|
|
|
|
|
|
by blululu
439 days ago
|
|
|
Fair enough. During the pandemic there was an acute shortage of medical supplies and there were really not enough to go around for everyone. It would be a tough sell to convince the person who is actually making these supplies to put the needs to an arbitrary person above the needs of their immediate community. I didn't really enjoy having to be the one to go without on that round, but I would have been pretty angry in a hypothetical situation where my neighbor has needed medical supplies and refuses to provide them to the local fire department because he is trying to sell them to a foreign country for the greatest possible profit. In any case I don't really hold much personal animosity to the people and organizations who made these decisions during the pandemic. I do however want to make sure that we can avoid repeating that the next time around. |
|
|
First, to clear things up, I don't at all mean doing it to maximize profit. Notice that we expect a great degree of selflessness here - they should not be maximizing profit during the pandemic. We require it - we put them in jail otherwise.
It's all hands on deck.
> It would be a tough sell
There are definitely challenges here; I agree about that.
I think what sells to most people is to appeal to fairness. Democracy's foundation is fairness - rights to all, all get a vote. Fairness actually sells very well everywhere, despite the modern authoritarian's false critique. Law of the jungle is highly undesireable to most people; they like having civilization and rights.
But not universally; some will fight it. You need leaders and neighbors standing up for what's right. Also, enlightened self-interest can be convincing - help those in need, and you'll get help when you are in need.
You also need a way to determine what is fair; good leaders build consensus and navigate the politics - that is their job definition. Probably you put supplies where they do the most good. Start with hospitals and nursing homes, where contagion and vulnerable patients combine for the greatest risk. Then other vulnerable people (e.g., elderly or ill in private homes), then the first healthy recipients being front line workers like firefighters.
I think most healthy people would happily give up their medical supplies for those who need them more. There are always some malcontents, but we can't hold up society and progress for them.
> convince the person who is actually making these supplies to put the needs to an arbitrary person above the needs of their immediate community
Manufacturers provide them outside their employees, and health care professionals help strangers all the time. If we asked someone in downtown SF to provide them to someone across the Bay, would that be too far? To LA? NY? Rural Georgia? What about from Seattle to Vancouver? Belgium to the Netherlands? To Germany? To Turkey? To Japan?
My probably obvious point is, ''community' and 'us' are amorphous, changing concepts. Of course people in LA and Toronto and anywhere deserve the medical supplies as much as people next door.