Which is better? If it will save one life, or it's for the greater good.

I wrote the following over a month ago, but just decided to post it.
---

Which is better: “If it saves just one life” or “It’s for the greater good”?

Both statements are used by politicians at all levels to promote or advance some restriction, regulation, or piece of legislation.

The talking points are usually those which just about everyone agrees on. The focus or emphasis is on the good that can be accomplished.

There is a problem, though, when someone objects. That person is instantly labeled by the supporters as being against whatever “good” is being promoted. Most of the time objectors are not against the good than can come, but they are against the details behind the “good” parts, the “talking points” pushed by politicians and the media. Often the everyday supporters don’t know the specifics and they trust the politicians to be doing what is good for everyone.

Take, for example, social distancing and stay-at-home orders that extend for unreasonable or unspecified time periods.

What is the main purpose behind these orders?

In our current environment, these orders are to reduce the spread, flatten the curve, of COVID-19. If anyone believes these orders are going to stop COVID-19 from spreading they are severely mistaken or living in ignorance. The hope is not as many people will get severely sick (requiring hospitalization) at the same time so the healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed. And social distancing does help with that. I’m not convinced stay at home orders are as effective as they make people more fearful. People will argue that with fewer people out and about there are fewer opportunities to come in contact with or spread the illness. While this is true, if everyone is social distancing would it matter how many people are outside?

How do stay-at-home orders help, other than being a mandated form of long-distance social distancing? Well, they reduce the number of cars on the road and that is helpful. But unless the pathogen remains airborne for a long time and can spread great distances a stay-at-home order really isn’t much more effective than practicing good social distancing and hygiene.

Think about it. If people are social distancing, and practicing good hygiene (thoroughly washing hands and not touching the face, particularly nose, eyes, or mouth), would it not be just as effective at reducing the spread of most diseases?

Regarding COVID-19, droplets from those who are infected, like from coughs or sneezes, are what seem to be causing the most spread. And these droplets are most likely spread within a 3-foot distance and sometimes up to 6 feet. In rare instances it may be further. Face masks on those who have the disease, or who may have any illness, are great additional protection for others if the infected person must be among others.

On a side note, social distancing orders would be a great cover to restrict people from gathering where there may be concern about protests or rebellion. A step towards that direction is encouraging people to report violators of social distancing or stay-at-home orders to authorities. Those reporting are often regarded as heroes and protecting society. In the near future, will these people be rewarded? Sounds kind of like the Chinese government surveillance system on their citizens, and the encouragement of reporting those who don’t comply. It’s my understanding that the Chinese have a credit-like system with a social acceptance component where if you get reported your score is hit and the person who reports you gets rewarded. Kind of in the Nazi era where children were incentivized to report on their parents or other adults.

Other than social distancing, why are healthy people being restricted, and in some places prohibited, from exercising their right to go about life as they want? The main talking point is because there are many asymptomatic people and “we” don’t want someone to unknowingly infect someone else, and possibly get them sick enough to die. We’ve never had government-issued restrictions on our freedoms, like stay-at-home orders, to protect others from just getting sick. The risk and threat of death is what is being politicized, but that risk isn’t even for a majority of the population, although watching the news leads many to believe otherwise.

Think about that for a minute. Even though you are healthy and have no symptoms of being ill, you can’t go out, except for essentials, because you might get someone else sick. Seems a little draconian.

Of course, the other side is you need to stay home so you don’t get infected yourself. I think that’s a good benefit, although social distancing and good hygiene, as well as keeping healthy, are effective as well.

So, the government is stepping in to protect you from potentially hurting someone else and to protect you from getting sick. Oh, and to help protect the more vulnerable of our population everyone needs to stay home.

Okay. That sounds a little extreme. Kind of reminds me of the movie Minority Report, where people are arrested because they will commit a crime in the future. The only difference is we are in a limited form of house arrest

Or, and this may sound extreme but it’s the same idea, how about the government restricts you from going out, except for essentials, because you might have mental illness, snap, and kill somebody.

Or, you can’t go out of your home because you might hit someone with your car and injure or kill them. And, if you go out, you might get hit by a car and get injured or killed. So, the best way to keep you and everyone else safe is for everyone to stay home. Except for government-determined “essential” businesses.

How many people are killed each year by cars? Or at least were, we’ll probably have a decrease this year with so many people being forced to stay home. Should we ban driving cars? But it’s the driver, not the car (except in a truly driverless vehicle), who causes the injury or death. So, there are ways to attempt to mitigate the driver problem through testing and licensing, with driving privilege restrictions on those who may not be as safe.

Why can’t the politicians issue a no smoking or vaping order? That would save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of illness. It would also prevent a lot of by-products from affecting those who are not choosing to use the product.

What about a no alcohol order? That would certainly save lots of lives and keep people from getting hurt, everywhere from drunk drivers to physical abuse in the home. The nation tried a no alcohol order, the prohibition period, but alcohol went behind the law and the nation gave up before it really could’ve gained traction and been successful. I think it needed another 20 years before the public mindset and habits could’ve been changed sufficiently to make it a success.

The liberals want to ban guns, claiming that would save lives. But, without going into Constitutional rights, the difference is guns are used as a tool to perform an action, kind of like cars or pressure cookers being used to kill someone. Banning guns will just cause those who want a tool to perform a crime, or suicide, to look for other tools to do the deed. Additionally, alcohol, smoking, drugs are all taken into the person and create/cause physiological change. These substances can alter and/or affect the physical, emotional, and/or mental state and affect the person’s health, decision-making, awareness, and other factors.

Using chemical substances while committing a crime or violating the rights of others is not the same as using a gun. To make the comparison would be like saying the smoker kills someone by stabbing them with the cigarette butt. Or the alcoholic kills someone with the can of beer. If either case did happen, would the liberals be calling for a ban on either item since they are now classified as “assault weapons”? You know they wouldn’t. And if a ban did happen, it doesn’t address the problem. Those with substance abuse issues would use another tool to get their “fix”. To help mitigate the misuse and abuse, harmful substances are more strictly regulated and restricted, and help is needed for those with dependency issues.

Restricting and regulating guns in the same way was as chemical substances is not the answer. First the right is protected by the Constitution. But there’s a big difference. Gun owners are not impaired like those under the influence of a chemical substance. Those who use guns, or any other tool, to commit a crime or infringe on the rights of others, have other issues that need to be addressed. Taking away guns or increasing restrictions and regulations (including increased taxation on guns and ammunition) for everyone doesn’t address the issues.

Anyway, I digress.

There are some legitimate reasons for social distancing and, to a lesser extent, stay-at-home orders. And there are some politicians who are issuing these orders on good faith and who believe the orders are best.

But there are many people who want to control others, who seek for power and authority. These people are attracted to positions such as are found in politics. They know how to manipulate and control others, to use others, and make people dependent on them. They thrive on power and the ability to influence others. Stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other measures that restrict or regulate the ability of everyday, normal citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights and freedoms are perfect opportunities for these politicians to extend their reach of control, power, and influence. Under the socially acceptable reasons of a virus scare, and through manipulation in the media to amp-up the fear, these measures can be quickly and easily pushed through, and extended as “needed” either because its for the “greater good” or it will “save just one life.”

Now, let me be clear, I am a supporter of social distancing. Being an introvert I’m not too keen on close contact with strangers. On a more serious note, there are reports that social distancing is having an impact on “flattening the curve” of the infection rate. I haven’t heard the same about stay-at-home orders, except that these orders are a government imposed long-distance social distancing. But I believe socially responsible citizens, using social distances and sanitation measures, would be about as effective as a stay-at-home order, and it wouldn’t kill the economy.

I also believe COVID-19 is a serious disease. For most people, it isn’t much worse than a cold or flu. But it is potentially life-threatening for certain populations in our society, like the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Those populations need to be protected. But I believe we can protect the more vulnerable without infringing on and restricting the rights of the majority.

Our society has a problem with illness in general. Most of us feel like we aren’t allowed, or that we cannot, be sick without consequence. Many people are very limited in the amount of sick leave they can take, and many are afraid to use too much sick leave. They might be afraid to lose their job if they use sick leave, or fear being sick will impact their pay or performance or chance for promotion. And a lot of people don’t even have any sick leave, so taking a sick day means they don’t get paid for that day.

Public schools are terrible with their limiting attendance/tardy policies. Kids can’t take more than a limited number of parent-excused days off. In our school district that limit is 5 days per quarter. So, if a child gets really sick, like with the flu, they can’t just stay home for more than 5 days without getting a doctor’s note to excuse the absence. And if the child gets another illness during the quarter, where the absences beyond 5 become unexcused, the parent must spend money to get a doctor’s note or risk having the child get unexcused absences and the threat of truancy. It doesn’t matter if the parent knows the child is sick and should just stay home, to avoid the unexcused absences money must be spent, and other people get exposed at the doctor’s office.

And because many parents have limited or no sick days, and in many families both parents work or in single parent families the only parent is usually working, the child is sent to school, if the child isn’t so sick he/she must stay home. Of course, this exposes others, but it’s the result of our society being intolerant of illness and taking time off to be sick and to recover.

How effective are stay-at-home orders?

I’ve already mentioned this, but these orders are just a government mandated long-distance form of social distancing. I believe they do little more than social distancing and good hygiene to curb the spread of an illness.

But stay-at-home orders are great at devasting an economy.

Along with stay-at-home orders have come orders to close “non-essential” businesses. Who defines “non-essential?” A business is essential to anyone who relies on it for an income. It’s essential that everyone who can work does work.

What happens when people can’t go to work and can’t earn an income? They starve. They lose their housing. Depression, anxiety, stress might set in. And often it isn’t just one person affected but an entire family.

This is where the government steps in to “save the day” by giving handouts and providing programs. I believe one of the government’s functions is to provide safety nets to the vulnerable. The problem is government programs are usually more than safety nets. The programs and handouts create dependence and reliance on the government. I know there are those who will argue this, but if these programs aren’t designed to keep people in then why are there so many people who could work but don’t. The programs do little, if anything, to really help people get back on their feet and become self-reliant and independent again.

Why is that?

Part of the reason is because the bigger government becomes the more inefficient and less effective if becomes. And the more detached from the people it becomes, and they (those in government) forget the government’s money is money taken from the people (through taxes, fees, etc.). Often programs get more money with more people in the program, so there may be little incentive to move people out of the program.

Another reason. Remember those who seek to increase their power, control, and influence? Well, government programs—whether they are in the form of money, “free” healthcare, “free” education, or any other public welfare program—are designed to increase dependence and reliance on the government. That means those in government, the politicians, can increase their power, control, and influence and continue to remain in their positions. Citizens who have become reliant on the various programs, and those who believe the “good” “talking points” about the programs, begin to feel entitled and that they deserve more, often because of what the politicians have said and promised to them.

All of those who have become dependent and reliant on government programs, lose their independence and ability to provide for themselves and their families. They become imprisoned without realizing it. And many don’t want to discover it because they don’t want the responsibility and accountability of providing for themselves or their families. They want others, like the government, to take care of all their needs, and even wants.

Those people who have become increasingly reliant and dependent on the government often look to their politicians to continue their programs, freebies, handouts, etc. And politicians love to promise and give away things (especially if those things are from the taxpayers) if it will influence their constituents and increase the politician’s power and control.

Those who believe the “good” “talking points” are often blind or ignorant of the specifics and feel that everyone is deserving and entitled to certain “rights.” They believe that throwing more money or free aid or more programs will solve the problems. They can’t, or won’t, believe that creating independent, self-reliant families is better for the country and that more government isn’t the answer.

And while I’m near the subject of government programs “spreading the wealth” doesn’t improve financial conditions. Taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor doesn’t solve problems. Those who are used to spending money will just spend it. Those who understand and use money appropriately will gain it. If people aren’t taught how to use properly money, including saving, investing, and spending reduction, then in a short time there will once again be poor and rich.

A big problem that isn’t addressed with “spreading the wealth” is people don’t learn to appreciate money. They become entitled and feel like they deserve as much as others, even if they did or gave nothing of value in exchange for the money.

In our world, money is one of the incentives for taking on risk and innovation. When people have their money taken away, just to have the government give it to those who don’t earn it, then it will stifle the economy. Fewer people will take the risk to truly innovate and create new technology because they will have lost a big motivation to do so. As much as it would be great if everyone were altruistic, the reality is in our world most people are not.

There are those who seem to be glad the economy has crashed, because it has affected the rich. But they forget that jobs aren’t magically created from nowhere. Most people need companies, organizations, and businesses of all sizes and types to hire them. And who builds these companies? Those who have access to the capital (the money) and are willing to take the risk.

I see some benefits from the COVID-19, and even from the stay-at-home orders.

First, I’m hoping to see more liberal sick leave policies go into place for workplaces and schools. We need to let people be sick and give them time to recover. Even if that includes some absolute sick days, where no work is expected, and maybe some work-at-home days where people can still be at home to work but not expose others while they’re continuing to recover.

Second, with all the increased emphasis on thoroughly washing hands, social distancing, and improved cleanliness and hygiene, I’m hoping to see a reduction in the severe colds and flus that come around. On the downside, because of the reduced exposure and transmission, pathogens may begin to mutate and become more virulent in order to survive. This means we cannot let our guard down with regards to hygiene.

For many, stay-at-home orders have helped them to re-evaluate what is important in their lives. Many are spending more time with the families. A lot of parents are coming to appreciate more what teachers try to do every day at school.

I also see some big warnings.

First, there is a lot of hype and desire for a vaccine. Some people mistakenly believe a vaccine will make them immune to getting the virus. If the vaccine is actually safe and somewhat effective—something that cannot happen in 18-24 months as there is simply insufficient time for thorough safety testing and analysis—there is never a guarantee you won’t get the virus the vaccine is designed to protect you against.

Big case in point, the yearly flu vaccine. Even the Mayo clinic has posted that studies show the flu vaccine is only “about 50-60% effective for healthy adults between 18 and 64 years old” (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/flu/in-depth/flu-shots/art-20048000) and it’s sometimes less effective. That’s for a vaccine that has been worked on since the middle of the 20^th century.

Did you note something interesting about the effectiveness for the flu vaccine?

What population does the COVD-19 really threaten? Older adults and those who have underlying health conditions (in other words those who aren’t healthy). The majority of those who get COVID-19 are either asymptomatic or they may experience an illness like a bad cold or the flu. Essentially COVID-19 is really a threat to those who are most vulnerable to the flu.

I am not anti-vaccine, but I am cautious. I know some are effective. But there are others which are not. And some might be hazardous to the health. It would be best for the people if true long-term, double-blind, non-pharmaceutical funded studies were made and publicly, and freely, released. But, there’s big money in the drug industry, so I have my suspicions about how effective some vaccines are, especially those which are quickly developed, have minimal data and no long-term effects and effectiveness studies, and are pushed and promoted. And these companies are providing every type of legal consideration (including monetary) they can to those who will help promote their vaccines, as well as other drugs. These companies are not in the charity business and they want to make big profits for their shareholders.  

Do you really believe an effective vaccine can be made in less than two years for a virus that scientists didn’t even know about a year ago? I don’t. I probably wouldn’t even consider it until it’s been tested and studied for several years. Add to that the various strains that will mutate.

Yet many people are so fearful of the COVID-19 that they are willing to stake their lives and health on a vaccine that, when it becomes available, will still essentially be experimental for a virus that is still relatively new. All for the promise—which has no substantial or quantitative proof—that they can return to their normal lives. All because they want to avoid an illness that for most wouldn’t be worse than a bad cold or a flu, if they even show any symptoms. The only reasonable argument for getting the vaccine would be for the remote possibility that it might keep the person from getting someone else sick, like an elderly parent. But without the time and data to show the effectiveness of the vaccine, all they are getting is an experimental hope, without a guarantee of real safety or effectiveness. Of course, no vaccine is 100% safe and effective, and if you belief they are, you haven’t read the warnings.

What’s concerning is many people want to force vaccines on everyone, even though the FDA and CDC will never guarantee vaccines are 100% safe and effective. Forcing anything on people violates freedom of choice. And if something isn’t proven to be completely safe and harmless it has the potential to cause harm. So, anyone who forces a vaccine, without knowing if it’s completely harmless for the individual, is potentially harming that person. That is why it needs to be the person’s choice, so the individual has the accountability and responsibility.

But many people don’t want to allow others to choose. These people believe they are “right”, and others are “wrong,” and they want to force their “right” on others. The problem with those who want to force things on others is either they want to control others, or they believe the fearmongering promoted by those in power. If they believe the rhetoric of the talking heads and those in positions of power and authority, then they will believe “it’s for the greater good” and they ignore what is good for the individual, and whether it might affect that person’s health and life. This doesn’t just apply to vaccines, but to anything that pertains to our freedoms and our right to exercise those liberties.

We live in a magic-pill, get-it-now society, where we want things quick and easy. Many people are willing to go to great lengths to avoid whatever pain and work they can. They want to lose weight quickly. They want to get rich quick. They want but they don’t want to do the work. They flock to those who promise protection and safety, because they don’t want the risk of someone choosing to misuse or abuse their rights. This is what’s scary, many people are willing to give up their freedom for that promise because they don’t value freedom. Guaranteed protection and safety, even though they are an illusion, are more important than the freedom to exercise our rights. When the next fear takes hold of the hearts of the citizens, more promises are made for safety and protection, and more freedoms are given up freely in exchange for that illusion. The illusion of protection and safety means you have no freedom, and, in time, you will probably learn to fear those who have taken your freedom.

And therein lies the second warning. Freedom is risk and our freedom is at risk.

To live in a free society means there are risks. We can choose to fear those risks or do what we can to mitigate against them. There are those who will abuse their freedom and sometimes that abuse will negatively affect others. But we don’t limit and restrict everyone’s freedoms and rights just out of fear. Freedom means you recognize there will be people who make bad choices, but that is their right. Freedom means good, just laws are enacted and those who use their freedom and rights to negatively affect someone else are judged and punished according to the law.

Freedom is at risk because law abiding citizens are being restricted in what they should be able to freely do and choose to do.

Freedom is at risk because citizens are essentially being restricted in their rights because of what “might” happen.

Freedom is at risk because politicians, and others, are promoting the disempowering fear of the situation and their solution to reduce or eliminate the fear.

Freedom is at risk because there are those in political power who are trying to twist and use the crisis to further enact restrictions, regulations, and legislation that affect Constitutional rights and liberties.

Freedom is at risk because there are members of Congress, governors, and those in various law enforcement agencies who want to throw out the Constitution and don’t really believe in the Constitutional rights.

Freedom is at risk because more and more citizens of the United States of America are buying into the socialist and communist agendas that are against liberties defined in the Constitution.

If we believe in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the “self-evident” truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, then we also believe that the government is instituted to “secure these rights” and derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed” “to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Laws, regulations, or restrictions that infringe on our Constitutional rights and liberties serve only those in power, are unjust, and make the people more dependent on the government.

Our Constitution and system of government was set up to both protect the rights and liberties of the individual—the one person—as well as the majority. It is why there are three branches of government and why checks and balances in power were established. It is also why elections were set up using an electoral college, so heavily populated places have a harder time influencing the entire country and imposing their desires on the lesser populated states. It is why we are a republic, a representative democracy, and not a full democracy. In a true democracy laws and rules are established for the “greater good” by the majority, and the rights of minorities are often treaded on.

In our representative government each state had an equal number of senators. Not one state has more or less, so the states with low population are equal to states with higher population numbers. However, recognizing the need to more adequately represent the population, each state also has members elected to the house of representatives based on the state’s population. It is because of this unique government that the rights of the minority as well as the majority can be considered and protected.

However, there are occasions when minority “rights” get pushed onto the majority, or when a majority treads on the rights of the minority. And by rights I’m referring to Constitutional rights. An instance in recent history was after terrorist attacks on 9-11 the Patriot Act was passed, and most people thought it was good, with the “talking points” focused on the good. But it turned out to have numerous infringements on Constitutional rights and liberties.

We are at another point where laws could be quickly enacted that on the surface, the “talking points” promoted by the politicians and supporters, looks to be “good” for the country and us as citizens. What kind of laws, restrictions, or regulations will be pushed as being good for the country, or needed to stop the spread of an illness, or promoted as protecting the greater good or to save a single life?

And this could happen at the state level as well, where legislators take advantage of the crisis to pass legislation.

Most politicians don’t like to be scrutinized. They want to vote on things that will help them retain or gain power, control, and influence. If they weren’t concerned with that, why is that most politicians politicize things and we constantly see the political gamesmanship going on…especially when elections are coming up. If politicians were more concerned about what is good for our country they wouldn’t care as much about being re-elected. They would do what is right, serve their country for a time, and return to normal society.

The best time to pass questionable laws—those which effectively restrict, limit, regulate, or even eliminate Constitutional rights and liberties--is during a crisis. The public’s attention is diverted from the politicians and once a bill is passed into law it becomes difficult to undo. Another perfect example is the Affordable Heath Care Act, which has great “talking points” but it’s terrible legislation and, once passed, it hasn’t been undone.

There are those who believe giving up rights and liberties for safety, security, and protection is worth it. But it is an illusion. People gave up their freedoms to supposed social liberators such as Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao Zedong. People have supported the promises of socialism or communism only to later discover they not only lost freedom, but their quality of life and opportunities were severely reduced.

As flawed as our government may be, it was set up in a way that best preserves and maintains freedoms and rights for all while limiting the abilities of those who might abuse their political power. Other forms of government have not given their citizens as much freedom and opportunity as we have in the United States. And, unlike the Constitutional Republic we have, other forms of government tend to consolidate power to a few, often to a ruling class or families, who continue to manipulate the system to maintain their power, influence, and control.

I believe most people want to do what is right, and most are willing to be a little uncomfortable if it helps, particularly when making overall conditions better for everyone.

But I think too many people are blindly trusting their elected officials to do what is best. And too many people only listen to the political talking points and don’t find out the specifics.

Here are two warning signs that your freedom is about to be infringed upon or taken from you. All these statements, and related ones, are used to manipulate people and to misdirect attention from the real intent of whatever law, restriction, regulation, etc. is being pushed.

First, if anyone, particularly a politician, uses something like “it’s worth it if it saves just one life” or “it’s for the greater good,” or variations of “it’s to protect our children” or “we need this to be safer,” it is a BIG RED FLAG that whatever is being touted needs deep investigation and analysis, and you should not accept it at face value or believe the talking points or “good” being pushed by politicians and the media.

Another warning sign your liberties and rights are going to be affected is if you bring up objections based on what you discover, you will probably be labeled as being against whatever “good” is being pushed. For example, you might be labeled as being against the safety of our children or not wanting to protect the vulnerable. But if enough object and begin to see the truth, politicians will often back down because it can threaten their reelection and power.

Another call to pause whatever is being pushed is when politicians say something like “it’s not perfect, but we need to do something.” No law is perfect, but this is their public acknowledgement that there are parts of the law that they want to include which really aren’t good for the rights and liberties of the people. This statement is made to get people to believe the bad parts will be changed. However, they won’t tell you what parts might be questionable. Here’s my question, if they know there are undesirable parts, why can’t they be changed before the bill is passed? They don’t really want to change it and they want the people to believe something is getting done. The truth is statements like “it’s not perfect,” “we need to do something,” or “we can change it later” are ways to misdirect people, to put them “off the scent”, that something is not right with the legislation. It’s a way to placate the people into believing the politicians are doing what is best for the people.

Remember what Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Our freedoms are at risk by those who do not want a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” They want to control the people. They want power and authority over the people. They do not want to be beholden to the people in any way. They want the opposite. And the only way for them to fully gain the power they seek is to continue to restrict, regulate, limit, and eventually eliminate the liberties and rights of the Constitution. They will make it look like, and work hard to convince everyone, it’s “for the greater good” or it’s needed “to save just one life it’s worth it.” And, they will not let any good crisis go to waste. Yes, some good legislation can come out of a crisis, but there are often others with less than noble intentions tucked in among the good.