Well, no...
I disagree with your use of the word xenophobia... not your definition of it.
I see no evidence anyone in current circumstance is exhibiting "fear of the strange"... because a lot of social change has occurred as fact in the last few hundred years.... making Japan and China not the strange things they once were to a westerner... and visa versa. Agree that racism and xenophobia are different things... but if considering which we do have more of... I'd say we have far more racism than xenophobia... although still agreeing with the rest of what you wrote about the fraud occurring in the politically impoverished "inventing racism" because its use is required to justify a political position.
There is neither xenophobia nor racism... in the west... driving our current social problems. There is quite a lot of political insanity... requiring xenophobia and racism be invented as straw men in an effort made in order to try to craft a proper stuffing for bad arguments. There is a problem, more the opposite, in having idiots who don't understand values... making decisions that require a principled understanding of values... and realism, rather than fictionalizing... anything. The problems are driven by disconnects from functional value systems.
Hong Kong people quite rightly fear Wuhan WuFlu visitors. It's not a racist thing. It's a sensible xenophobia worry.
Again... correct it is not racism... but neither is it xenophobia... as there is nothing strange there to fear. The fear is driven, not by strangeness, but by knowledge that the virus is bad. If you want to find a phobia that applies, in the degree that the fear exceeds the rational, it would be mysophobia, or popularly, "germophobia." But, then we can quibble about where reason requires we draw a line to define where that fear becomes a problem in excess.
Everything I've seen thus far... including when the virus was still confined inside of China, is that people have been less fearful than they should, not fearful in excess ?
Regarding what governments are for. I differ from your idea. I say the purpose of a state is to define and enforce private property which includes borders and publicly owned assets which should be owned by citizen share holders not by a separate communist entity. Aka Tradable Citizenship in addition to the usual individually owned property.
I'm not certain that we disagree at all on government, its purpose, and its utility. You don't appear to be an anarchist... leaving most of the rest mostly about the practical. I agree that the philosophy admits "includes borders"... making the rest of any quibbles we may have over finer philosophical points... not overly useful in context. Most of that can be addressed anyway as "tragedy of the commons" ? As I own myself, and as I clearly I have a right to control my property, that must include a right to expect state help in preventing my property being invaded and taken over by... other people's viruses ? But, the state won't help... if I don't first put up a fence with proper signage ? What would Monsanto do... if it were their virus ? /s
Otherwise, beyond that government is best which governs least... we're still left with a need for efficiency in those few things the government is supposed to do... which few things we'd rather they do well... even if only to reduce the costs.
What are getting from government... is not a minimization of the costs ? Rather, it might not be that hard to make the case... that what we're seeing is a "controlled failure"... working to ensure the problem is made of sufficient size to justify... more government. I'd prefer significantly greater effectiveness that both costs less, impinges less on my choices, and demands much less government to accomplish what it easily should.
xenophobia will be necessary until it's no longer a recontamination threat.
I'll not advocate a need for fear-mongering re tangential concerns.... rather than reasoning that's dead on target in addressing... not only the virus... but the rest of what you have to consider in making decisions about the future.
That's still not me saying that fear of the unknown is unwise rather than a basic, even innate, survival skill?
I will agree that a proper use of the virus as an issue... is to use the proofs of failures to highlight those areas in which deficiencies are made apparent... including not only the obvious elements in the practical as a limit... but also the reason, as errors in philosophy, that have led many world leaders to make tragic mistakes.
"Xenophobia will be necessary until"... is not an argument that will find limits in addressing viruses ? And because that is true... it becomes more important to avoid making errors in deconstructing that argument ?
Plenty of irony, of course... as I've been accused of "fear mongering" about the virus... for telling truths about it... to people who just weren't willing or ready to hear the truth... |
