> centralise this power
That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of individual freedoms, and often increased anthropogenic (=human-caused) suffering.
That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of individual freedoms, and often increased anthropogenic (=human-caused) suffering.
Nb America has too many elected positions; most democracies have fewer (are more “centralized”) but also it’s easier to fire them if you don’t like them (here it’s difficult to impossible). For instance the best reason to elect both a mayor and supervisors of SF is if you want them to fight instead of getting things done, and indeed that’s what they do.
> The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find.
Great question, and no it doesn't. Part of the UN's push[1] around this treaty is ensuring that it actually has teeth and isn't just hot air. For example, it recommends the involvement of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and International Labour Organization in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of health emergencies:
>In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.
The UN also raises the question of countries being punished for non-compliance:
>[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.
In other words, if you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you DON'T report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.
These proposed rules would incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks. Some would suggest they actively encourage outbreaks.
[1]https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C...
Although I fail to see how the Xi era China would allow a WHO team investigate in a timely manner, after they placed the covid investigators in a two week quarantine more than a year after the event occured and they had plenty of time to further cover things up.
I’m gonna call bullshit on this. This sentence can mean anything you want to, while being constructed in such a way to be arise suspicion.
That is, unless you care to clarify what you mean by power and freedom here, i.e. is patents on vaccines included in centralization of power? Is my freedom to infect those around me included?
And even after you have clarified these terms, some empirical data wouldn’t hurt either. To show a negative correlation with—whatever you call centralization of power and individual freedom (however you define it).
Yes.
/s
The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.
I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general.
"You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.