How Bad Can It Get: The destruction of liberty and quality of life

Numerous times on PF I have advocated for doing things like eating right, losing weight, or exercising to reduce the chance of dying from C19. Nobody is interested. In fact, I was told by non republicans such advice was absurd. There was outrage at the idea one could help themselves.

Conditions like obesity and fatty liver make one more likely to have symptomatic or severe cases of C19. Symptomatic individuals are contagious for longer periods of time, increasing their danger to others. Yet nobody is advocating for forced diets or forced exercise. Why?

 

Yes. And I can't wait for us to conquer it.

At any rate you're basically arguing that the major military powers that form the permanent members of the UN Security Council act to "stop wars".

That means using military force to "stop war".

That means war. Just conducted by the side you want to conduct it.

 

How many deaths from car accidents is acceptable? It's tens of thousands per year, EVERY year. Not to mention all the maimed and property damage and insurance costs. And guess what? We can control those deaths. Vaccine is not guaranteed to work. For all we know we are all destined for COVID.

Again, unlike Covid (which could result in a certain number of deaths over time no matter what we do), we can do something about car accidents. Lowering speed limits from: 25 to 20, 45 to 30, 55 to 40, and interstates to 50 would save 10k plus lives. There is no argument here; it would save many lives. It would also greatly reduce emissions.

So why are my fellow Americans not on board with lowering speed limits? I have a feeling the answer is exactly the same as the answer to the question u and others keep asking: CONVENIENCE is greater than life. And we ALL think that way...

 

Life is for the living, and death is for the dead. What good is life, if you're not allowed to live it?

 

I keep thinking about how even right wingers tell us Socialism can work great for about 10 years. And then you are Venezuela.
If it was that easy, I wouldn't work so hard. If I don't work hard, there is no wealth. If there is no wealth... you don't eat.

 

Isn't it time to ask if masks are working? It's been, what, about six months since we were first forced to wear masks in almost every aspect of life outside our home. So, is it working? Are Corona cases down? Also, for arguments sake, let's say the masks are indeed working, and the cases have gone way down. Since mask advocates regularly mock the idea of herd immunity, then we would need to wear the masks forever right? Trouble is, would most people want to live in that world? I wouldn't. We can be kept totally safe and insulated from everything in life that might cause us harm, but isn't quality of life important too?

 

You tell us, what 500,000 babies are murdered a year and the left doesn't take it seriously

Chicago alone has 600 murders plus a year and the left doesn't take it seriously.

 

No, I'm arguing for the establishment of an international rules based system, that would outlaw war as a means of dispute settlement between nations.

At the international level, it does mean disarmament, except for the button controlled by the UNSC....

Wrong again. An international rules based system means all nations can get on with developing their economies in the absence of war or threat of war without this "America First" nonsense.

 

Forcing someone to diet or exercise is a major lifestyle change —I won’t get into the debate around “sin” taxes and tax rebates on healthy goods to steer healthy behaviors in this thread but that would be a much more powerful and less intrusive way to improve the health of the average American alone with education — but wearing a mask is not a major lifestyle change, it is no different than requiring shirts or shoes to be worn. It is hygiene standards which we, as a society, have the right to implement.

Your health is your own, when you begin to impact others the situation changes.

 

"America First" has never been a major problem. The U.S. is arguably no more (and probably a lot less) than any other nation on Earth. Almost every other nations promotes their own interests first and foremost.

What kind of "International Rules Based System" do you think would work? Do you reasonably think that every nation on Earth is going to willingly give up the military option for protecting or promoting their interests?

 

No, spending - and money creation - needs to occur in BOTH the public sector and the private sector.

The share of money creation that needs to occur in each sector depends on the circumstances: obviously in a pandemic money creation should be 100% allocated to the public sector, while the private sector is in enforced lock-down.

Therefore public sector "money printing" with no "Venezuela" in sight, because the farmers and utilities can continue to produce the necessary output as directed by government, during the pandemic.

But as for wealth creation in normal times: again there are choices. Real wealth creation begins with public education which can be financed by public sector money creation. Indeed once the infrastructure is in place, most public sector industries including education, caring for the environment, caring for the elderly etc, etc, are non-physical (capital) resource intensive. Then there are possible huge diversions of resources from purely profit driven junk consumerism.

[So stop crapping on about "hard work". Cleaners work as hard as anyone].

 

My example does impact others. Severely. Think of the extra load on healthcare workers from severe cases. You don’t care about how obesity and other comorbidities are affecting them? How does death from a comorbiditiy affect bereaved family? Or the economy.

And for millions, masks are not just like shirts and shoes. That’s an incorrect generalization. Just because something impacts you one way doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a vastly different affect on others. Take exercise for instance. My lifestyle/profession involves a lot of exercise. Others don’t. Exercising is easy for me, not for others. I have no desire to force things on others just because they are easy for me. You don’t have that right either.

 

Indeed that's what the majority of delegates present at the formation of the UN Charter in 1946 reasonably thought....no doubt motivated by the image of a never-before-seen cloud over Hiroshima, recently seared into their brains....

 

Which is why I support the aforementioned methods to reduce this, but there is a vast difference between “please wear a mask in case you are sick so you don’t infect others” vs “you are mandated to exercise XX hours per day”.

Wearing shirts are difficult for some also, some people struggle with pants, should we remove them from being required?
Who are these “millions” that have such an issue wearing a mask? If someone has an issue breathing — they make ventilated ones.

Your rights end when they impact me, causing me to catch a virus because your are temporarily inconvenienced is not a viable line of reasoning.

 

Yes there is a difference. For some exercise is easy. Masks are nearly impossible. For others, masks are easy and exercise is nearly impossible. The difference is the individual. You have no right to mandate what is easiest for you. The other difference is that if we mandated diet and exercise, not only would C19 be vastly less of an issue, but rates of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc., etc. would plummet. There would be much more benefit to society than mask wearing.

People who do manual labor is one huge demographic. And it’s not just because of “breathing”. I personally know two people who can’t wear masks because of claustrophobia/panic attacks.

That’s a nice catch phrase, but doesn’t hold up to logic.

Because if that is true, then everyone better buy 100 pounds each of beans and rice and stay home...because being in public endangers others...and being in public for food above that rice and beans is for convenience.

Also, following your above line of reasoning, we must all wear masks indefinitely now to prevent spread of influenza etc.

Sorry, you don’t have the right to force others to do things that aren’t inconvenient for you.

 

SCOTUS precedent disagrees with you that the government does not have the right to enforce public safety. We will just have to agree to disagree on the rest.

 

Well who knows, maybe next year we will hit a "significant" number with the body count. Maybe then it will be "worth it" to you?

 

The US is the self-appointed world policeman, which spends as much on the military as the next TEN nations combined. And under this "policeman's" watch since 1946 , more people have been killed in wars than were killed in WW2 itself, with many of these wars conducted on behalf of US self-interest....


See the problem?

I have previously commented on "reasonably" and "willingly" (in post 113); and "protecting their interests" need not be so divergent as to require war. That's just evidence of a primitive, Neanderthal instinct in operation. There are enough resources to eradicate poverty AND reward effort.

 

No

1) Because the U.S. has never proclaimed it was the "world policeman'.
2) The claims about the U.S. spending more than the next ten nations combined is

A) Untrue- I can point you to a site that makes the strong argument that China spends more than the U.S. on its military.
B) Irrelevant in any case. Because the U.S. spends what it does based on its commitments and responsibilities which are greater than any nation or group of nations in the world.

 

Public safety by law or by bureaucracy?

 

Hence you settle for the massive waste of global resources, (est. $1.9 trillion in 2019, the most since 1988 just before the collapse of the USSR) and the consequent entrenched poverty, as graphically stated by Eisenhower: "Humanity hanging on a cross of iron" .....Eisenhower, who knew something about the costs and insanity of war.

As did the delegates present at the creation of the UN Charter who wanted an international rules based system.

News flash: we are in the nuclear age.

China, which quite possibly has the better system for eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development/prosperity for all its citizens - something that private-profit-driven "invisible hand" markets in neoliberal bankster-funded economies like the US can never achieve without government intervention........China cannot be contained by greedy neocon capitalists in the US forever.

And when China's economy is twice the size of the US, without the internal division caused by entrenched poverty as in the US, ("you are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones..... ") you will be begging for protection by the UNSC.....if as you claim, you want humans to fulfill their destiny in the universe, rather than destroy themselves on earth.

 

You've got to be kidding. And there is much more to a sound economy than "eradicating poverty".

 

Your health is your own, but you advocate mandatory masks which lower oxygen and increase carbon dioxide blood levels?

Goodness, you are conflicted as can be, but that is the natural result of embracing irrational dogma.

 

Hopefully the Pandemic and lock down don't last long.
And what is this about "once the infrastructure is in place" stuff? No doubt Tokugawa of Japan thought things were "in place" in feudal Japan and ordered that nothing is to change again, ever. And his nation fell behind the rest of the modern world by about 150 years. The infrastructure is never "in place".
As for "hard work" I'm including in that term, risk taking. A clearner is NOT engaged in risk. That person doesn't really even need much in the way of public education. (3 Rs by 6th grade and after that, you can be a cleaner).
In my own life, I failed, and failed and failed trying new things, getting new credentials. These efforts cost me, enriched others, and came to nothing for me until I finally found something that works. This would never have happened if we had a system where everything is "in place". No wealth distribution from me, no risk taking, no proper allocation of resources. Someone would have just placed me somewhere, whether that was the best use of me as a human resource or not.

 

But, again, ARE THE MASKS WORKING? To me, that is a more important question than whether the government has a right to mandate them. Are corona cases going down? You can't have it both ways. It's been six months. Either masks work and cases are going down or they don't work, as cases are going up. So, which is it?