Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Easy Truth

How would an Objectivist Based Government have Dealt with Covid-19

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Government would in aggregate achieve more (do more) but it would in fact be done through private agencies.

I have no particular issue with this position (if the government has absolutely nothing to do with this surveillance or any reporting). I wasn't referring to your position necessarily (your position is different than SL's). But I do think it is problematic for something like that to exist. Social awareness is enough.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the tracing app makes me laugh when Facebook already does this with far higher figures than any government app could and to be honest, do you trust Facebook? I don't but use it anyway.

Also worth pointing out the contact app would only be used until the Covid epidemic is over. Unless its rebranded to show us all what we'd look like old, young, or with a dog's head, or as a cartoon, people are unlikely to continue with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 7:56 AM, Easy Truth said:

A good start but not radical enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 3:53 AM, whYNOT said:

A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease is a good start, but not radical enough.

This universal gist of the anger expressed certainly does concretize many effects expressed by an empty floor of an office building, and the frustration of a government that while's its hours away discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' (heavily paraphrased). Rather than being radical, Vusi Thembekwayo was being 'rantical' (almost his own words.)

In both cases, the respective media reach their targeted audiences, and probably a little beyond.

Which offers more immunity to the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dream_weaver, I don't have the capability on the virus side of things (and make no apologies) enough to question the epedimelogical- based policies - as this writer does  https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-strong-was-the-scientific-advice-behind-lockdown ...

...but in total human terms - in terms of 'man's life' - one must question 1. how much 'loss' is due to the pandemic 2. how much to the lock down. And balance them by values gained and values lost: which is greater - and - how short and long term destructive/beneficial are the effects, together, in tandem? They, Covid-19 and the subsequent lock downs, have been accepted by populaces as mutually inclusive, cause and effect, as we see, but the one isn't necessarily contingent on the first. In the White Paper, Journo raises that a free nation and a first world nation should act in a certain way. Okay, and I argue that especially a free nation should have had no lock down. None, not ever. No matter how limited. Everything the government should focus on is to strongly advise and inform (and the obligations to look after people in state care, the homeless, etc.). The rest must be individual and voluntary. One's life should not be lived for non-specified others nor the others' for you. And spreading the responsibility of your life (by that morbid device of transmissibility) to others, the majority of whom are mostly healthy and/or young, and/or willing to take some reasonable chance with surviving the virus - so curtailing their lives, incomes, energetic outlets, aspirations, etc.etc., is the unquestioned and unquestionable sacrificial ethics at work here. As I view businesses failing and hear of 'small' personal tragedies unfolding every day -caused only by lock down measures, not the virus - I am sad and angry that others who could be fully living their 'lifes' and keeping business, commerce and industry continuously running are being surrendered for the sake, presumably, of those like myself who are older. I merely ask that no one lives for me. Absolute voluntarism is the only recourse. What we can see and will be with us for several decades is the financial and psychological and social fall-out and knock-on inflicting the many millions who presently fear for their health, AND fear of infecting others AND fear for their own futures. Those older or at higher risk, comorbidity, etc. need to take the full precautions and self-isolate, not everyone else. This virus while a new mutation belongs to a known family of viruses and it is/was always dubious of how can any virus "'be defeated". The costs have been enormous, beyond imagining, in that undertaking. 

The 'lock -down' is a blanket coverage solution that disavows individual lives, freedom and choices. In fact, is it not only the scientists who could come up with such a Grand Plan and only governments who could enforce it?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back at my previous post, the opening "quote" should have had a question mark after it.

Dr. John Lee's article is a mixture, as is wont to be.

"To be classified as science, a prediction or theory needs to be able to be tested, and potentially falsified."

Instead of identifying the evidence that supports a prediction or hypothesis and how to move it toward the status of theory, the success experienced in other areas of life have developed a sense of "instant gratification" that has fed back into science. Theory now, and place the burden of proof on falsification.

In turn, the lock-downs are feeding erroneous data back into the loop. The failure to contain the initial outbreak has resulted in a world wide spread of this virus. The implication is if the virus had been locked-down at the get go, an epidemic/pandemic would not be the reality we are dealing with. Now that the horses are out of the barn, let's close and bar the doors.

"In medical science there is a well-known classification of data quality known as ‘the hierarchy of evidence’. "

This section resonate more closely with the process of cultivating certainty (as opposed to always being in the precarious state of potentially being falsified.) Instead of embracing the science which discovered and validated the efficacy of the mind, a seven step program is being offered in its stead.

"Mistakes were inevitable at the start of this. But we can’t learn without recognising them."

Mistakes are inevitable. In the process of dealing with the unknown, yes. In the process of learning, yes. The ability to recognize a mistake relies on knowing what its converse is.

In addition to "A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease", I found "Shaming Recipients of PPP Money" and segueing into "The Comprachicos" a stark contrast to the monstrous reaction we see unfolding on the world stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, epidemiologists have 'models' like gypsies gaze into crystal balls. Half a million deaths in the UK, alone, they projected. Something over half a mill in the entire world, as it stands today.

Good news, +/- 7.7 billion  of the world pop. won't die of coronavirus. Bad news, this year like last year +/- 62 millions w.w. will die of other causes.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...