Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by isissxn

I was hoping there could be a silver lining to all this, that the everyday person battling it out on Facebook would lose some of their hatred of "the other side" and just start to see everyone as human since we're in pretty dire straits as a planet right now.

We already know that online interactions tend to dehumanize our perception of each other.

It stands to reason that as everyone cuts off whatever real human interaction they normally get, the pathologies of online activity will get much, much worse, not better. I don't think there was ever any hope of a silver lining.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by dann

His background is Jewish?!

Yes. All your tirades against "the rich" mirror those of anti-semitic "third positionists."

Who would've thought that someone who spams lists purporting the supremacy of white countries hates Jews?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by 3point14

It's all relative. You, me and everyone you mention above is rich by global standards. This is an issue caused by people who have enough money, or credit, to fly.

The poor - that is the poor of the world, rather than the western poor, did not move the virus thousands of miles around the world.

Dann was very clear that "the rich" he's talking about doesn't include the people that I mentioned.

If capitalism is to blame for my sister being able to engage in International travel despite a low income, or my friend to be able to return home a couple of times a year to see family, then I can only say I'm a fan of capitalism.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

Capitalism is what implants this particular kind of wishful thinking into the minds of capitalist agents: 'Yes, the signs are all there, but if I ignore them, I bet they will go away, and it won't be as bad as they think because .... that's what I want to think. Anything else might affect my business/the businesses of the region, the country, Dow Jones adversely, so I can't allow it to be true.'
See the CNN article in the OP about the people who warned about the impending disaster and the people who, much like Trump, chose to ignore it or play it down.
It would be bad for business to believe otherwise ... at least, short term ...
However, much like in Jaws it came back to bite them (and an awful lot of innocent people) in the ass - if they hadn't already defected to the Grenadines, hoping that everybody is staying safe, of course:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Wishful thinking exists and has existed in every society. Take a look at the Great Leap Forward for probably the worst example of wishful thinking in all of human history.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by isissxn

It's incredible to me that people still have the appetite for so much anger. I thought this horrible pandemic would make people band together more. I was very, very wrong.

Yeah, this trying to find people to blame thing is really bothering me.

It's turning into serious xenophobia here in china, where foreigners are looked at with fear.

A friend of mine has a gym that is reopening, but they've been told no foreigners are allowed in the building. And here's a quote from him on our WeChat group yesterday:

Quote:

So today my partner sent me a screen shot of the managements WeChat group for all the tenants in the building. Basically it was another tenant freaking out and bitching in the group chat cause she claims she saw a Korean national enter the building.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by isissxn

Is the bottom line here that no one should ever travel, or that no one should ever be rich?

The logic seems to be that no one should ever be rich because being rich leads to international travel, so both I guess.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Who would've thought that someone who spams lists purporting the supremacy of white countries hates Jews?

Everybody thinks so! White supremacists usually hate Jews. Stephen Miller, I assume, but I don't know, may be one of the exceptions.
But I don't remember seeing you post "lists purporting the supremacy of white countries", at least not recently.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Wishful thinking exists and has existed in every society. Take a look at the Great Leap Forward for probably the worst example of wishful thinking in all of human history.

Yes, wishful thinking has always existed. Do you understand the words, "this particular kind of wishful thinking"?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's turning into serious xenophobia here in china, where foreigners are looked at with fear.

Do you have any examples of xenophobia in China as serious as this? Horrible Covid-19 racist attack in London

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

The logic seems to be that no one should ever be rich because being rich leads to international travel, so both I guess.

The logic seems to be that the more a strawman argument is repeated, the better it gets.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Dann was very clear that "the rich" he's talking about doesn't include the people that I mentioned.

If capitalism is to blame for my sister being able to engage in International travel despite a low income, or my friend to be able to return home a couple of times a year to see family, then I can only say I'm a fan of capitalism.

It is obvious that you can leave out the "If ..." and just stick with "I'm a fan of capitalism."
I already knew.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by dann

Everybody thinks so! White supremacists usually hate Jews. Stephen Miller, I assume, but I don't know, may be one of the exceptions.
But I don't remember seeing you post "lists purporting the supremacy of white countries", at least not recently.

Strange post but if you need to be reminded of your spamming lists of how great white countries are, I'll remind you.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

We already know that online interactions tend to dehumanize our perception of each other.

It stands to reason that as everyone cuts off whatever real human interaction they normally get, the pathologies of online activity will get much, much worse, not better. I don't think there was ever any hope of a silver lining.

Ain't it dreadful? The pathological inhumanity of online interactions when we know that people are so much nicer in real life!
I think you'll appreciate this list of things you can do for your fellow man now that you are already online:

Quote:

Below are just a few of the ways the habits of the rich are making life more difficult for everyone else.
They’re Trying to Hoard Medical Supplies
They’re Fleeing the City and Spreading the Virus
They’re Exploiting Workers
They’re Screwing around in Congress
Dear Rich People: Please Stop Hoarding Things (NYMag, March 30, 2020)

Debating the ethics of the wealthy fleeing cities due to coronavirus (qz, April 1, 2020)
The wealthy flee to Nantucket, a ‘medical desert,’ during coronavirus lockdown (NYPost, March 25, 2020)

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

Do you have any examples of xenophobia in China as serious as this? Horrible Covid-19 racist attack in London

That sounds pretty horrible. I think the way that people are turning against each other everywhere is a horrible thing. I don't know of any actual attacks on foreigners here, yet, which is a good thing.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

It is obvious that you can leave out the "If ..." and just stick with "I'm a fan of capitalism."
I already knew.

Sure, I'm a fan of capitalism to some extent. I think a lot of people are a lot better off because of it. I also think that it's caused some suffering and some regulation and some redistribution of wealth are great things that help to mitigate some of those effects. There are also some serious issues with negative externalities of business that, again, we should be trying to avoid through regulation. But wealth creation is, in general a good thing, and capitalism is responsible for a lot of wealth creation.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

Yes, wishful thinking has always existed. Do you understand the words, "this particular kind of wishful thinking"?

Sure, but it's not clear to me that this kind of wishful thinking would be avoided in some other system. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think it'd be replaced by something very similar.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

The logic seems to be that the more a strawman argument is repeated, the better it gets.

Can you explain how it's a straw man, then?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by isissxn

Is the bottom line here that no one should ever travel, or that no one should ever be rich?

There shuld be much, much less travel, particularly air travel.

We have to start acting like the planet has finite resources. Because the planet has finite resources.

Flying is a luxury with a massive environmental coss. And it's not even close to necessary 99% of the time.


But there's a perception that somehow it's a right to travel 3000 miles across the world for a piss-up or to climb a mountain or to swim with dolphins that will utterly override any thoughts of the damage flying does to the environment.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Can you explain how it's a straw man, then?

You just have to explain your attempt at logic:

Originally Posted by Roboramma

The logic seems to be that no one should ever be rich because being rich leads to international travel, so both I guess.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Sure, but it's not clear to me that this kind of wishful thinking would be avoided in some other system. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think it'd be replaced by something very similar.

In some other system where people didn't benefit from letting other people come to harm, i.e. business?
Like in Ischgl, Austria or Miami, Florida (or Amity Island, Jaws).

ETA: Using an example from fiction it just occurred to me that the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote a play with a similar theme, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People]An Enemy of the People[/i] (Wikipedia):

Quote:

Act I
Dr. Thomas Stockmann is the medical officer of a recently opened spa in a small town in southern Norway. The play begins in Dr. Stockmann's house, where his wife Katrine is entertaining dinner guests. As the evening progresses, Dr. Stockmann's brother Peter (the mayor) and Hovstad (the editor of the newspaper) arrive at the house. The Mayor asks his brother about a rumor that Hovstad is about to print an article he wrote regarding the spa baths. Dr. Stockmann is evasive about the nature of this article, and Peter leaves. Dr. Stockmann's daughter Petra brings in a letter, which reveals that Dr. Stockmann's suspicions were correct and the spa water is contaminated with bacteria (he had sent samples of water away to be tested in a lab). With this proof in hand, Hovstad agrees to print Dr. Stockmann's article, which will reveal the truth about the spa water. This will bring a great deal of attention to the baths and possibly force them to shut down (which will have repercussions on the town's economy). Dr. Stockmann is overwhelmed with all that has happened, but rejoices that he has saved the town.

Somebody should adapt this play for TV immediately! Get it while it's still hot!
Henrik Ibsen: An Enemy of the People (Gutenberg.org)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[3point14]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I mean, you're not wrong. Limited amounts of air travel wouldn't really be much of a problem, pollution-wise.

I think we can all agree that even under a global regime of draconian emissions controls, some people should still be allowed to fly long distances for important work.

There's a bucketload of wriggle room in 'important work'

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Dann was very clear that "the rich" he's talking about doesn't include the people that I mentioned.

If capitalism is to blame for my sister being able to engage in International travel despite a low income, or my friend to be able to return home a couple of times a year to see family, then I can only say I'm a fan of capitalism.

I'm a big fan of capitalism as a tool. As a philosphy for life, not so much.


As to the ubiquitous air travel, I think it's a bad idea, and it's a bad thing that the people you mention can fly wherever they like.

Bad for the planet and the billions of people not able to do that, I mean. Bloody marvelous for those that can take advantage of it, of course.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

You just have to explain your attempt at logic:

Sure. You said that the virus is being spread by rich people, particularly because they are the ones who engage in international travel, and as such they are hurting the rest of us. While you have refused to explain what the solution you have for this, if international travel is the problem, and being rich is the thing that leads to it, then the implied solution seems to be to stop being from being rich (thus preventing international travel while we're at it).

If you don't think you've been implying that, I'd be interested in an explanation of what you do think the solution is (Myriad asked for such in a post which I later quoted, but both times you failed to answer his questions).

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I'm a big fan of capitalism as a tool. As a philosphy for life, not so much.

Absolutely.

Quote:

As to the ubiquitous air travel, I think it's a bad idea, and it's a bad thing that the people you mention can fly wherever they like.

Bad for the planet and the billions of people not able to do that, I mean. Bloody marvelous for those that can take advantage of it, of course.

There's certainly a cost/benefit analysis to be done. I think that the good that comes to the world from international air travel is, all together, greater than the harm.

I do think that there are externalities that aren't (but should be) captured by the price. There should be some sort of a carbon tax on air travel/airlines, and if that was implemented (and those externalities thus accounted for) some international travel would stop. But while those externalities exist I don't think they're so high as to be greater than the good that comes for it.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Absolutely.




There's certainly a cost/benefit analysis to be done. I think that the good that comes to the world from international air travel is, all together, greater than the harm.

I disagree, almost completely, I think. I think the majority of air travel, the environmental costs of which are utterly massive (taking into account polution, oil extraction, mineral extraction and processing detritus from making god alone knows how many planes (many of which are now in car parks)) is leisure based. Now, I'm not down on leisure, but a whole industry ******* up the planet on multiple levels so people can go on a stag do in Prague or to spring break down in Florida (because that, or age based equivalent are what at least 90% of air travel is for) just isn't cost effective That is, cost effective in environmental, not fiscal terms. In my view it's long past time the former started outweighing the latter, but we're a long, long way and a whole lot of damage to the earth and its air,from that.

Quote:

I do think that there are externalities that aren't (but should be) captured by the price. There should be some sort of a carbon tax on air travel/airlines, and if that was implemented (and those externalities thus accounted for) some international travel would stop. But while those externalities exist I don't think they're so high as to be greater than the good that comes for it.

This is where we disagree. I think the harm outweighs the good by a very, very large factor. Globally, you're in the majority though.

[Roboramma]

Yeah, and please note I was only trying to make clear exactly where we disagree. I certainly haven't said anything the should make you change your mind. I'll have to do some more thinking about it before I'd be prepared to attempt to make an argument for my point of view on this topic. So I do respect what you're saying.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Yeah, and please note I was only trying to make clear exactly where we disagree. I certainly haven't said anything the should make you change your mind. I'll have to do some more thinking about it before I'd be prepared to attempt to make an argument for my point of view on this topic. So I do respect what you're saying.

My thanks.

I kind of hope you're right. And my position is certainly not a well researched, thoroughly studied one. More of a partially researched, this is what I think at the moment, thing.

[applecorped]

Limiting freedom of movement over environmental concerns, who would have saw that coming?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by 3point14

There's a bucketload of wriggle room in 'important work'

I take the Soviet Union as a model. Yes, the people at the top, deciding the "important work" were all exploiting the system to live better than the vast majority of their fellow citizens. But overall, the degree of consumer consumption* was drastically reduced compared to the capitalist west.

If the World Government did limit air travel to "important work", there'd still probably be a couple hundred thousand cronies, black marketeers, regulatory captors, and the like, effectively enjoying luxury air travel they didn't need and hadn't earned.

But that would still be a lot less than the billions of air travelers we had in 2018. That seems like a huge win. Even if a lot of hangers-on and officer's wives end up exploiting the policy, it still seems like a small price to pay, for the result. In any case, solve global warming first, then worry about any lingering social injustices in the solution.

---
*For lack of a better term.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Sure. You said that the virus is being spread by rich people, ...

Yes, it's even in the title of this thread.

Quote:

... particularly because they are the ones who engage in international travel, ...

No, I think that was one of the very early strawmen: 'Rich people travel more that poor people.' Some people use this strategy quite frequently. They come up with a strawman that is slightly related to the actual argument, and others assume that it must be right and respond to the strawman instead of to the actual argument. (And as you can see, theprestige is still doing it.) Go back to the OP, which was mainly based on my observations of the way that coronavirus was spread to Denmark. My observations coincided with the appearance of the CNN article about conditions in Ischgl, Austria.

Quote:

... and as such they are hurting the rest of us.
While you have refused to explain what the solution you have for this, if international travel is the problem, and being rich is the thing that leads to it, then the implied solution seems to be to stop being from being rich (thus preventing international travel while we're at it).

Your "if ... then" is based on the strawman. I don't think I've "refused to explain" any solution. I actually don't think I've mentioned any solution at all. And international travel as such is not the problem so the rest of your assumption is also wrong.

Quote:

If you don't think you've been implying that, I'd be interested in an explanation of what you do think the solution is (Myriad asked for such in a post which I later quoted, but both times you failed to answer his questions).

Yes, Myriad was the first poster to come up with the strawman. You should have read my OP instead of basing your impression of what I wrote on his post. The solution to the behaviour exhibited by the "medical authority" in Ischgl, Austria, as well as whoever might be responsible in Miami, Florida, (and in Wuhan, China, as well) would obviously be to put a stop to the calculations that make it happen. However, it has been happening in all capitalist countries for as long as capitalism has existed. Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People, which I mentioned in post 100, is from 1882.

[Roboramma]

Hey Dann,

I did read your OP, but I've gone back and re-read it. You're right that you didn't explicitly talk about international travel. But it seemed to me that's what you were implicitly talking about, given that those rich people clearly brought it to those ski resorts and from those ski resorts to their home countries through international travel.

Based on your last reply, maybe I misread you. Looking back over the thread it seems you're that it was the actions of the ski resort operators in both staying open and, if they weren't going to close not at least having policies to enforce some sort of social distancing. You may also be talking about those staying at the resorts going to the resorts at all, as well as going to parties once they were there.

So, that's my reading now. If I'm still missing the point please let me know.

[xjx388]

So Capitalism is responsible for the spread of coronavirus....presumably because businesses refused to close down out of fear of the loss of profit, thus creating a vector for spread.

So what is the alternative system that would have stopped the spread in its tracks?

It seems to me there is no such alternative system. The real problem isn’t Capitalism or businesses; the real problem is humans. I can’t imagine any scenario in the modern connected world in which the spread would have been stopped in its tracks. People want freedom to do things; people want to travel. You would have to imagine a world in which a government could exercise absolute control over all businesses and people. And you have to imagine humans that always make the right decisions as quickly as possible. Fantasy Utopias, basically.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

So Capitalism is responsible for the spread of coronavirus....presumably because businesses refused to close down out of fear of the loss of profit, thus creating a vector for spread.

I'm happy that you are with me this far!

And no, the "real problem" is definitely not "humans."
I shudder to imagine what your alternative might be!

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

I'm happy that you are with me this far!

And no, the "real problem" is definitely not "humans."
I shudder to imagine what your alternative might be!

Ok, I will agree with you for the sake of argument. Now what? What is the system that would have saved us?

And you are misunderstanding me. My point is that there is no alternative system that would have resulted in anything different because of human nature. Any alternative system would require humans to be be perfectly logical creatures who always acted perfectly in any given situation. Pandemic? We immediately follow all recommendations and none of us leave our (presumably well-stocked for disaster) homes for a month Because of human nature, there is no scenario or alternative system in which this thing doesn’t spread all over the world.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Ok, I will agree with you for the sake of argument. Now what? What is the system that would have saved us?

Why pretend that you would like to know the answer to your question when you follow it up with your own claim that no such system can possibly exists?

Quote:

And you are misunderstanding me. My point is that there is no alternative system that would have resulted in anything different because of human nature. Any (!!!) alternative system would require humans to be be perfectly logical creatures who always acted perfectly in any given situation.

No, on the contrary. Systems are imperfect if they don't take into consideration that humans (unlike Donald Trump, of course) aren't perfect. That is the point of such down-to-earth stuff like ABS brakes, motorcycle helmets and airbags. The alleged imperfection of human nature is the argument we always get to hear from proponents of the idea that capitalism is perfect every time we confront them with the obvious fact that it isn't.

Quote:

Pandemic? We immediately follow all recommendations and none of us leave our (presumably well-stocked for disaster) homes for a month.

That would have been close to perfect, obviously, and yet it took the perfect president months of ignoring recommendations before he grudgingly acknowledged that, well, maybe it wouldn't go away after all however much you focussed on ignoring it. That is Trump nature, not human nature, but I can see why people who consider him to be a supreme being might confuse the two things.

Quote:

Because of human nature, there is no scenario or alternative system in which this thing doesn’t spread all over the world.

In the actual, real world, even in some capitalist nations, there are several examples of imperfect human beings with the ability to tackle this situation much, much better than the businessman president currently residing in the White House. Who do you think came up with the recommendations mentioned by you in a sentence that was supposed to be an example of blue-eyed Utopianism? "We immediately follow all recommendations"? Aliens? Unicorns? Angels?
No, of course not!!!
******* human beings came up with those recommendations! You see, that's the thing about human beings: We tend to be "perfectly logical creatures" when we look at the world as it is and try to make sense of it as unbiased as we possibly can. (Even science, imperfect as it is, is aware that biasses can be counterbalanced by checks and guidelines installed for this very purpose: to make sure that results are as perfect as they can possibly be. I've never heard scientists resort to the stupid excuse that biasses can't be overcome because, 'Well, you know, human nature is imperfect, so biassed results are just something that we have to live with! Anything else would be Utopian! Now, are you going to go on that plane or not?!')

[dann]

2,500 tourists are joining a mass lawsuit after after hundreds of Europe's early coronavirus cases were traced to a single ski resort in Austria (Business Insider, April 1, 2020)

It's probably not an April's Fool joke because I saw it on this Danish website, too: Corona-hotspot i Alperne: 2.500 skiturister vil sagsøge Ischgl (DR.dk, March 30, 2020)

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by dann

2,500 tourists are joining a mass lawsuit after after hundreds of Europe's early coronavirus cases were traced to a single ski resort in Austria (Business Insider, April 1, 2020)

The rich capitalists are trying to get richer.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

Why pretend that you would like to know the answer to your question when you follow it up with your own claim that no such system can possibly exists?

Because that’s the way I see it and I’d like your take on it, seeing as how you are the one claiming Capitalism is to blame.

Quote:

No, on the contrary. Systems are imperfect if they don't take into consideration that humans (unlike Donald Trump, of course) aren't perfect. That is the point of such down-to-earth stuff like ABS brakes, motorcycle helmets and airbags. The alleged imperfection of human nature is the argument we always get to hear from proponents of the idea that capitalism is perfect every time we confront them with the obvious fact that it isn't.

I haven’t heard the “Capitalism is perfect” claim. I certainly don’t think it is; I only think it’s the best of the currently available economic systems, warts and all.

Again, human beings are imperfect. I don’t care what system you implement, it will never result in a perfect response. You seem to disagree, but you have yet to offer a direct answer to: What system would have protected people better than Capitalism?

If you want to argue that Donald Trump didn’t handle this well? I agree. But Donald Trump isn’t Capitalism. He is a Capitalist, but he’s also an idiot. But Donald Trump wasn’t mentioned in your OP. I didn’t mention Trump. What does he have to do with ski resorts in Austria or Capitalism as a whole system?

Quote:

That would have been close to perfect, obviously, and yet it took the perfect president months of ignoring recommendations before he grudgingly acknowledged that, well, maybe it wouldn't go away after all however much you focussed on ignoring it. That is Trump nature, not human nature, but I can see why people who consider him to be a supreme being might confuse the two things.

Trump is an idiot who didn’t respond well at all. No argument from me. Now, drop Trump and describe the system that would have created a near perfect response.

Quote:

In the actual, real world, even in some capitalist nations, there are several examples of imperfect human beings with the ability to tackle this situation much, much better than the businessman president currently residing in the White House. Who do you think came up with the recommendations mentioned by you in a sentence that was supposed to be an example of blue-eyed Utopianism? "We immediately follow all recommendations"? Aliens? Unicorns? Angels?
No, of course not!!!
******* human beings came up with those recommendations! You see, that's the thing about human beings: We tend to be "perfectly logical creatures" when we look at the world as it is and try to make sense of it as unbiased as we possibly can. (Even science, imperfect as it is, is aware that biasses can be counterbalanced by checks and guidelines installed for this very purpose: to make sure that results are as perfect as they can possibly be. I've never heard scientists resort to the stupid excuse that biasses can't be overcome because, 'Well, you know, human nature is imperfect, so biassed results are just something that we have to live with! Anything else would be Utopian! Now, are you going to go on that plane or not?!')

The idea that Scientists recommend an action and humans all respond near-perfectly to their recommendation is the Utopian idea. And you admit that some Capitalist systems responded better than others. So I am now not sure at all what you are arguing. It seems Capitalism isn’t really the problem; the real problem is dumb-ass leaders in some countries who didn’t respond quick enough to the recommendations of science. That’s going to happen no matter what economic system they follow.

There is no economic system that would have shut down this virus. The countries that responded best had better leaders and more compliant citizens, period.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by dudalb

SO anybody who makes a lot of money is evil?

A person who has more money than is needed to live a life comfortable by any remotely reasonable standard but who seeks more wealth has a harmful hording disorder.

Which is more or less evil if you see things in those terms, I guess. Either way, it is conduct that should be strongly disfavored.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by xjx388

The idea that Scientists recommend an action and humans all respond near-perfectly to their recommendation is the Utopian idea.

True.

Although better results would probably be yeilded if powerful media figures and even elected government officials, hadn't spent the last 40 years denigrating the scientific method obfuscating facts, promoting woo, disenfanchising academia and generally promoting the idea that it's laudable to be a selfish, I'm alright, Jack, dickhead and, of course, that the government is useless.

If that hadn't happened, people would be more like to follow the wise, scientifically founded, advice rather than believing that they know better because FREEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMM