oh come on now, this isn't a billionaire asking for hand outs for their business this is someone who happens to be a billionaire asking for people to use common sense unfortunately it's in short supply in the US so you have to have a government mandate it.

Bill Gates doesn't have to worry about where is next meal and rent funds are going to come from.

If he wanted sane government policy, he should've run for office (not to discredit the work of his foundation, he has done quite a bit of good) or funded folks to run who align with his ideals. He's not wrong! He just didn't put the effort and resources into having a role in meaningful input.

I've never really liked Bill Gates the Microsoft owner.

However, I do appreciate what Bill Gates the philantrophist has set out to do, putting in his own money (never mind our opinions of how he made that money at MS using arm twisting techniques and such) to actually make the world a better place.

I've never really liked Bill Gates the Microsoft owner, either.

If you appreciate what the Gates foundation has done, consider that it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

I would just note that what you're saying is, he hasn't done enough to help Americans. You are one of the richest Nations on earth and should be able to help your citizens without requiring a billionaire to buy the presidency. what Bill gates has done is improve the lives of many millions of people in less developed countries, but that's not enough for you because you don't benefit or see the benefits for your country.

The US has printed $6T (and more) to bail out the wealthy and investor class. $250B just for unemployment. If developing countries can print even $100B, IMF, World Bank, Moody's, S&P, and the local elite 'brainwashed' by the West want to cut down rates and what not. Yes, the US can take care of its poor, if politicians want to.

In developing countries, even spending $2B on coronavirus is a huge amount, and lead to other problems.

At least, I am happy that Gates is spending his dollars where he can get maximum results. It is like investors wanting to invest in distressed companies and junk bonds: big returns.

I suppose it's to be expected that disdain for the well-being of the economy at large is much higher among people who are comfortable. The people who go online to post memes about how "I'm not going to die to save the Dow Jones Industrial Average!" are generally less likely to be among the 3 million who applied for unemployment benefits last week, and a lockdown is much more fun from the grounds one of your sprawling mansions than from a tiny ill-maintained NYCHA apartment with restless kids.

This. Also, very wealthy people tend to have personnel such as security guards, chefs, housekeepers, drivers, even straight-up butlers and maids. I have no idea which of these Gates has, if any, but will he have the ideological consistency to send them all home and do his own cooking and cleaning for a few weeks or months? And if so, will he ensure these people will at least still have enough income to live on?

Increasing the severity of the shutdown means different things to the richest 20% than it does to the other 80%.

You're making a rhetorical question about a hypothetical scenario?

fwiw Microsoft is paying Microsoft Store employees who aren't currently working due to locations being shut down awhile back (& these locations didn't wait for the government to tell them to shut down): https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-closes-all-microsof...

I know he doesn't run things anymore, but at least I'm not creating baseless accusations

We need to encourage good people to get into government. I tell every young person that if they really want to change the world, run for an office.

Bill Gates should be spending all his money sourcing or manufacturing PPE gear for healthcare workers or otherwise stop grandstanding on the public stage. His “good billionaire” schtick was already running thin before the pandemic.

all his money? hyperbole I know but PPE for healthcare workers won't fix everything, even if you spend 106 billion dollars on it.

You’re right. At least half of it should be spent making ventilators.

> the rich spend their younger days talking about deregulation and free-markets

[citation needed]

> when there's real need to take action

I don't understand. What are you suggesting, exactly? What action?

> they always fall back upon regulation, public investment, and centralized actions.

Who is "they"? And what regulation, public investment, and centralized action are you talking about, specifically? And what is the alternative that you would prefer?

Bill Gates has been staunchly liberal throughout his entire philanthropic career.

I don't always agree with him, but Bill Gates himself seems quite consistent with regards to how he thinks the world should improve.

Could it be that as you become richer, regulations and centralized actions tend to disproportionally benefit you more?

> It amazes me that the rich spend their younger days talking about deregulation and the free-markets, but when there's real need to take action, they always fall back upon regulation

Unless they were talking about free-markets during an emergency, they aren't inconsistent. Even die-hard libertarians still want a working court system and enforcement (by gov't) for property rights enforcement. I don't agree with die hard libertarians, but you can't make a purity argument to dismiss their points.

What's the "die hard libertarian" approach to prepare for/deal with a pandemic? (I don't ask that sarcastically)

It's natural selection and no action should be taken, at least that's what I've heard few weeks ago

I am not a die hard libertarian but went through my libertarian phase and read a lot of "die hard" literature. My guess would be that the die hards are people who are libertarian on moral grounds rather than utilitarian grounds. That is, they would see the exercise of state power as illegitimate as a moral principle. So the approach to dealing with a pandemic would be:

1. Get out of the way of private actors trying to do things to help. Completely deregulate the manufacture of Respirators, ventilators and other PPE. Get the FDA out of the way of trying new medications and vaccines, etc.

2. Restricting people's freedom to move and peaceably assemble is wrong on it's face so it is irrelevant whether it helps stop the pandemic or not. Would forcibly arresting and isolating in a quarantine camp in Alaska anyone who tests positive stop or slow COVID-19 from spreading? Maybe, but I think that we would still not accept such a course of action on moral grounds.

Again, not positions I hold but that would be my guess on how a die hard libertarian would think about it.

I would say that endangering other people by risking spread of a deadly virus is itself immoral, and a violation of the nonaggression principle. If you believe government has a role in enforcing the NAP, then it's legitimate for the government to enforce isolation measures.

>If you believe government has a role in enforcing the NAP, then it's legitimate for the government to enforce isolation measures.

I don't think most libertarians would interpret doing something that has such an indirect pathway to harming someone as aggression. If you're an at-risk group and somebody comes too close/coughs on you, I could see that being perceived as violating the non-aggression principle, but not e.g. two people having drinks at a bar together, which increases the chance of a virus spreading, which increases the chance of you eventually getting it. Especially when trying to stop that indirect violation would be a very direct violation of the rights of the bar owner and patrons to property and free association.

I think you're right about most libertarians. The ones I've known have been vehemently against smoking bans in restaurants, for example, or any action on climate change. That's one reason I've pulled away from the libertarian movement.

However, if we want a society that's not helpless against deadly pandemics, I don't think that means we have to abandon libertarian principles. We just have to apply them in a slightly different way.

I tend to agree, I still have libertarian instincts on a lot of issues, but in situations such as a pandemic where we have a large collective action problem and no time to evolve the sorts of cultural technologies and norms that generally evolve to solve collective action problems, having a government coordinate action is a net benefit.

That said, the libertarian inside me worries a lot about how the surveillance mechanisms we setup to deal with the current pandemic will persist and be repurposed for more nefarious means after the current crisis is over.