4 ms·

When will people learn that government is always to be distrusted, most of all in times of crisis?

by _vbdg 6y ago

syshum 6y ago
Based on the rhetoric around this pandemic I would say never, because anyone even questioning any government policy is deemed to be a "murder" wanting to kill grandma by the masses for even suggesting that government power should be limited in anyway
- andybak 6y ago
  The debate has been tainted from both sides. Half the people I've ever engaged with because (for example) they expressed skepticism about mask efficacy rather rapidly turned out to also hold a host of much less reputable ideas - including borderline-qanon and plandemic bullshit. And the other half seen to think that premature certainty in the face of incomplete evidence makes them "scientific". The general level of rational debate about covid has been poor all round.
  - dx87 6y ago
    I don't really blame the people who question the efficacy of masks. Fauci said that they were deliberately downplaying how effective masks were because they didn't want people buying them up before healthcare personnel could get them. When the government admits they were lying, it shouldn't come as a suprise that people don't trust them.
  - guscost 6y ago
    It is not only a question of efficacy, it is also a question of whether allowing the incremental march toward tyranny to continue will lead to a worse outcome than not wearing the masks. “Deadly disease is always the bigger risk” is a naive and dangerous response, in my opinion. The epidemiologists seem to have nothing to say about comparative risks from delayed stroke treatments, cancer screenings, and heart bypasses, or indeed the risks from totalitarianism and outright war. Those refusing to wear masks are not all doing so because they are idiots who don’t listen to their betters, many are refusing because they have some actual perspective, unlike far too many in our professional class, it seems. For the record, I don’t give businesses a hard time over their mask rules, but I do like to put a piece of duct tape on the front of the mask to prompt people to think about it a little.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, it's unnerving how uncritically complicit people become to authority under (manufactured) fear. wearing masks in public is safety theater in most cases, because they're only effective at the margins where the atmospheric viral concentration is static enough and high enough to make them matter, and they're only potentially static & high enough in relatively rare places like the space between a dentist and a patient, not in a supermarket or a even a restaurant (though crowded bars likely cross that threshold). simple distancing is plenty mitigation in most public spaces. the 'rules' are broken and spread happens largely in (semi-)private spaces. instead of worrying about the trivialities of masks in public, a complicity signal, worry about social gatherings, a serious transmission vector. the etiquette and impetus of social gathering is diametrically opposed to mitigation, and that's the much thornier real, core issue that we try to elide by collectively diverting our attention to masks.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        We can thank the Slaughterhouse Cases for the disaster that is legal precedent in this area; the idea that a citizen's privileges and immunities don't limit the police powers of a state is ridiculous. This would almost certainly apply to localities as well (see the fact that they can't violate civil rights protections.) And yet, Justice Thomas is the lone voice in using this clause correctly, while the others largely prefer to leave it in its neutered state and distort the equal protection clause to fill gaps where necessary and create some bogus guarantee of fairness. See Timbs v. Indiana for an example of just how ridiculous this particular area has gotten. There is some hope that Gorsuch may come around to Thomas' view, as he wrote a similar concurrence. It is certainly a privilege of a citizen of the United States to run his business as normal. Police powers cannot overrule that. I fear that the precedent has already been set, however. The court system is too slow to work these things out while they're happening, and a ruling against an action is little solace once it's already happened. There must be significant punitive action against any state or municipality that attempts to do so. I'd like to see Dillon's Rule states threaten to dissolve and re-constitute any municipal government that instituted any lockdown order at all. It would also nice to see criminal prosecution of those who threatened citizens who simply wished to go about their lives in violation of the constitution. A government official who does something of that sort without authority is acting as an autocratic thug and any physical enforcement of such directives is assault and must be prosecuted as such.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Well the question for me is not about efficacy at all. The question for me is "Should a governor or president have the unilateral authority to declare X an "emergency" under which they now have unlimited authority to force businesses closed and people into their home for an indeterminate amount of time until they (the governor or president ) solely choose that an emergency is no longer present" A policy or law such as that is found in a dictatorship not in a free republic
na85 6y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. In this age of populism those of us who live in Commonwealth parliamentary democracies are quickly learning that the Westminster system we inherited from Britain is designed to be operated by a bunch of aristocrats who all largely adhere to the same social contract. I.e. Britain with its vaunted "unwritten constitution" only worked in the past because the people in power largely toed the line of convention. The system is built on mutual trust and cooperation. With the influx of populists and political outsiders or other non-establishment types who (correctly) recognize that convention isn't binding, we see that governmental systems choke and come to a halt. I'm Canadian and our government as an institution is just about wholly incompetent, being carried on the tired shoulders of a few upstanding individuals who are either blissfully ignorant of the massive corruption and idiocy around them, or else determined to plod on through the sea of mediocrity. Either way, as much as we like to rag on the US, one of the really nice things about their government is that it's designed with less inherent trust that ours. A majority government here in Canada is basically an elected dictatorship. It feels good to say you trust the government when they happen to wear the same colours as your preferred ideology but trusting government to do the right thing is a recipe for disappointment in my opinion.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>one of the really nice things about their government is that it's designed with less inherent trust that ours. The founders of the US trusted no one, not even themselves or the public. that is why there are layers upon layers of checks built in to the system to check no only the government but the people as well. Most of the problem in the US system today are down to erosion of that distrust combined with a strong desire to adopt more direct democracy...

When will people learn that government is always to be distrusted, most of all in times of crisis?

by _vbdg 6y ago

When will people learn that government is always to be distrusted, most of all in times of crisis?

Based on the rhetoric around this pandemic I would say never, because anyone even questioning any government policy is deemed to be a "murder" wanting to kill grandma by the masses for even suggesting that government power should be limited in anyway

andybak 6y ago
The debate has been tainted from both sides. Half the people I've ever engaged with because (for example) they expressed skepticism about mask efficacy rather rapidly turned out to also hold a host of much less reputable ideas - including borderline-qanon and plandemic bullshit. And the other half seen to think that premature certainty in the face of incomplete evidence makes them "scientific". The general level of rational debate about covid has been poor all round.
- dx87 6y ago
  I don't really blame the people who question the efficacy of masks. Fauci said that they were deliberately downplaying how effective masks were because they didn't want people buying them up before healthcare personnel could get them. When the government admits they were lying, it shouldn't come as a suprise that people don't trust them.
- guscost 6y ago
  It is not only a question of efficacy, it is also a question of whether allowing the incremental march toward tyranny to continue will lead to a worse outcome than not wearing the masks. “Deadly disease is always the bigger risk” is a naive and dangerous response, in my opinion. The epidemiologists seem to have nothing to say about comparative risks from delayed stroke treatments, cancer screenings, and heart bypasses, or indeed the risks from totalitarianism and outright war. Those refusing to wear masks are not all doing so because they are idiots who don’t listen to their betters, many are refusing because they have some actual perspective, unlike far too many in our professional class, it seems. For the record, I don’t give businesses a hard time over their mask rules, but I do like to put a piece of duct tape on the front of the mask to prompt people to think about it a little.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, it's unnerving how uncritically complicit people become to authority under (manufactured) fear. wearing masks in public is safety theater in most cases, because they're only effective at the margins where the atmospheric viral concentration is static enough and high enough to make them matter, and they're only potentially static & high enough in relatively rare places like the space between a dentist and a patient, not in a supermarket or a even a restaurant (though crowded bars likely cross that threshold). simple distancing is plenty mitigation in most public spaces. the 'rules' are broken and spread happens largely in (semi-)private spaces. instead of worrying about the trivialities of masks in public, a complicity signal, worry about social gatherings, a serious transmission vector. the etiquette and impetus of social gathering is diametrically opposed to mitigation, and that's the much thornier real, core issue that we try to elide by collectively diverting our attention to masks.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      We can thank the Slaughterhouse Cases for the disaster that is legal precedent in this area; the idea that a citizen's privileges and immunities don't limit the police powers of a state is ridiculous. This would almost certainly apply to localities as well (see the fact that they can't violate civil rights protections.) And yet, Justice Thomas is the lone voice in using this clause correctly, while the others largely prefer to leave it in its neutered state and distort the equal protection clause to fill gaps where necessary and create some bogus guarantee of fairness. See Timbs v. Indiana for an example of just how ridiculous this particular area has gotten. There is some hope that Gorsuch may come around to Thomas' view, as he wrote a similar concurrence. It is certainly a privilege of a citizen of the United States to run his business as normal. Police powers cannot overrule that. I fear that the precedent has already been set, however. The court system is too slow to work these things out while they're happening, and a ruling against an action is little solace once it's already happened. There must be significant punitive action against any state or municipality that attempts to do so. I'd like to see Dillon's Rule states threaten to dissolve and re-constitute any municipal government that instituted any lockdown order at all. It would also nice to see criminal prosecution of those who threatened citizens who simply wished to go about their lives in violation of the constitution. A government official who does something of that sort without authority is acting as an autocratic thug and any physical enforcement of such directives is assault and must be prosecuted as such.
- syshum 6y ago
  Well the question for me is not about efficacy at all. The question for me is "Should a governor or president have the unilateral authority to declare X an "emergency" under which they now have unlimited authority to force businesses closed and people into their home for an indeterminate amount of time until they (the governor or president ) solely choose that an emergency is no longer present" A policy or law such as that is found in a dictatorship not in a free republic

na85 6y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted. In this age of populism those of us who live in Commonwealth parliamentary democracies are quickly learning that the Westminster system we inherited from Britain is designed to be operated by a bunch of aristocrats who all largely adhere to the same social contract. I.e. Britain with its vaunted "unwritten constitution" only worked in the past because the people in power largely toed the line of convention. The system is built on mutual trust and cooperation. With the influx of populists and political outsiders or other non-establishment types who (correctly) recognize that convention isn't binding, we see that governmental systems choke and come to a halt. I'm Canadian and our government as an institution is just about wholly incompetent, being carried on the tired shoulders of a few upstanding individuals who are either blissfully ignorant of the massive corruption and idiocy around them, or else determined to plod on through the sea of mediocrity. Either way, as much as we like to rag on the US, one of the really nice things about their government is that it's designed with less inherent trust that ours. A majority government here in Canada is basically an elected dictatorship. It feels good to say you trust the government when they happen to wear the same colours as your preferred ideology but trusting government to do the right thing is a recipe for disappointment in my opinion.

syshum 6y ago
>>one of the really nice things about their government is that it's designed with less inherent trust that ours. The founders of the US trusted no one, not even themselves or the public. that is why there are layers upon layers of checks built in to the system to check no only the government but the people as well. Most of the problem in the US system today are down to erosion of that distrust combined with a strong desire to adopt more direct democracy...