Posted: Apr 13, 2020 5:05 am
by Spearthrower
jamest wrote:In my opinion, democracy and its associated freedoms are clearly meaningless ideals wrt to governments who have imposed policies upon its citizens which counter the universal ideals of democracy/freedom, which they've done.

Except they don't, in any way, shape, or form counter any ideals of freedom - let alone supposedly 'universal' ones. As always, and has already been noted to you, a democratically formed government has been granted a mandate by the people to make laws to protect and maintain society. In this case, a virus is running rampant through that society, and the only way to get it under control and to ensure that millions of people don't become sick and possibly die is to make laws placing temporary restrictions on people's movement.

As for democracy - it became clear with regards to Brexit that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At no point have you ever grasped that democracy is a form of government where executive power is ultimately - if abstractly - exercised by the citizens of that nation. Nothing that has happened in response to Covid-19 is anti-democratic. We elected representatives that comprise parliament and the executive body of government. They haven't suddenly become an unelected class of people just because they're making laws you've ironically decided (despite declaring the end of the fucking world is nigh) you don't like. Freedom in democratic terms is not absolute, and never has been - governments wield law to limit your freedoms all the time, it's just you don't think much about anything and consequently haven't noticed that your freedoms are routinely curtailed.

jamest wrote:JS MILL would not have closed down the World's economy for this virus and neither would I.

Neither you nor Mill (all caps because...?) have the power or authority to close down the world's economy, so the point is irrelevant. Funny how you immediately appeal to an individual decree when you're supposedly declaiming against democracy. And really, don't put yourself in the same sentence as Mill because there's fuck all in common.

jamest wrote: Why? Not because we're greedy bastards, but because "closing down" freedoms is the biggest crime of all, and because it's UTTERLY short-sighted to think that the current strategy is going to save the most lives in the medium to long-term.

Gods that's thick as shit and it's definitely got bugger all to do with Mill. I bet you've not even read Mill, have you? I bet Wikipedia is the sum total of your knowledge of Mill. The utilitarian motto is to bring about the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people - contextually, a government that fails to respond to this crisis and allows the disease to run rampant through their society despite having legal, democratic power to exercise the functions of law to help prevent it is failing abysmally at this - preventable mass sickness and death is not something Mill would be arguing for because he wasn't clueless. Rather, the greater number of people here is society as a whole, so if a few plonkers can't go to the beach or go clubbing for a few weeks in order to save hundreds of thousands of people from getting seriously sick and potentially dying, then quite clearly from a utilitarian perspective, that is serving the greater number of people over the interests of a minority, and it is producing much greater good. So despite your appeal to a philosopher presumably in the hope of some of his light may be reflected on you, you don't appear to grasp anything about his philosophy or how to do philosophy. Quelle fucking surprise!

As for your final sentence, this is directly reflective of your ignorance of Biology coinciding with your hubris. The strategy of minimizing infections - spreading them out - offers by far the greater chance of minimizing deaths because there are finite resources from a medical perspective, but those resources are reusable, so if it's possible to treat 1 million people a week and we have 2 million people sick, then 1 million of them aren't getting treatment, and assuming the lack of treatment increases their risk of dying, then 50% of our patients are now at greater risk. However, if we can spread the transmission out over longer periods - 2 weeks in our simple scenario crafted so in the hopes you may be able to grasp it - then we can treat 1 million people this week and 1 million people next week, meaning 100% of people can receive treatment and thereby gain the maximal opportunities for recovery.

jamest wrote:I might sound like a heartless cold-hearted bastard, but what I'm saying here is in the best interests of both democracy/capitalism and human life in the long-term.

You do, but not nearly as much as you sound like you don't have a clue what you're jabbering about.

And as for your inane contention that you know what's best - I wouldn't even be confident that you'd know you're arse from your elbow.

jamest wrote:History will unveil all of this,...

That's crackpot language... I will be shown right one day!

jamest wrote:but it's fucking obvious anyway. Wake the fuck up.

Foolish fucking ignorance.

jamest wrote: Your government is both selfish and short-sighted and is simultaneoulsly destroying the concepts of democracy/capitalism.

As usual, jamest doesn't grasp the concept of there being multiple governments represented here, and that those governments are actually employing different strategies, but hey - comparative to the litany of idiotic mistakes he's making, this is relatively minor.

Of course, no democracy has been destroyed at all - jamest just doesn't know what the term means. Capitalism will bounce back, not that I could care either way as capitalism's benefits are counterbalanced by its negative impacts, and of course, no discussion is contained in this thread about capitalism anyway.

jamest wrote:When one of you realise this, I'll get onto the "What next?" aspect of the title.

Go away you silly little man.