5 ms·

We already gave an inch and the government took a mile. Closing down state parks and playgrounds. Making it illegal to play with the kids next door. I was pro

We already gave an inch and the government took a mile. Closing down state parks and playgrounds. Making it illegal to play with the kids next door. I was probably pro tracking app a month or two ago, but the draconian measures taken by some governments (Michigan, Wisconsin) has changed my mind. Its going to lead to abuse abuse abuse abuse.

chasd00 6y ago
We saw the same thing with the patriot act and the post-9/11 world. Give an inch, they take a mile. I understand the situation and the need but once politicians get a taste of the power they can't give it up. It's like a drug to them. Who was it that said "government should never get so big that you can't drag it to the bathroom and drown it in the tub"?
- severine 6y ago
  Grover Norquist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast Counterpoint: When you drown the government in the bathtub, people die > https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/10/when-you-drown-government-bathtub-people-die/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/10/when-you-...
  - 22c 6y ago
    How many more people dying are we talking about had the US not drowned it's government in the bathtub? Is the average life expectancy in the US this year that much lower than in, let's say South Korea, Singapore or Taiwan? How about the p90/p99? We won't really know until all of this is over.
sanderjd 6y ago
I don't understand this argument. It's not like governors want to take that mile. They have literally no incentive to shut down playgrounds (in fact, politically, the incentive is the opposite), besides uncertainty around what does and doesn't matter for fighting the epidemic in their state. It continues to look like we got lucky that kids aren't really affected much by this, so maybe it would have been fine to leave playgrounds open and keep having play dates. There were indications of that early on, but also a high risk it wouldn't pan out. Playgrounds are exactly the kind of thing that are problematic for the spread of this illness: high-touch surfaces of the kind that this thing sticks to. If there were playgrounds for adults, they would be the most important things to shut down (indeed the closest thing to that - bars and clubs - will probably be the very last things to reopen). On top of that, kids cough a lot and put their hands in their mouths and just generally spread their fluids around. This would all be really bad news except that it doesn't seem like kids spread this much, for whatever reason. But we just got lucky with that, and taking that risk would not have been smart at the beginning of this. Going back to my first point: I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. Why do governors want to lock people inside? What is the benefit? I share concerns over government breaches of privacy, because I don't want politicians abusing their trove of information on people to hang on to power. I don't see how this is similar to that at all. If politicians in the US were using this to cancel elections where they're on the ballot, then I'm with you, that's worrisome, but that's not what's going on here. These governors are accepting a political hit on the bet that it is going to keep more of their people alive. Lay out for me the argument for why you think these leaders want to take this mile having been given this inch; why do they want to close down state parks and playgrounds and cancel your playdates? What do you claim is in it for them?
- aws200 6y ago
  I think politicians do have an incentive to lock down as much as possible. It appeals to their ego to do something authoritarian, and the power balance shifts from voters feeling free to voters anxiously hanging on the lips of politicians to find out when their new masters will allow them to go out again. There very powerful psychological forces at play here, people are literally trained like dogs in these situations. As an example, in Germany the CDU approval ratings shot up during the crisis, people apparently have Stockholm syndrome.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    This is very very thin when balanced against putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and making some other very large number of people homeschool teachers at the same time they are full time employed. I am deeply skeptical that there is any governor in the US who thinks this is great politics. I really think they're just trying to do the best thing for their people. Recognition of this is why you see their approval ratings up.
    - aksl 6y ago
      I cannot comment on the US, because I don't live there. In Germany, however: Information flow was poor and deceptive: 1) First, actual masks are purportedly useless, now homemade toy masks are mandatory. 2) While the population was locked in and many people lost their jobs, the government health authorities could not be bothered to report new cases in the weekend. Of course one cannot force a civil "servant" to work. Work is for the plebs and civil "servants" have job security as long as the ECB can print money. 3) There is no effort to determine if for example supermarket workers have a higher number of cases. They are in contact with hundreds of people every day. Zero information. 4) Actual antibody studies are lagging and take an extraordinary amount of time. Now the economy is down, bailouts for the rich will happen, the politicians, civil "servants" and state television parasites are secure and the general working population is screwed. Same as in 2008.
servercobra 6y ago
I'm curious what measures you considered draconian?

chasd00 6y ago

We saw the same thing with the patriot act and the post-9/11 world. Give an inch, they take a mile. I understand the situation and the need but once politicians get a taste of the power they can't give it up. It's like a drug to them. Who was it that said "government should never get so big that you can't drag it to the bathroom and drown it in the tub"?

severine 6y ago
Grover Norquist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast Counterpoint: When you drown the government in the bathtub, people die > https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/10/when-you-drown-government-bathtub-people-die/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/10/when-you-...
- 22c 6y ago
  How many more people dying are we talking about had the US not drowned it's government in the bathtub? Is the average life expectancy in the US this year that much lower than in, let's say South Korea, Singapore or Taiwan? How about the p90/p99? We won't really know until all of this is over.

sanderjd 6y ago

I don't understand this argument. It's not like governors want to take that mile. They have literally no incentive to shut down playgrounds (in fact, politically, the incentive is the opposite), besides uncertainty around what does and doesn't matter for fighting the epidemic in their state. It continues to look like we got lucky that kids aren't really affected much by this, so maybe it would have been fine to leave playgrounds open and keep having play dates. There were indications of that early on, but also a high risk it wouldn't pan out. Playgrounds are exactly the kind of thing that are problematic for the spread of this illness: high-touch surfaces of the kind that this thing sticks to. If there were playgrounds for adults, they would be the most important things to shut down (indeed the closest thing to that - bars and clubs - will probably be the very last things to reopen). On top of that, kids cough a lot and put their hands in their mouths and just generally spread their fluids around. This would all be really bad news except that it doesn't seem like kids spread this much, for whatever reason. But we just got lucky with that, and taking that risk would not have been smart at the beginning of this. Going back to my first point: I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. Why do governors want to lock people inside? What is the benefit? I share concerns over government breaches of privacy, because I don't want politicians abusing their trove of information on people to hang on to power. I don't see how this is similar to that at all. If politicians in the US were using this to cancel elections where they're on the ballot, then I'm with you, that's worrisome, but that's not what's going on here. These governors are accepting a political hit on the bet that it is going to keep more of their people alive. Lay out for me the argument for why you think these leaders want to take this mile having been given this inch; why do they want to close down state parks and playgrounds and cancel your playdates? What do you claim is in it for them?

aws200 6y ago
I think politicians do have an incentive to lock down as much as possible. It appeals to their ego to do something authoritarian, and the power balance shifts from voters feeling free to voters anxiously hanging on the lips of politicians to find out when their new masters will allow them to go out again. There very powerful psychological forces at play here, people are literally trained like dogs in these situations. As an example, in Germany the CDU approval ratings shot up during the crisis, people apparently have Stockholm syndrome.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  This is very very thin when balanced against putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and making some other very large number of people homeschool teachers at the same time they are full time employed. I am deeply skeptical that there is any governor in the US who thinks this is great politics. I really think they're just trying to do the best thing for their people. Recognition of this is why you see their approval ratings up.
  - aksl 6y ago
    I cannot comment on the US, because I don't live there. In Germany, however: Information flow was poor and deceptive: 1) First, actual masks are purportedly useless, now homemade toy masks are mandatory. 2) While the population was locked in and many people lost their jobs, the government health authorities could not be bothered to report new cases in the weekend. Of course one cannot force a civil "servant" to work. Work is for the plebs and civil "servants" have job security as long as the ECB can print money. 3) There is no effort to determine if for example supermarket workers have a higher number of cases. They are in contact with hundreds of people every day. Zero information. 4) Actual antibody studies are lagging and take an extraordinary amount of time. Now the economy is down, bailouts for the rich will happen, the politicians, civil "servants" and state television parasites are secure and the general working population is screwed. Same as in 2008.

servercobra 6y ago

I'm curious what measures you considered draconian?