Hur skulle en konsekvent liberal pandemipolitik se ut?

Hur borde västvärlden hanterat coronapandemin?

Debatten kretsar mest kring ett falskt alternativ. Antingen tvångsnedstänger man ned samhället eller också gör man ”inget” som i Sverige.

Men det finns ett rationellt, liberalt alternativ.

Och på New Ideal redogör min gamla chef Onkar Ghate just för hur en sådan rationell och konsekvent liberal pandemipolitik skulle kunna se ut.

Då Sverige inte tvångsnedstängde samhället tjänar det också delvis som ett föredöme. Men bara delvis:

But Sweden should not be our full model for how a first-world, free country meets the challenge from a novel infectious disease.

To emphasize that an American approach to the threat of SARS-CoV-2 would recognize the need for individuals to remain free to think and act, to continue to work and to live as they judge best, does not mean government therefore should do nothing, that it has no function to perform. That assumption too is un-American. In the American system, government has a vital role.

In defining that role our model should be the best aspects of what Taiwan and South Korea have done. In neither country did government focus its coercive power on locking down most of its residents. Instead, in both countries the focus was on detecting carriers of the virus early, by testing and tracking, in order to isolate them. Sweden, by contrast, has lacked this vital focus on testing, isolating and tracking.

Om det kommer en andra våg, då finns det mycket här som västvärldens politiker i allmänhet och liberaler i synnerhet skulle kunna ta med sig. Så klicka och läs.

Om ni tror att ni har hört merparten av de här argumenten förut, då misstar ni er sannolikt.

Som en fingervisning om hur Onkars argumentation skiljer sig från mängden, notera följande. Om staten av någon anledning är oförmögen att identifiera och isolera de smittade då rättfärdigar det inte någon kollektiv tvångsisolering: ”The guiding principle is that when government lacks specific evidence about a threat, it cannot act.

Consider an analogy to crime. Suppose a crime wave breaks out over the summer in Denver. Law enforcement has not yet been able to identify and arrest the perpetrators. Government is not thereby empowered to arrest without evidence the people it guesses are responsible or to impose on everyone in the city, innocent and criminal alike, a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew to attempt to reduce future crimes. Such coercive action against people for whom there is no specific evidence of guilt is illegitimate; it is a violation of their rights and freedoms. Instead, the government is empowered only to share the information it does possess, such as that the crimes have mostly occurred in certain neighborhoods at certain times of day, and that they have consisted largely of, say, automobile or home breaks-ins. Individual residents can then freely choose to take countermeasures they think appropriate, given the threat. In response to information provided by law enforcement, they might install brighter outdoor lighting or a home-alarm system or set up a neighborhood watch.

Similarly, in the case of an infectious disease pandemic, when many people are potential carriers of a virus but our governments are (mostly) unable to detect who in fact is and who is not, coercive action is illegitimate. Government does not legitimately possess the coercive power to impose a 24-hour curfew on the infected and uninfected alike. It does not legitimately possess the coercive power to lock us all down in our homes.

Som sagt, klicka här och läs.


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.