Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Let me guess, by "Cultural Marxism" -_-
That’s what there known as, I don’t think any of them really read Marx, The communist theory is a good one but unfortunately in order to start your need the authoritarian government, Marx argued that wants to culture was set up the government should step down unfortunately we’ve never seen it happen, marx’s one mistake was under estimating man’s desire for power. That why I think Edmund Burke’s philosophy works better then marks, (Ironically Burke which is now a far right libertarian, back in the 18th he was liberal. He Believe in free markets limited government freedom of speech religion etc, He philosophy is now know as classical liberalism or libertarian now days, Libertarian and Marxist want the same thing well we have a radically different ideas on how to go about it
Marxism is a perfect system, one that works because there are no humans trying to use it.Whatever forms of Marxism we may see in the world today are not functioning Marxism. They are only the mutated and freakish product of mixing that perfect system with human flaw.
@ArrRenn yes it is very similar to true libertarianism. There is 1 flaw humans. I would love to get rid of government and Let free market capitalism thrive, obviously withOut the Sherman antitrust act ever free market capitalism doesn’t work fully. You get guys like Rockefeller buys up it’s competitors and charging people for using them, there as never been a system without flaws, the unfortunate thing about Marx is he did t take into account in human greed which makes Marxism not work. Classical liberalism is the best solution like Edmund Burke and John Locke (which is known as far right in 2020)
But do you think they should have to keep the 6 foot distance if they do?
No one has to do anything. Given the advice from the scientists, people understand what should and shouldn’t happen.
Unfortunately not everyone follows that advice and those that do end up suffering as well because the virus spreads further.
Yup. That’s what happens with freedom.
Yes, having to live in TOTAL isolation lest you contract a deadly disease is "freedom". If we wanted to keep ourselves safe when no public restrictions are put in place we'd have to be way more confined than we are now. Freedom from government isn't the only kind of freedom there is.
Covid-19 isn’t nearly they deadly disease you’re describing it to be.
Not for us but for the elderly it is.
So then if you’re an elderly person, take precautions.
Taking precautions won't negate the impact the prevalence of the virus in your community has.
Thar doesn't make it incorrect by default and unless you can find information contradicting theirs, attributing their statement to partisan bias is a cop out on your part.
So you are assuming a 100% infection rate. Unheard of in any other virus ever. So we “flatten the curve”. which everyone assumes is the right course of action. How long do we flatten the curve? 3 months? 12 months? How many people do you destroy along with the economy in the meantime?
No, I said negate, not attenuate (while taking precautions will decrease their risk of getting the disease the prevalence of the disease in their community will still play a roll in determining their risk) but I was wrong to assume that you'd be able to make that distinction. But tell me how many lives you'd be OK with losing to keep the economy functioning. Coronavirus is 34 times as deadly as the flu so assuming it infects the same number of people, (which is reasonable because even though people will take some precautions without a government decree, coronavirus is more contagious) and 36000 die of the flu that comes out to 1.224 million.
well let’s see. We routinely are ok with 50,000 dying on the highways but keep cars and trucks on the road. We’re routinely ok with 80,000 dying from alcohol annually. For every 1% increase in unemployment there’s an approximate 21 per 100,000 jump in suicides. So don’t get on that high horse too quickly.
There are ~50,000 deaths from suicide per year so 21 per 100000 is 10.5 suicides per 1% increase in unemployment (maybe the.5 was an attempt) so a 100% increase in unemployment would result in 1050 extra suicides vs 1.224 million.
And ignore the rest of what I typed...
And that’s JUST the suicides. The other impacts that aren’t suicides aren’t easily dismissed.
Human life outweighs monetary costs and the death toll of Coronavirus (as for your traffic analogy, without the transportation system #MuhRoads more people would die preventable deaths than those who die of traffic accidents which is why we accept it vs the monetary impact) and the projected death toll would be way higher than the deaths you mentioned.
But if the government had stepped in earlier and responded like the S. Korean government the impact of coronavirus would have been greatly attenuated.
Human life doesn’t always outweigh the monetary costs. So don’t pretend you have a different set of morals. Otherwise you’d want all cars to disappear.
No, because without cars our transportation infrastructure we couldn't sustain the quality of life we do and we would have far more preventable. If someone's life isn't worth the cost it means that the cost could have saved more lives if spent elsewhere. I know that the economy is important but the difference between my set of morals and yours is that you think we exist for the economy and I know the economy exists for us.
No, The difference is you, once again, are a hypocrite.
The difference is I back my case and don't just pout like an angry child.
You’re projecting again.
I'm projecting information and you're burying your head in your ass.
Lol, no you aren’t.
LOL you banged your head too hard again.
reading your horsehsit does usually elicit that response from me.
Right, because I'm the one arguing that fighting a PANdemic should entirely an individual matter;Oh wait. FFS that argument is so stupid you can't even parody it.
Then stay in your house for the next 7 months. Good luck
Thankfully, I can work from home and keep fighting against any big government boogeyman stay at home orders but if you or anyone you care about have an emergency but can't be cared for at the hospitals because they're overwhelmed with patients and die a preventable death, don't be surprised.
That is unless you think that the free market will make enough hospital beds in the amount of time the disease will spread. I mean a governing body loosening regulations on markets didn't cause this whole mess in the first place. Oh that's right.