap?

Soap is those long duration things do have had quite an effect on our hygiene. Invented by the Babylonians and in the modern soap form during the golden age of Islam in Syria.

Since they had time to do other things than housekeeping they decided more power was due. It also increased productivity very significantly in ways that the internet certainly hasn't. Except for the distribution of porn I suppose. — Benkei

Says Benkei discussing the issue with strangers from another countries using the internet.

During this time of lockdown when both of my children aren't in school and talking to their teachers and doing their schoolwork using the internet and while I'm doing also my work (simultaneously as participating in this forum) through the net, it sounds a pretty dismissive if you see the only productivity increase in the ease to get porn. (But then again, Dutch have been very permissive with porn.)

Perhaps the importance of ought to be proven with a test. Let's say that for one month you would be banned to use following machines personally and you had to choose from the options: A) the internet, any computer and smartphone etc. couldn't be used B) no internet connection, but you could use a PC (and you could use a telephone line, but not connect it to the computer) would be allowed, C) you couldn't use washing machine

Which one would people opt out of? It's easy to guess the option is C. Oh! The time lost when taking dirty clothes to the cleaners and paying for it. What an ordeal.

I'm more interested in the social and economic changes in how political power is distributed, amplified or structured. — Benkei

I think that how people actually live is quite more important. How much time we hang in the net, for work or for leisure time is important. It does make this time different from early and mid 20th Century.

This is my point. In the 1970's there was a lot of terrorism in Europe, yet the issue was treated more as a police matter. Now similar attacks would case a different reaction. And likely after this ordeal the way we respond to possible outbreaks is going to change. — ssu

Now the terrorism is pretty much ignore by the politicians and media. Is that what you suggest for corona?

the oil lamp and candles did not lead to night life. Only the light bulb did — Benkei

Actually, gas lighting introduced in the late 18th/early 19 century increased the safety of streets at night, and improved interior lighting, leading to increased 'night life'. Baltimore, MD had gas street lighting by 1816.

Granted there were disadvantages (unflattering light, odor, explosions, etc.) but it was a big improvement over candles and oil lamps.

The washing machine is a 19th century invention that greatly reduced the time needed to wash for women. Soap and running water didn't do much in terms of saving time. — Benkei

It was a 19th century invention, true enough, but they weren't very available until late in the century; remember it was human powered, Somebody had to spend quite a bit of time standing at the machine, turning the cranks the operated the machine. Hot water wasn't on tap for most of the century for most people, and the clothing still needed to be bleached or blued, hung up outside to dry, and ironed using an iron heated on a stove, even in the hot summer.

Laundry was hard work for women well into the 20th century.

The availability of laundries and washerwomen probably helped the suffrage movement more than washing machines.

My question is once we get past this pandemic, or some countries have managed to eradicate it anyway, what will the shape of society to come look like? Although I was too young to understand the significance of it, I guess I'm framing it in a way we frame 9/11 now, with some of the most fundamental assumptions in relation to how society should work being absolutely shaken and then replaced, for example, airline security. — Dogar

9/11 is one good analogy for the present crisis. The 2008 financial meltdown is another.

Discussion of the conditions that produce these crises has some potential to change their long-term consequences, or at least to inform our thoughts about them.

In each case -- 9/11, 2008, and the 2020 pandemic -- the relevant authorities did not take adequate measures to prepare for or to prevent events that were long anticipated. In each case the "crisis" that erupted when the anticipated events finally arrived was an opportunity to promote mass hysteria and force economic, social, and political change. I take it this claim is in keeping with Naomi Klein's talk of a "shock doctrine".

Some long-term trends come to mind: In government there's increasing authoritarianism, militarism, and infringement of traditional and constitutional rights. In economy there's increasing concentration of wealth, oligopoly, and deregulation. In national politics there's increasing divisiveness, extremism, nationalism, anger, hatred, and confusion. In geopolitics there's increasing destabilization of states and economies unwilling or unable to prosper in keeping with the playbook of global capital.

The shape of the aviation industry to come, then, seems to look towards a consolidation of powers; a monopoly shared amongst the biggest airlines who can afford to keep going through these stressful times. — Dogar

It seems reasonable to expect there will be further consolidation in a range of industries following a similar pattern: In this range, many smaller and weaker businesses will fail, while bigger and healthier businesses increase market share, benefiting from the disruption to the market as well from corporate socialism in the form of government bailouts funded by taxpayers. I expect these effects are likely to be realized not only in travel and tourism but also in food retail and food service, and more broadly in retail and service sectors, and perhaps in distribution that serves smaller retail and service sectors.

Of course the depth and breadth of the shock in these sectors depends in part on the duration of the medical crisis and in part on the character of government response to the crisis. Even in best-case scenarios where stimulus that targets consumers limits the fall in total demand, there may be culling of small businesses most dependent on brick-and-mortar sales .

In France one requires a form to leave the house. In the UK, one can be arbitrarily detained if he is suspected of being infected. Curfews, lockdowns, an economy crippled by our collective absence... It's surprising how quickly people have handed away their hard-fought liberties because of this pandemic. I suppose they were too busy enjoying their liberties to want to protect them, and hopefully an event like this will remind them of the costs of this species of complacency as it did in the wake of WW2.

But for now, authoritarianism is the dominant ideology. I suspect this will be difficult to roll back once we get through this. — NOS4A2

I expect this may be one of the most important and enduring effects of the 2020 pandemic. The way the crisis is being used to promote mass hysteria and force authoritarian policies and precedents is analogous to the way 9/11 was used to promote mass hysteria and pass the Patriot Act.

This indicates the importance of questions about future pandemic-preparedness. Are we on the cusp of a ceaseless "war on microbes", analogous to the ceaseless "war on terror" that began with Operation Enduring Freedom?

In that context, I would emphasize that -- to judge by the information provided by governments and news media, including the focus on "curve flattening" -- the present crisis is not due to the novel coronavirus, but to the failure to prepare for such an outbreak, specifically with emergency plans and stockpiles to ramp up ICU capacity in the healthcare system during a global pandemic of this kind.

True. The automated washing machine is from 1904.

This is my point. In the 1970's there was a lot of terrorism in Europe, yet the issue was treated more as a police matter. Now similar attacks would case a different reaction. And likely after this ordeal the way we respond to possible outbreaks is going to change. — ssu

A lot of people weren't alive at the time or don't remember IRA bombings, 40+ airplane hijacking, terrorist bombings in the US, European leftist gangs, and so forth. Despite 40 large planes being hijacked, we managed to not militarize airports.

9/11 was the perfect opportunity (never let a crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel said of another event) to ratchet up police control. In the US, at least, there was a string of interventions by the government (monitoring telephone traffic -- not conversations, just who was calling whom), monitoring internet activity, airport militarization, and so on.

The term "lock down", now applied to everything from kindergarten classes to entire states, originated in the California prison system around 1973.

Now the terrorism is pretty much ignore by the politicians and media. Is that what you suggest for corona? — Nobeernolife

Other way around. Possible outbreaks, things that earlier would have been in regional news and medical newsoutlets or papers will be headline news. We'll learn from this.

It of course depends in the on the deaths. It's sounds callous, but the death toll will effect how we will remember this.

Deaths in the few thousands, it might be forgotten after some years. But I assume if around 100 000 people die of this pandemic in the US, it won't be something that would be forgotten from the history books or by people and the politicians. In 1968/69 the "Hong Kong"-flu pandemic killed roughly that number yet the pandemic is seldom remembered (my father remembers it, but he is a virologist). It was just a nastier flu season, basically. This time around it won't be.

Rationality's a fraud. — fishfry

Rationality is a tool, and like all tools it is only well-suited for certain purposes. It can get you from a set of premisses to necessary conclusions, but it cannot stipulate those initial assumptions. That goes for both theoretical and practical rationality--if you want to achieve X, rationality can help you identify means to that end, but it cannot specify X itself; that requires a deliberate choice on your part.

Despite 40 large planes being hijacked, we managed to not militarize airports. — Bitter Crank

Yep. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Somehow it was a danger that we could live with. Cartoonists could make fun of it:



I don't think there's this sinister plot to make our countries into police states. It's that politicians will act on our fears and when there's the technology and ability to do something, they will do it.

Hence prevention of pandemics will be one of those measures how our liberties could be de facto restricted to improve our safety. Never let a crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel said of another event, as you said. I'm not saying that this is threat to our freedoms. I would say one can look at it from a different perspective: In the 21st Century we simply don't tolerate people dying from pandemics.

They're not illegal if they have a right to asylum. But nice xenophobism. — Benkei

Yeah, the is the globalist mantra. So Europeans are now refused at the borders, but if you mutter the magic word "asylum" it does not matter who you are or where you are from... you are welcomed into the welfare system. And if people complain about that, they are "xenophobic", I know, I know.

but if you mutter the magic word "asylum" it does not matter who you are or where you are from... you are welcomed into the welfare system. — Nobeernolife

No, I'm pretty sure you have to also show that you're in danger if you return home. You can't just claim asylum and that be the end of it.

Also, your post isn't making much sense. Are you arguing about what is or isn't legal or about what is or isn't "right"? Your first post referred to "illegal" migrants, but now you seem to be attacking the laws regarding asylum itself. So even if a migrant is a legal migrant, via asylum, you still have a problem with them. In which Benkei is probably right in accusing you of xenophobia, as your issue isn't just with illegal immigrants but also asylum seekers (who if granted asylum are legal migrants).

No, I'm pretty sure you have to also show that you're in danger if you return home. You can't just claim asylum and that be the end of it. — Michael

...and you know very well that this "proof" simply consists of unverifiable claims, which are simply accepted by an overloaded system. If you do not see that the generous asylum system set up Western Europe is criminally abused for illegal mass immigration, I can not help you. It no wonder that goverments in Eastern Europe call Merkel, Macaron et al crazy.

It's not illegal immigration if they're granted asylum. Therefore if you take issue with those granted asylum then your issue isn't just with illegal immigration but also some legal migration.

Your first post referred to migrants as "illegal" but now you seem to be attacking the laws regarding asylum itself. — Michael

Sophistry. You know very well that these laws are massively abused. Yes, you can call the hordes storming the Greek border with encouragement from Erdogan now "legal" if they simply mutter the magic word, but if you do not see how that defies common sense, I cant help you.

lmao all these law and order types who don't know how law works.

The thing I'm worried about is government using the coronavirus panic as a cover to pass draconian legislation.

I don't think there's this sinister plot to make our countries into police states. It's that politicians will act on our fears and when there's the technology and ability to do something, they will do it. — ssu

Precisely. There is nothing conspiratorial about the observation that the State is opportunistic about extending its control

As someone put it elsewhere: anyone who thinks there is a giant government conspiracy ought to observe just how much they are writhing to end the shut-downs.

Precisely. There is nothing conspiratorial about the observation that the State is opportunistic about extending its control — Pneumenon

Yep. There's actually no sarcasm in that, because when you have politicians who promise everything for everybody and portray themselves as quite omnipotent, then they simply will act so. Never mind the Republicans portraying themselves as being for "small government" is simply a sham.