I’m so on the fence about all of this, so I have a question for those of you who are for government intervention. Where does your faith in government come from, and what “comforts” you that government will not abuse their power?? I guess that’s two questions, but they are honest. I don’t want to argue with anyone over the answers.
1 Like
Oh you mean the government by the people, for the people, and such, like we have?
Faith in people? I have no faith in people in general. I have faith in particular people.
A government by the people only works when we are involved and we question everything. Do I accept the COVID 19 restrictions (or lack of them) without question? NEVER!
In a conversation with a friend, they asked me what was the point since they are lifting the restrictions now. I explained… the point was to avoid overwhelming our medical care system. And if too many health care workers got sick that could be fatal with 5 times as many dead than we have now, and trucks carrying bodies to dump in mass graves. But now we are opening up with cautions, because the statistics do support it. And I have no doubt that we will keep watching that curve and on a state by state basis shut down again if the trends change for the worse.
But it is not a matter of trust. I am watching the statistics for myself. And I can see reason myself for agreeing with the decision they have made. To be sure others can judge for themselves, but if they disagree then they had better be ready with facts to support a rational argument. “We want freedom to do whatever we want.” is not an argument that is going to cut it.
How about the freedom not to waste their time (and endanger their own lives) providing care to those without enough regard for other people to follow the proper restrictions preventing the spread of this virus?
Yes, if a person does not want to help a particular person, then that should be his or her choice.
We can’t expect everyone to live according to Christian virtues.
Of course, that might be a violation of their work requirements, so I support their freedom to quit their jobs.
Don’t you?
A different situation occurs when a person has sworn a commitment. I spent 8 years in the military. My wife spent 7. We didn’t have have to agree with the mission; we committed to serve.
Your questions are too general and vague to have ready answers – it’s like asking where your faith in people comes from. Governments are good and bad, competent and incompetent – sometimes simultaneously all four. Just like people. We try collectively, when we can, to get our governments to behave well. What’s the alternative to ‘trusting’ governments? Trusting somebody else to do the same job? Either they will lack the capacity to do what needs to be done, or they’ll have power comparable to a government and be just as likely to abuse their power.
In the current situation, I expect competent governments to take necessary steps to curb the spread of a deadly virus, simply because no one else has the power needed.
3 Likes
I think that’s the problem. I think it’s arguable that we have a current government that is “for the people”. And when I say government, I mean both parties.
If other people were like you then yes, I agree that would be great. But it looks to me like the majority accept whatever narrative their particular party gives them without questioning.
That is because I was trying to keep it philosophical, without delving into specifics about American politics. It seems to me that both parties have an underlying philosophy that drives them, and the one I am wondering about is the side where you trust government.
Why do you think local governments lack the capacity? In my thinking, it is harder for smaller, local governments to get away with abuse if the federal government serves a sort of supervising role. On the other hand, if the larger government is only accountable to the people, well, history tells us that governments don’t have a really strong record of listening to the people…
Hi Vance,
Certainly it’s OK to be all three, as long as you recognize that…
Trade-offs between the three goals are ineluctably baked into reality.
It’s like the sign I saw at a dry cleaners once:
Fast / Good Quality / Cheap
PICK ANY TWO!
Likewise, if you reopen quickly (“economic devastation”) without mask regulations (supposedly “authoritarian government policies”), the risks of epidemic (“coronavirus”) are huge.
Let’s take a look at the Wisconsin experience. On May 13, the Wisconsin Supreme Court annulled the governor’s stay-at-home order. Here was a common scene that very evening 15 days ago:
And here is the consequence today:
What is the difference between Georgia and Wisconsin? IIRC, at the time of Georgia’s reopening, its case growth had stabilized. Not so in Wisconsin, which was still experiencing exponential case growth at the time of its reopening.
It is my sincere wish that Georgia and other states that have reopened without life-saving mask regulations do not experience what Wisconsin has experienced. It is not, however, my expectation.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
EDIT: The chart I copied from Wisconsin HHS above demonstrates exponential growth rate in cases. I.e., the number of new cases per day continues to grow. The cumulative case graph is also striking:
As you may readily ascertain, the first derivative continues to increase.
2 Likes
There were doomsday predictions for Georgia. They were wrong.
We don’t really know what would have happened in Wisconsin without the Supreme Court ruling, as we don’t have a control group.
But you could go here:
And use closed down Virginia as the control group. Cases are doubling there every 4 weeks, just like they are in Wisconsin.
I didn’t say anything about local vs national government. You asked about government in general, and that’s what I replied about. But since you ask . . . In the US, state and local governments can do a great deal, which is a good thing since the national government is doing almost nothing. There’s also next to no chance that state and local governments are going to seize more power in the long run than their citizens want them to have. But there are many things they can’t do because there are important powers they don’t have. They can’t coordinate policy across the country, they can’t do things like authorize a new diagnostic test, they can’t control travel (national or international) into and out of their jurisdictions, and (a big one), most of them can’t run deficits.
3 Likes
The problem with your approach is that you are labeling all laws as bad for simply being laws. When you say that any increase in government control is bad you are saying that any new law is bad. You seem to be saying that you won’t even debate how good a law is.
2 Likes
No, you have read things into my posts that are not there.
Feel free to quote my specific writing that you think said that, otherwise stop leaping to confused misinterpretations and attributing them to me.
If you look at what writing of mine that you did quote, you should see it implies the opposite from your assertion.
This is what you said before:
To me, that sounds like any law is classified as bad from the very start, just for being a law. Any law that currently controls our lives also needs to go because it is not a good thing, right?
1 Like
Well, I am only responsible for what I write, not your confused reinterpretation of it.
Go back and look at the context.
Note that “increased” assumes the current level before these draconian stay-at-home orders extended after the curve was flattened.
And do stop imagining such wild things.
So any law that increases government control above current levels will be judged by you as being bad, no matter what. Is that correct?
2 Likes
It’s not directly relevant to public policy, but our lab is planning on opening up (with more than a skeleton crew of essential personnel we’ve had working). This will involve people working in two non-overlapping shifts, maintaining distance at all times, always masked, no entry into the building unless you’ve been tested, twice-weekly testing thereafter, frequent wipe-downs of door handles and equipment. That’s what a reasonable attempt at a safe work environment looks like right now.
5 Likes
You did not look at the context, did you?
And you are still reading things into my posts that aren’t there.
See post 275 and others.
Vance, with all the time and effort you’ve already spent telling T that he’s misinterpreting you, you could have much more easily just answered his question and clarified (again, if that’s the case … you’ve been quite willing to repeat yourself before.) Very few people have interest in who got somebody right or wrong or keeping track of personal scores. We’re more interested in the actual subject at hand, which - as we all know - involves repeating ourselves at times for the sake of conversational flow.
2 Likes
Looks like a woman’s right to an abortion is safe.
Mervin, T intentionally misstated by posts and views and attempted to paint me as an anarchist. Giving such a person more words, after he so misused the ones earlier, would be foolish.
If he wants honest discussion, I will provide it as I typically do. I often go the extra mile in explaining, but there are times when such things are not appropriate.