Coronavirus: social, economic and other changes as a result of the pandemic

[Bryn]

Was he fined for holding a demonstration though, wasn't it for breaching the various restrictions on gatherings?

The fine was for organising the demonstration.

[Bryn]

This is dreadful and quite a sinister development. I hate his views and think them dangerous, but no-one should be fined for holding a demonstration.

His action in organising the demonstration could all too easily lead to widespread COVID-19 infection and even consequent deaths. He knew the legislation had been passed. I have no sympathy whatever for him in this instance.

[french frank]

The last few posts moved from the Last Night thread. What protest is not 'political' in some sense (the reason for waiving charges on a similar case)?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/28/metropolitan-police-drop-investigation-into-anti-racism-protester-ken-hinds

[teamsaint]

His action in organising the demonstration could all too easily lead to widespread COVID-19 infection and even consequent deaths. He knew the legislation had been passed. I have no sympathy whatever for him in this instance.

But it is apparently ok to try to bully people onto returning to commuter trains and busy offices, or argue for further potentially health damaging lockdowns. Strange times.

[oddoneout]

The find was for organising the demonstration.

I thought the issue was organising a gathering of more than 30 people (ie not the purpose itself) - in other words if up to 30 people had come together - at the appropriate distances - to voice the same views there wouldn't have been an issue?

[Dave2002]

This is dreadful and quite a sinister development. I hate his views and think them dangerous, but no-one should be fined for holding a demonstration.

That's an interesting view - and I'm inclined to agree, except that steps do need to be taken to reduce/minimise the spread of the virus. The steps which HMG is trying to enforce may be too Draconian.

OTOH he hasn't at least been taken to a police station, locked in a police cell and beaten up - the sort of actions which might happen elsewhere in the world.

I hope we don't reach that stage here.

I'm not sure that many would agree with your view that the Corbyns are lovable - in some way.

[oddoneout]

But it is apparently ok to try to bully people onto returning to commuter trains and busy offices, or argue for further potentially health damaging lockdowns. Strange times.

Isn't that always the way? Make big noises about supporting matters green but then hamper any implementation of such things(or actively undermine them, see recent concerns about water quality regulations) . Wail about obesity, having dismantled preventative health care. Make crocodile tears about families in poverty struggling to manage their lives, having shut Sure Start centres, youngsters getting up to mischief, having shut (by means of inadequate council budgets) the facilities they used.
It's much more overt now it seems to me, and no attempt is made to even try and hide the fact that money and vested interest dictate decisions - and I'm not talking about taxes and legitimate budget considerations, or using people with relevant knowledge to inform decisions.

[french frank]

The concept of Libertarianism is interesting. I've always associated it with right-wing views, though it seems there is also left-wing Libertarianism which I must study. A friend of mine, a life-long Liberal, described himself as a Libertarian which I see as a fault line between old Liberals and social democrats. I could never accept that the freedom of people as individuals should take precedence over a common good. I'm not sure how the left reconcile their 'egalitarian libertarianism' with the tensions that arise - such as here between damage to the economy (= damage to everyone) and, in this case, public health. Particularly as most people aren't capable of quantifying the damage in either case. Where is the 'common good'?

[Serial_Apologist]

I found the idea that the government has more resources even that some very rich individuals interesting. This is probably true for some of the richer countries - though the nature of resources will differ from country to country.Having “wealth” in monetary terms is one thing, but sometimes that needs to be backed up by physical resources, particularly if there are urgent requirements.

In the kind of economies we belong to, and have some knowledge of, governments may simply effectively print money in a crisis. Many countries will be doing the same thing, but internally the currencies will be devalued. At least that’s my view of things - creating “virtual” money to fund activities will work up to the point where people lose faith. It does mean that people who have savings will effectively find that their long term value goes down, but that won’t in the short term be anything which governments will worry about.

That's right; and it's because long ago, at some point lost in history, the correlation between value, price, and the numbers of hours collectively put into making raw materials into commodities, right across the piece - Marx's still generally accepted (albeit reluctantly in many quarters) definition of value - became disconnected, and the money supply that is supposed to correlate with the latter duly got linked to inflation under a simplistic formula that rules that should inflation rise too far this was a signal that the production of value was not adequately keeping up with the amount of currency being produced, thereby devaluing it in practical reality terms, as you point out. It's rather like force-feeding someone, and not appreciating the consequences until they throw up, or subsequently learning the lessons thereof because, well, this is the world of supply and demand. You then counteract by cutting the money supply; money becomes scarce relative to demand for it, workers demand compensatory wage rises, and are sacked for putting their employers out of business. And so on, and so on, with all the sorry recriminations and scapegoating that comes in the wake.

[Serial_Apologist]

The concept of Libertarianism is interesting. I've always associated it with right-wing views, though it seems there is also left-wing Libertarianism which I must study. A friend of mine, a life-long Liberal, described himself as a Libertarian which I see as a fault line between old Liberals and social democrats. I could never accept that the freedom of people as individuals should take precedence over a common good. I'm not sure how the left reconcile their 'egalitarian libertarianism' with the tensions that arise - such as here between damage to the economy (= damage to everyone) and, in this case, public health. Particularly as most people aren't capable of quantifying the damage in either case. Where is the 'common good'?

The assumption that personal liberty be a basis for socialism became most greatly popularised during the "hedonistic 'sixties" when the main consequence of Victorian values to be rebelled against was centred on the libido, which was made easier with the coming of The Pill. But it also has parallels with the personal lifestylism movement of the late 60s/70s which blossomed in the wake of heavyhanded state repression of the anti-Vietnam War movement that became fused with all manner of movements in conflict with the ineluctable evolution of capitalism into consumerism, including environmentalism, feminism and gay liberation: the agurment that followed being, if we can't unite to overthrow "the system" we can change how it operates inside our heads and then behave differently, reverting to pre-capitalist modes of production and consumption while still under the protection of the safety net part of the state that had been won through previous political reforms but was in itself dependent on funding through taxation from the profitable sectors on society on which consumerism thrived. That - which one of the more perceptive commentators in the "Century of the Self" TV series described as "socialism in one person", might well be the moral/ethical conundrum upon which so-called left-wing libertarianism founders, since it ignores two things which are uniquely interlinked under capitalist relations, namely the collective nature of all societies, and with them the protocols finally enforcing conformity, and the interconnectivity of all natural systems - the truth of which is generally agreed among all but those of the most right wing persuasions who think you can just go on greedily exhausting the world's natural resources and then blame people who don't look or behave like yourself, but which was and probably still is, frankly, somewhat overlooked on the left.

[Joseph K]

The concept of Libertarianism is interesting. I've always associated it with right-wing views, though it seems there is also left-wing Libertarianism which I must study. A friend of mine, a life-long Liberal, described himself as a Libertarian which I see as a fault line between old Liberals and social democrats. I could never accept that the freedom of people as individuals should take precedence over a common good. I'm not sure how the left reconcile their 'egalitarian libertarianism' with the tensions that arise - such as here between damage to the economy (= damage to everyone) and, in this case, public health. Particularly as most people aren't capable of quantifying the damage in either case. Where is the 'common good'?

Actually, the original (European) Libertarianism was left-wing; its right-wing incarnation was a relatively recent phenomenon. Anarchism goes back much further than the 1960s. I would describe myself as a libertarian of the communist variety, though without the dogmatism of some anarchists. Anarchists generally take a positive view of freedom, rather than it being something that would compromise the common good.

This is interesting, Chomsky on how the original Liberalism was left-wing in nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmbLXl-mlL4

[french frank]

Thanks for those thoughts, S_A. There is the added tension between (individual) libertarianisn on the one hand and (collective) conformity on the other. I'm not sure that this troubles right wingers for whom caring about others is a matter of individual choice/preference rather than a duty/obligation.

Thank you, JK - will have a look.

[Bryn]

Surprise, surprise.

[french frank]

Surprise, surprise.

Which it isn't, of course, since 'social' types are more concerned about how their behaviour affects others/society. Anti-social types think it's just about them. It touches on what was being discussed.

[Bryn]

Which it isn't, of course, since 'social' types are more concerned about how their behaviour affects others/society. Anti-social types think it's just about them. It touches on what was being discussed.

Perhaps I should have appended an apposite emoticon. Did it really need a research project to reach these findings?