[ExI] the science might be wrong

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:00 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> I don’t want to go into the particulars of the current pandemic. The
> reason for my question is that I am concerned that you are saying that EVEN
> IF there is good reason to believe that millions of lives will be saved by
> compulsory public health measures, these measures should, on principle, not
> be taken. Is that right, or is there some level of certainty about the
> efficacy of compulsory public health measures that would lead you to say
> they should be implemented?
>

### I don't know what Spike will say but let me interject my opinion:

I do not recognize any a priori moral principle that would enjoin a
legitimate government from imposing compulsory public health measures.
However, it is a trite observation that the government is a very poor way
of organizing people, and almost everything that governments currently do
can be achieved much better using alternative methods. So, before you ask
about the government's right to impose health measures, you should consider
the government's ability to achieve superior outcomes through such
measures, better outcomes than achievable using non-coercive means.

So think about it - suppose a government of honest men, who have not
repeatedly betrayed their constituents and have not squandered public
trust, tells the nation that going out and meeting people may result in
being infected with 90% chance of dying and the only sure way of avoiding
that is to avoid contact with others until it all blows over, in weeks or
months. Reasonable citizens, truthfully informed by their trustworthy
government about the number of cases and the case fatality rate, will make
important tradeoffs. Some, with a food stash will stay home. Some, for
example those who unfortunately do not have any food left at home, will
venture out, knowing the risk. Some idiots will go out and be merry. The
contagion will, for obvious reasons, affect the idiots predominantly, and
the unfortunates to some extent as well, but it will spare those who
quarantine themselves. The outcome of such well-informed and
self-controlled quarantine will be efficient- those who must break
quarantine will occasionally pay the price but overall they will be doing
better, for example by avoiding a lonely death of hunger in their
apartments. Idiots will weed themselves out of the population. The
well-prepared people will survive just fine.

Contrast that with compulsory quarantine imposed by a corrupt, depraved
regime, such as the current Chinese government. People who must break
quarantine to eat would be shot or would die of hunger. Idiots would live
on to do stupid things. The well-prepared would survive just fine. This is
a much less efficient outcome.

I know that many of us have that authoritarian impulse, to make a law, to
make them do what's needed, to smack the idiots down. Aside from certain
situations pertaining to group violence, it is a generally
counterproductive impulse. Self-regulation, where possible, is almost
always superior to top-down control.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210121/1cdb8402/attachment.htm>