Entry 2149, on 2021-08-31 at 12:15:44 (Rating 3, Comments)
Many people think I am a bit anti-authority and some might suggest my ideas extend beyond libertarianism to genuine anarchy. I would deny this. I am deeply skeptical of authority, and have a natural aversion to the idea of one person or group of people having authority over others, but I realise that complete freedom doesn't exist, and that the hierarchies we have built are probably here to stay, so I might as well get used to them.
In fact, there is good reason to think that these hierarchical structures are necessary, so maybe my point might be that we should try to reduce them to what is absolutely necessary, rather than making them as pervasive as they are.
Steven Pinker points out that the rise of democratic governments and policing has lead to more peaceful and fairer societies around the world, and many philosophers have advocated for strong but benign government, most notably Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan, which is an early and prominent discussion of social justice theory.
A key element in this work is this idea: that he sovereign exists because the majority has consented to his rule; the minority have agreed to abide by this arrangement and must then assent to the sovereign's actions.
I can clearly see why this might be seen as a necessary idea. Without everyone agreeing to a standardised way of acting, chaos might ensue. On the other hand, representing a majority view does not make a person right. I personally reserve the right to act against the government's demands, and the same extends to other lesser levels of control, such as management.
In the end, everyone must do what they think is right. If, for some people, "doing what's right" means following every rule and regulation exactly then I can accept that as a valid personal choice, but I prefer to evaluate every rule, regulation, and policy on a case by case basis, and follow the ones I think are right.
Of course, this might mean I occasionally run into trouble with authorities, but that is something I just have to accept. If I do something against a law and am prosecuted for it, then I have to accept that as being a normal function of society, but I don't have to accept it as being right.
Unfortunately the same argument is often made by sociopaths. They might say they are doing something against the rules, but which they maintain is still the right thing; something necessary but illegal. And that's the problem: many people who break laws are seen as heroes; especially those who are seeking greater social justice (real social justice I mean, not the fake form sought by many SJWs), but equally other people who do the same are just deluded.
So breaking rules and laws isn't inherently a good or a bad thing; it depends entirely on context and motivation.
A research project in the US showed that the average person breaks about 3 laws per day, without even realising it in most cases. I know I break many laws deliberately and others accidentally, but have never caused any harm as a result. So again, I have to claim that breaking laws is not a bad thing in itself, it depends completely on the details of the situation.
So let's to get to some specific examples, not surprisingly related to the current COVID epidemic.
The government here in New Zealand has implemented a quite severe lockdown at short notice to attempt to control an outbreak of the delta variant which hit Auckland a couple of weeks back. No doubt they think this is a reasonable and necessary social intervention which restricts the people's freedoms, but for good reasons.
Sure, that is an argument many would make, but there are counter-arguments as well, which I think also have a lot of merit. For example, how great a chance of the disease existing should be sufficient to impose a lockdown? There is zero evidence of it being in the South Island (of New Zealand) for example, but that area is locked down to the same level as other areas (such as Auckland) where there are known cases.
You might say this is a necessary precaution, but is it? Do I have to agree that the essentially arbitrary degree of caution the government has exhibited is fair and reasonable? Do I have to abide by a decision made by bureaucrats with highly biased perspectives? I don't think so.
At the very least we should have more flexibility. For example, what is the real harm in me taking my dogs to the beach for a walk? Not a lot, as far as I can see, but if I tried it there is a good chance I would be persecuted by Cindy's thugs... err, I mean the New Zealand police.
I have to say at this point, that I generally think the New Zealand police do a good job, and the rhetorical comment I made above shouldn't be taken too seriously, but it does make my point about my concern with the mindless execution of whatever laws are created at the whim of government bureaucrats.
I mean, who is in a better place to judge whether a walk on the beach or a walk down my local street represents a greater hazard? I can say, with little doubt, that I would be far more likely to spread the virus (assuming I had it, which I don't) to others while walking on a relatively busy street (which is allowed under lockdown rules) than on an almost deserted beach (which isn't).
But the government bureaucrats who created the rules don't know that. They don't know the details of my actions. And they're wrong. They're wrong, and their rules are wrong. I feel no obligation to follow such stupid rules, and I wish the police would just pretend they didn't notice people breaking laws in situations where they are doing nothing wrong.
In fact, things are even worse than that, because our government, lead by the "kind" Saint Cindy of Wellington (AKA prime minster, Jacinda Ardern) has created a system where you are encouraged to "dob in" your friends and neighbours if you perceive them to be doing anything against the current regime's anti-COVID dictates. Then Cindy's thugs might make a visit to interrogate you.
Again, I am having a bit of fun and exaggerating the issue above, but this does have an air of totalitarianism about it. After all, this is the exact method used by many oppressive regimes in the past. Note that I'm not saying our prime minister is Hitler... actually, she's more like Stalin! Do I need to repeat that I am having a bit of fun with my hyperbole here?
This little example of nastiness (despite the government's rhetoric promoting kindness) isn't a small thing either, because there have been about 12,000 reports made on this system so far. The only good thing is that there are so many, most are unlikely to be acted on.
So I intend to continue to follow the rules which suit me, and as much as is practical, ignore those which don't. Am I a bad person for doing this? I don't think so. Will I get into trouble as a result? Maybe. Am I right? Yes!
Comment 1 (6838) by Anonymous on 2021-08-31 at 17:02:34:
Do I have to abide by a decision made by bureaucrats with highly biased perspectives". Sigh... same out tired mantras... decisions MAY have been made by bureaucrats, but last time I checked every single expert epidemiologist agreed with everything that has happened. Are they wrong, and you are right?
No, you don't have to abide. But be prepared for the consequences (mandated by society) that result from your, hypothetical, selfish behaviour.
"Am I a bad person for doing this?". No, not necessarily bad , but probably selfish and self-centred.
Comment 2 (6839) by OJB on 2021-08-31 at 17:11:45:
They are right as far as their area of expertise is concerned, but there are bigger issues here which probably don't interest them. So yes, they are wrong and I am right. Did you see my example of why?
Yes, I said I expected consequences for my "selfish" behaviour. But I'm still right.
If I thought there was any chance that my actions could be harmful to others, I would reconsider. But they're not harmful. Quite the opposite.
Comment 3 (6840) by Anonymous on 2021-09-01 at 18:27:44:
Bigger issues? Do you mean the economy and by extension people's wellbeing and health? If so, health is the economy.
"But I'm still right" such blind over confidence... you know about people who don't know what they don't know, right?
Comment 4 (6841) by OJB on 2021-09-01 at 20:38:05:
I mean the economy, individual freedom, overall wellbeing, and many other issues. And no, health is not the economy. Isn't any of those other things either. Look up the definitions!
I know I could be wrong, just like everyone else. My comment about being "right" is more a rhetorical point, and a double-meaning with right meaning "correct" and "entitlement".
Did you see my example comparing walking on the street and a beach. How would you answer that?
Comment 5 (6842) by Anonymous on 2021-09-02 at 12:32:17:
It's not about walking on a street or a beach, it's about staying local. Walk on the beach if you live on the beach. Would the beach be deserted if everybody was allowed to walk on it? I think not. Don't know what street you live on but mine are practically deserted. Do you live in the city centre?
"economy, individual freedom, overall wellbeing". Don't be so literal as to think dictionary definitions describe what I was trying to say there. My point, as if you didn't know it, was that if a country's health and health system are compromised, all of those other elements of wellbeing will be compromised.
Comment 6 (6843) by Anonymous on 2021-09-02 at 12:38:12:
Sorry, I missed the section where you presented your solution to the Covid problem? Is it... everybody has freedom to be infected and infect others, like the UK? (today 207 dead from Covid and 35,000 new infections).
Comment 7 (6844) by OJB on 2021-09-02 at 13:56:41:
But that's the problem with rules created by people who have no idea how those rules will affect us. The street is far more used than the beach, both in lockdown and normally. I know this, and I know which is safer. Some idiot in Wellington doesn't.
Sure, health is an important factor which we should be considering. But we shouldn't ignore all the other factors. It's a very simplistic approach, and a very lazy one too. Many New Zealanders are sheeple, but there are limits.
I think we should have some restrictions, but they should be more carefully thought through, and we should have more flexibility in their interpretation. Lockdowns are a simplistic solution, which are appropriate in some situations, but we can't use them forever, as almost every other country has already found.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE