To protect health safety and public welfare

[Curious George]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

 

[Heyo]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

I think it depends on the social contract a government has with its people. A "small government" would leave most decisions and responsibility to the people, somewhat like Sweden did. A "big government" would enforce radical measures, like China (eventually) did.
The success of the methods will depend on how much the public is willing and able to bear the responsibility, i.e. how much they agree on the social contract.
In an ideal society an expert panel would inform about a health threat and recommend actions - and the public would follow the recommended actions. In a functioning society with less than ideal people, the majority would render some of their power to a competent government to deal with those troublemakers and the majority would follow the measures dictated by the government.

 

[Curious George]

I think it depends on the social contract a government has with its people. A "small government" would leave most decisions and responsibility to the people, somewhat like Sweden did. A "big government" would enforce radical measures, like China (eventually) did.
The success of the methods will depend on how much the public is willing and able to bear the responsibility, i.e. how much they agree on the social contract.
In an ideal society an expert panel would inform about a health threat and recommend actions - and the public would follow the recommended actions. In a functioning society with less than ideal people, the majority would render some of their power to a competent government to deal with those troublemakers and the majority would follow the measures dictated by the government.

Hmm, so in context, if a panel of experts as would have been found in 1920s USA or Germany espoused that people with disabilities should be sterilized the public should comply and those that don't should be forced to comply?

 

[Heyo]

Hmm, so in context, if a panel of experts as would have been found in 1920s USA or Germany espoused that people with disabilities should be sterilized the public should comply and those that don't should be forced to comply?

Yes, as that was the expert, majority and judicial position of the time. It was, not long after, found that that position was wrong, scientifically and morally. New experts came to a different conclusion and the public followed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it depends on the social contract a government has with its people. A "small government" would leave most decisions and responsibility to the people, somewhat like Sweden did. A "big government" would enforce radical measures, like China (eventually) did.
The success of the methods will depend on how much the public is willing and able to bear the responsibility, i.e. how much they agree on the social contract.
In an ideal society an expert panel would inform about a health threat and recommend actions - and the public would follow the recommended actions. In a functioning society with less than ideal people, the majority would render some of their power to a competent government to deal with those troublemakers and the majority would follow the measures dictated by the government.

You're not suggesting Sweden is 'small government' are you?

 

[Heyo]

You're not suggesting Sweden is 'small government' are you?

It was concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. And it did work reasonably well in the beginning. They could do it because most Swedes are rational people and they followed the guidelines without them having to be mandatory. It would never have worked in a country where the people mistrust the government.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. And it did work reasonably well in the beginning. They could do it because most Swedes are rational people and they followed the guidelines without them having to be mandatory. It would never have worked in a country where the people mistrust the government.

I agree, but it's not possible to suggest Sweden is 'small government' if you're looking to make any points about government action.

Sweden is normally a 'big government', but one who has a reasonable level of trust from its populace. That point is important to remember. I have no idea what your thoughts of government is, but there is a common misconception by some in the US that big government by definition is untrustworthy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

I have the right to swing my arms as I please, so long as
they don't hit me neighbor in the snoot. The problem...
When my very presence could kill me neighbors, this
means some restrictions become useful in order to
maximum liberty for all.
Where to draw the line?
Tough call....but make it the minimum necessary for
as short & seldom as possible. I'm OK with sterilizing
neutering bees, dogs, bears, racoons, & rabbits though.

 

[February-Saturday]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

I actually decided to avoid the other thread about vaccines because these issues weren't addressed first, since these problems seriously affect our choices around vaccines.

My morality isn't normative. I'm a radical individualist, some might even pejoratively call me an egocentric extremist. I think less government control is normally a good thing. I don't believe that it's my "civic duty" to get vaccinated. I don't believe in duty at all, and I don't like the concept. You're responsible for your life and the consequences of your actions, but that doesn't mean other people get to tell you how to live it. Nobody should be allowed to force you to modify your body or put any substances inside of it; your ownership of your body is a higher priority than their wants or needs.

If you decide to modify yourself, or make any sort of sacrifice for others, that's laudable. It should be your choice, though. It's called charity, not a mugging.

I even opposed lockdown. I think local businesses should have been forced to give people the option to self-isolate, and incentivized to encourage it, but I think it was woefully unethical and immoral to force people to stay home. If I'm going to support any form of government at all, then it would be to protect liberty, not to destroy it as a means to an end. The consequences of not eroding free will don't even matter in my decision to prioritize liberty, I don't even think they're worth discussing. It's a devil's bargain. Trust me, I bargain with devils.

Personally, I would have voluntarily self-isolated. I still am, as restrictions in the US seem to be getting a bit looser. Once there's enough data on the coronavirus vaccine that we understand it's safe and the benefits outweigh the negative side-effects, I might get it. If you're the kind of person that feels entitled to force me to take experimental medicine right out the gate for your own benefit, though, then I would kindly ask you to re-assess that line of thought. I think it's dangerous. Productive for human welfare, maybe, but Mussolini made the trains run on time.

(Also, just as a note, the trains were notoriously late under Mussolini. Which I think actually makes the phrase better, because it shows a sort of political doublethink alongside illustrating the point that efficiency shouldn't always be prioritized, but that's just me.)

 

[Heyo]

I agree, but it's not possible to suggest Sweden is 'small government' if you're looking to make any points about government action.

Sweden is normally a 'big government', but one who has a reasonable level of trust from its populace. That point is important to remember. I have no idea what your thoughts of government is, but there is a common misconception by some in the US that big government by definition is untrustworthy.

I think the best government is no government - in an ideal world with ideal people. But I'm also a realist and I don't think that we could manage Anarchism on a large scale with the people we have.
The next best thing is democracy. Democracy is Anarchy with training wheels. At least it could be.
And the Swedes believe in democracy. They have very high voter turnouts and they have reason to trust that the government is working for them.
And Sweden has comparatively liberal laws. The government isn't intruding much into the personal lives of the people. The thing that makes many think of Sweden as "big government" are the high taxes. But the Swedes are happy to pay high taxes as long as they get a functioning and efficient government in return.

 

[Curious George]

I have the right to swing my arms as I please, so long as
they don't hit me neighbor in the snoot. The problem...
When my very presence could kill me neighbors, this
means some restrictions become useful in order to
maximum liberty for all.
Where to draw the line?
Tough call....but make it the minimum necessary for
as short & seldom as possible. I'm OK with sterilizing
neutering bees, dogs, bears, racoons, & rabbits though.

Could you, would you, better elaborate on what are "the minimum necessary" and "short and seldom as possible?"

 

[Curious George]

I actually decided to avoid the other thread about vaccines because these issues weren't addressed first, since these problems seriously affect our choices around vaccines.

My morality isn't normative. I'm a radical individualist, some might even pejoratively call me an egocentric extremist. I think less government control is normally a good thing. I don't believe that it's my "civic duty" to get vaccinated. I don't believe in duty at all, and I don't like the concept. You're responsible for your life and the consequences of your actions, but that doesn't mean other people get to tell you how to live it. Nobody should be allowed to force you to modify your body or put any substances inside of it; your ownership of your body is a higher priority than their wants or needs.

If you decide to modify yourself, or make any sort of sacrifice for others, that's laudable. It should be your choice, though. It's called charity, not a mugging.

I even opposed lockdown. I think local businesses should have been forced to give people the option to self-isolate, and incentivized to encourage it, but I think it was woefully unethical and immoral to force people to stay home. If I'm going to support any form of government at all, then it would be to protect liberty, not to destroy it as a means to an end. The consequences of not eroding free will don't even matter in my decision to prioritize liberty, I don't even think they're worth discussing. It's a devil's bargain. Trust me, I bargain with devils.

Personally, I would have voluntarily self-isolated. I still am, as restrictions in the US seem to be getting a bit looser. Once there's enough data on the coronavirus vaccine that we understand it's safe and the benefits outweigh the negative side-effects, I might get it. If you're the kind of person that feels entitled to force me to take experimental medicine right out the gate for your own benefit, though, then I would kindly ask you to re-assess that line of thought. I think it's dangerous. Productive for human welfare, maybe, but Mussolini made the trains run on time.

(Also, just as a note, the trains were notoriously late under Mussolini. Which I think actually makes the phrase better, because it shows a sort of political doublethink alongside illustrating the point that efficiency shouldn't always be prioritized, but that's just me.)

While I appreciate the philosophical tone of your response, would this extend to say littering? In theory requiring a person to not litter is requiring some sacrifice of time, energy and resources of a person. Is this too something that should be outside government authority?

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you, would you, better elaborate on what are "the minimum necessary" and "short and seldom as possible?"

It would be hard to cover the general case with more specifics.
But an example.....
Requiring social separation in public offers minimal
curbing of rights relative to the public health benefit.

 

[Curious George]

It would be hard to cover the general case with more specifics.
But an example.....
Requiring social separation in public offers minimal
curbing of rights relative to the public health benefit.

So you suggest a balancing act? Okay, so we have public health safety and welfare on one hand, what is on the other?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you suggest a balancing act? Okay, so we have public health safety and welfare on one hand, what is on the other?

Underlined....

Requiring social separation in public offers minimal
curbing of rights relative to the public health benefit.

 

[Curious George]

Underlined....

And what rights are those? Are they differently weighted?

 

[Revoltingest]

And what rights are those? Are they differently weighted?

There are many, eg, free association, travel.
Weighing them? I dunno.

 

[Curious George]

There are many, eg, free association, travel.
Weighing them? I dunno.

And on what right would we hinge something like a freedom from from sterilization? I understand rights are many? But, i am not so sure i agree with an i will articulate them as they come up approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

And on what right would we hinge something like a freedom from from sterilization?

Bodily autonomy.

 

[Curious George]

Bodily autonomy.

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." Buck v bell (1927).

Does the contrapositive then hold? That is does the principle that restrains the authority of the state from cutting the fallopian tubes also restrain the state from forcing vaccination?