The Lesson of COVID-19: Don't Give Government More Power
The pandemic showed that America's founders were right to create a system of checks and balances that made it hard for leaders to easily have their way.

The great conservative thinker William F. Buckley in 1963 wrote that he would rather "live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." Buckley recognized the great "brainpower" among the university's faculty, but feared the "intellectual arrogance that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."
I thought of that oft-quoted line four years after the COVID-19 panic. It was a very real public health threat, so much so that it enabled Americans to transfer wide-ranging and largely unchecked powers to the experts. For two years, it was exactly as if Buckley's fears came true and we were ruled by the type of people found in the faculty lounge.
It's no secret that American universities are dominated by progressives, who don't typically accept the "common premise" of limited governance. A core principle of progressivism, dating to its early 20th century roots, is the rule by experts. Disinterested parties would reform, protect, and re-engineer society based on their superior knowledge. Although adherents of this worldview speak in the name of the People, they don't actually trust individuals to manage their own lives.
Looking back, COVID-19 shows the nation's founders—rather than intellectual social engineers—had it right. The founders created a system of checks and balances that made it hard for leaders to easily have their way. "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions," wrote James Madison. The pandemic stripped away those precautions, albeit (mostly) temporarily.
In fairness, the response to COVID by many ordinary Americans left much to be desired. Social media provided a megaphone for conspiracy theories and idiotic home remedies. Instead of acting responsibly by voluntarily embracing the best-known practices at the time, many Americans defied even the most sensible rules and acted out against store clerks and others. I was left disgusted by the edicts of our leaders and the behavior of many of my fellow citizens.
Nevertheless, the skeptics generally were correct. "The coronavirus shutdowns have created a dichotomy between those who tend to trust whatever the authorities say—and those who don't seem to trust any official information at all," I wrote in May 2020. "It's not even slightly conspiratorial, however, to question the forecasts, data and presuppositions of those officials who are driving these policies. They have shut down society, forced us to stay at home, driven businesses into bankruptcy, caused widespread misery, and suspended many civil liberties."
Yes, many of us told you so.
The experts and politicians touted the "science" even though that was really just a way of telling us to shut up and follow orders while they muddled their way through it. We've since learned that masks and plastic sneeze bars, lockdowns, school shutdowns, and the panoply of makeshift protections were, likely, of marginal value. Critics who questioned official death statistics were tarred as conspiratorialists. But even a 2023 Washington Post report found that officials seemed to be counting people who died "with" COVID rather than "from" it.
And don't get me started on how politicians reacted. Some of the initial emergency edicts were justifiable, but then governors realized they could ram through unrelated (or tangentially related) political priorities by invoking fear. One former Assembly member compiled a 123-page list of Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-related executive orders. The courts ultimately struck down a handful of them, but the governor certainly didn't let a good crisis go to waste.
The nation is still reeling from pandemic blowback. Inflation is soaring, sparked by supply chain disruptions and federal spending sprees that started with the shutdowns. Big cities such as San Francisco have hemorrhaged population as workers learned they no longer needed to commute into offices. Transit ridership plummeted, sparking yet another funding crisis. Large segments of the public have become more dependent on government handouts. Municipal budgets are in shambles. Anti-eviction edicts further screwed up our rental markets.
Many downtowns, such as Sacramento, have yet to recover from the lockdowns, as shuttered businesses—each reflecting a personal tragedy for their owners—remain boarded up. And don't get me started on the impact on education, especially for the poor. There's a lost generation of students, victimized by school systems that couldn't master distance learning—resulting dismal test scores and soaring absentee rates. We saw unions resist school re-openings because their priorities are workers, not students. Even some experts now research the resulting psychological harms.
I'm not saying that COVID didn't require a reasonable response, but by listening solely to the equivalent of progressive academics and ignoring the concerns of Buckley's proverbial first 2,000 names in the phone book, our government failed its people.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't remember giving them anything. It was taken, by force.
Under a declared emergency. Which was always the real problem. Every local and state government needs to eliminate or place strict limits on the ability to declare emergencies. I would say the same of the federal government, but the SCOTUS seems to be fine with it.
Oops.
I'm not saying that COVID didn't require a reasonable response,
Pussy. If it didn't require quarantine, it didn't require a response.
Bingo. Also, fuck this sentence: Yes, many of us told you so.
We told you, Greenhunt.
Well, it's nice of him to come around 4 years after the critical junction, though.
I guess it’s safe to talk about it now.
I always thought that a reasonable response would have been to ship as much as possible of the relatively healthy population age 16-26 to some kind of giant "pox party" for 3 weeks; just allowing the virus to spread freely though that group (where statistically a single medium-sized hospital should have been able to treat all of the severe cases which would be expected), which would have got the inevitable infection out of the way and created simultaneous natural immunity in a significant portion of the populace without endangering the high-risk older members of the population. The number of abortions which would have been demanded over the following 3-10 weeks would possibly have been staggering, though.
The WHO published data out of Wuhan from before the official pandemic was declared pointed strongly to the conclusion that the virus posed almost negligible danger to anyone under 30 or 40 years old and a high degree of risk to those over 65. Additionally, the fact that every other known strain of human coronavirus is transmitted through the air made the initial claims that this strain spread via surfaces (an assumption based on Covid being similar to the Flu), which should seem bizarre to me, as well as the idea that it might only have been spread via "droplets" similar to the Flu (at a time when every mention of the Flu was being denounced as "misinformation"
Alas the lying “Authorities” also screamed about a 2-4% IFR (infection fatality rate).
It was 0.2% – 0.4%. Basically the flu but trivial to almost all children, adolescents, and young adults.
And if you were under 50 and in even marginally decent health it was something like 0.00001%.
The only danger was the ~5% to the old and unhealthy. And that could have been handled without mandates or shutdowns.
For those under 25, the IFR was nowhere near 0.2%. By 2023 we had fewer than 2000 total deaths out of tens of millions of cases (CDC estimated that at least 75% of the population in that age range had been infected one or more times regardless of vax status). It’s more like an IFR of 0.001%, and all (or virtually all) of those had severe comorbidity conditions such as leukima or were immunosupressed for some reason. For school-age children, influenza is actually considerably more dangerous than Covid-19.
To get to the IFR 0f 0.2%, you need to be averaging in the over-65 age brackets, which have rates more like 2-5% depending on comorbidities (which are extremely common in the US population by that age if you count obesity and diabetes thanks to the “heart helthy diet” that was foisted on the public in the late 20th century).
Wow, so brave. Where the fuck were you with this message when the pandemic was happening? Oh, right, shoving power over others at the government to keep the bad virus away.
Death bed conversion?
Social media provided a megaphone for conspiracy theories and idiotic home remedies.
Lies! All the conspiracies have been proven correct! Every! Single! One!
I was left disgusted by the edicts of our leaders and the behavior of many of my fellow citizens.
Lies! Everyone at Reason praised the edicts! Every! Single! One!
did I do that right?
Facts changed! We were doing the best we could with the information we had! Any of you would've done the same!
Did I do it right?
Social media provided only social media. YOu do the same thing with guns, you think that if you take the gun away from the guy headed down to kill as many kids as he can that he will now want to join the church choir. There is no arguing with such pollyanna views of the world --- so I won't. Bye 🙂
It's spelled "imbecilic" views; sarc is a drunken imbecilic lying pile of lefty shit.
The conspiracy theories were the ones you pushed buddy. Vaccines stopped transmission. Masks worked. Etc.
No, you didn't do it right. You have to shame Reason writers without actually contradicting them to do it right. Also, idiotic home remedies are not the same thing as conspiracies, and even Reason second-guessers will see through that. In fact, though, all of the conspiracies HAVE been proven to be correct. The CDC did, in fact, fund dangerous gain-of-function research at Wuhan that had been banned previously in the United States. Fauci and his boss did, in fact, convene a group of panicking experts to prevent them from blowing the whistle on the lab-leak theory. Fauci did, indeed, lie to Congress and cover up the conspiracy. CDC did, actually, reverse pre-planning by generations of epidemiologists who recommended against lockdowns and major socioeconomic interventions in response to such pandemics.
It's as much blowing out to the extremes to joke about every one of these "conspiracy theories" being proved true as it is to say that all of them are still the domain of the paranoiacs.
Of the "top 10 " in that list, one (lab leak theory) has now been determined by many "official" channels to be the most likely explanation, and the idea that in many jurisdictions the counting of "covid deaths" was likely overly broad should be considered undeniable at this point.
The idea that the virus was originally a "bioweapon" delves into some very murky grey areas. Some of the grants which were originally sought related to GoF research on Coronavirus (including addition of "Furin Cleavage" genes) did apparently pass through DARPA's purview. The reality of biowarfare, though is that there's virtually no solid distinction between what constituted "offense" and what constitutes "defense"; anyone looking to use a virus to attack an enemy will need to be able to protect their own from the spread, and those only seeking to be able to defend against attacks need to be synthesizing the kinds of microbes which would be used in such attacks. Unless the people in charge are morons, there'd never be any kind of recoverable proof left behind to indicate malicious rather than defensive intent for any project involving both versions of research.
The extent to which the "pandemic was manipulated for political ends" is debatable, and largely subject to interpretation. The prolonged lockdowns in many "deep blue" areas, were arguably crucial in defeating trump in 2020 since a less depressed national economy (which would have been the case if CA, NY, and several other crucial states had re-opened to the same extent as TX and FL) would have helped the incumbent as well as damping the idea that the real problem was the President's failure in addressing the pandemic (which at that time was deemed to be the focus on vaccine development over mass-production of ventilators); while it's difficult to prove one motive over another, an interesting though experiment is to try to imagine that if the motivation were political, then would any of the actions by Dem State/Local leaders have been different and if so then how?
I always thought that the idea of Bill Gates using vaccines to inject "tracking chips" into the public was ludicrous. Any such chip make by Bill Gates would be Windows-based, and as such incapable of more than 20-30 hours of continuous "uptime". 2 days after the shot, your chip will have self-destructed anyway, and no more tracking...
Tie-ins to 5G and GMO's are the kind of lunatic double-whammy that could really only be accepted by people who consider Alex Jones to be inherently credible, or those who think he's so dangerous that it's necessary to silence him altogether.
“The idea that the virus was originally a “bioweapon” delves into some very murky grey areas.”
I seriously doubt that American officials would have farmed out “bioweapon” research to one of the most dangerous potential foreign enemies on the planet. The better explanation is that dangerous gain-of-function research gives you a better assessment of what is POSSIBLE for an enemy to accomplish and, simultaneously, a leg up on possible defenses should the need arise suddenly. Of course, Fauci was always a proponent based simply on the “all knowledge is good knowledge” principle that most scientists espouse. Having said that, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Wuhan was a safe choice in terms of their Level 4 containment tech or practices or that the oversight by the contractor was adequate. The subsequent coverup included that incompetence and banning the lab-leak theory was as much to prevent discovery of the incompetence of our contractor as it was to shift blame away from dangerous government malpractice.
Technically, the research being done was illegal in US-based labs, and there was also a ban in place against US Agencies funding research in China and a few other countries. The basis for the idea that it was "biowarfare" research is tied to a claim that applications to do nearly identical research was submitted to DARPA before it was submitted to NiH, but (at least officially) DARPA refused to fund the proposal; having it funded through a "white world" agency might have made an ironic "cover" for some kind of highly classified activity, though.
Someone cooked up the idea of having NIH provide a grant to EcoHealth Alliance to fund their research in order to create a cut-out to circumvent those laws. Not coincidentally, the first "official" refutation of the "Wuhan Lab Leak" hypothesis for the origin of the virus was a letter written and signed by the CEO of EcoHealth (Dr Zdrock). The idea that any contractor would be able to exercise significant "oversight" of a lab run by the CCP should have been considered laughable on its face (probably one of the reasons why Congress had prohibited use of US funding on research at that lab), and EcoHealth was sort of "thrown under the bus" in that they had their existing contracts revoked for "insufficient reporting", but was then awarded a fresh contract to start up some GoF research at facilities in Maylasia and one or more other countries about 6 weeks later (gotta love Federal procurement laws...).
For something like a novel strain of coronavirus, the research having been done strictly for "legitimate" medical knowledge is completely plausible, though since if the natural origin explanation is actually possible then it'd be better to be as prepared as possible for something like that to happen rather than to be flat-footed when it eventually does (since if it can happen, then at some point on a long enough timeline it will happen, and we'll have no control over when). For all of the things that Fauci got wrong in his career, it makes sense for someone in his position to believe that there's a benefit in learning as much as we can about as many diseases as we can.
Well first Nancy Pelosi screamed it was racist not to go to Chinese New Year, then it was racist not to lock down even though the "essential workers" getting exposure slanted more heavily nonwhite, and then it was racist to protest lockdowns and mandates but "healthy" antiracism to protest (in large gatherings simultaneously forbidden to everyone else) the inevitable fentanyl death of a common street thug. And Trump was mocked for foregoing a mask and they screamed about people deserving to die for not wearing slave muzzles or taking toxic injections.
And you want to claim it "wasn't political?" That's f**king laughable. The whole thing was the politics of division and control - as long as the swing states were hell and the propaganda media beat their drums, Trump couldn't win (and they STILL had to cheat in the corrupt swing state cities to stop him).
Ot obeying the whims of rich white liberal wine moms is racist.
Welcome to reality, buttwipe.
In fairness, the response to COVID by many ordinary Americans left much to be desired. Social media provided a megaphone for conspiracy theories and idiotic home remedies. Instead of acting responsibly by voluntarily embracing the best-known practices at the time, many Americans defied even the most sensible rules and acted out against store clerks and others.
There he is.
As soon as legal mandates were put in place, that kind of reaction became quite rational. At least for a healthy person, standing up for basic rights and refusing to be imposed upon like that or to participate in pointless ritual is more important than not getting sick. Heck, part of the reason I initially decided not to get vaccinated was so that I could refuse to if anyone tried to force it on me.
I wonder to what "sensible rules" Greenhut refers in that paragraph, as he gives no examples.
Like wearing a paper mask as you walk 15 feet into a restaurant, but you can take it off once you sit down?
Like sitting 2 barstools away from your buddy in a bar because the covid cooties can only travel 6 feet before they die?
There he is.
Yup. OMG! The patient has cured himself of TDS! Whoops, spoke too soon. He just conflated people using social media and taking horse paste for themselves, walking more, and getting Vitamin D with the people using social media and throwing bricks and milkshakes.
In reality, the Covid response probably fell victim to the overall cultural trend that was ongoing well before 2020, which was that every issue became politicized, and every question hinged on the position of Donny Jingles and whether someone were in the "MAGA" or the "#resistance" camp, and since virtually the entire policy-making class, at least in the larger-populated States had chosen a "team", the only places which were left to make somewhat sensible policies were rural areas where most people have never really cared much about what's happening in DC, being printed in the NYT, or broadcast on CNN.
Once trump refused to institute a protracted national closure, the die was cast for the coasts and for TX, and FL. Newsom almost immediately announced that the "15 days to stop the spread" would be extended to 60 days, then following the widely predicted "surge" in cases which followed the partial reopening (beaches were partially re-opened but sitting in one place or engaging in sports like volleyball or frisbee on them was prohibited, and some restaurants were allowed to offer indoor service with masking and distancing) re-closed many businesses and announced this time it would be "indefinite" which ended up lasting well into 2021 for some business types.
There is more ... much more to be said.
As we proceeded through the Covid engineered virus crisis we were constantly chastised to follow the science. I did not trust the "experts" but did trust science and researched the available science and studies myself. I looked at the available study information for the vaccines. I ultimately decided to take the jab.
However, now I find that those studies and now a large portion of research in general is fraudulent. Now I don't trust the "experts" and can't trust the "science" either.
Even if I do my own research and read the relevant studies, I am faced with the knowledge that the 70% of the studies are faked and I won't know for years (if at all) which ones those are.
So now I do the research and read the studies. Then I apply my "common sense - o - meter" and throw out the ones I feel skeptical about. (The risk here is confirmation bias)
So far my "common sense-o-meter" seems to be pretty good (but not flawless) at identifying the BS studies. Our systems are totally broken. As the old saying goes "That's no way to run a railroad".
What I will not do, is trust the "experts", most of whom seem to be nothing but corrupt shills on the take. (I'm talking about YOU, Anthony Fauchi)
One should ALWAYS listen to and consider the opinions of the experts. One should ALSO always take into account that the science speaks for itself if you know how to read it. There are traces to be detected by the lay public even in completely fraudulent artificial intelligence created research reports. It is one of the reasons why basic education is so important to democracy and a free republic; and also why a populace grown lazy from prosperity – a populace that cannot be bothered to inform itself skeptically about its government – will lose its rights and freedoms. Listening to expert scientists is not the same as listening to the reasons behind their opinions. Experts and scientists are just like the rest of us: they have human motivations that are not necessarily reasonable or in our best interests.
The problem with "listening to the Experts" and "following the data" in 2020 is that the "Experts" were increasingly divergent from the data; especially in the cases of Fauci and Walensky.
It became nakedly clear that Fauci had started to act at least as much in a political capacity as a scientific one during his testimony to Congress when after explaining that any "gathering" was dangerous and had the potential to spread the virus widely whether it was a sporting event or a religious observance, he balked at agreeing that a BLM demonstration would also fall within that categorization (it could be said that he was concerned about 1A violations, except that those would also have applied to religious gatherings as much as political ones).
Walensky was a little bit less openly political and a lot more espressly insane in her public-facing statements, and really should have been replaced the day after she used the phrases "speaking as a mother" and "sense of impending doom" during an official statement made in her capacity as Director of the CDC. In the months/years which followed that incident, she repeatedly made public assertions which were in direct oppposition to conclusions which were supported by the CDCs own infection data dashboard, and in one instance made a public statement which was in direct contradiction to the briefing her agency was giving to President Biden within the same hour. The less said the better about her complicity in pushing the (actual misinformation) that "if you get the shot, you can't get the virus" even after it was clear that the supposed "breakthrough" infections were far more the rule than the exception.
I never got so deep into anything that I'd have said "I did my own research", but all that was necessary to prove that Walensky (Biden's head of the CDC) was completely detached from reality was the data off the CDC "dashboard" website (even while they were apparently suppressing some of the most contradictory data, her blathering was almost always unsupported by it).
It should have been game-over for the authoritarian narriative the minute they tried to sensor the Great Barrington Declaration, and digitally "unperson" several of its key authors. If you'd asked every policy expert in the world who their "go to person" for advice on Pandemic response policy would be, probably 70-80% or more would have had Dr. Jay Battacharya in their top three; two years later, there was an organized effort to get him completely silenced on the internet because his recommendations failed to endorse their choice to try to emulate the CCP (as a means to produce the kind of results which even WHO was sure that China was fabricating thier claims of).
Let me help the author of this mediocre, lukewarm crap:
Those *we* accused of embracing inane conspiracies and embracing selfish and destructive skepticism were right all along. *We* were wrong and we need to embrace more skepticism in the face of government overreach even when *we* are scared.
It is common for politicians to cite “the will of the people” to justify their actions FOR “the people” but as used by Thomas Jefferson and Rousseau it is a dangerously vague concept. Progressivists frequently cite “threats to democracy” but in the context of majority rule it is also dangerously vague. Even worse, majority rule is mirrored in the abdication of rule by the majority, leaving a power vacuum filled by democrats. “The Will of the People” does not withstand much scrutiny when one drills down to the details – the nitty-gritty of day-to-day life in the republic. Shortly after citing the will of the people, Jefferson wrote that the two great enemies of the people were criminals and the government.
https://reason.com/2020/05/29/californias-covid-19-shutdown-was-driven-by-science-until-it-suddenly-wasnt/
Buckley recognized the great "brainpower" among the university's faculty
Maybe 50 years ago
'It's no secret that American universities are dominated by progressives, who don't typically accept the "common premise" of limited governance. A core principle of progressivism, dating to its early 20th century roots, is the rule by experts. Disinterested parties would reform, protect, and re-engineer society based on their superior knowledge. Although adherents of this worldview speak in the name of the People, they don't actually trust individuals to manage their own lives.'
Is this yet published as core platform on the DNC website?
" A core principle of progressivism, dating to its early 20th century roots, is the rule by experts."
Yet these "experts" live in an academic never-never land where common sense, logic and facts are ideas they do not understand or employ.
It is reasonable for academics and philosophers to question the notion of reality and explore fundamental questions of how we know what we think we know. It is NOT reasonable to extend those speculations and theorizing into the realm of practical politics and government authority. In the real world when you stub your toe on a rock and say, "Ouch!" the rock is real, your toe is real and you KNOW that a broken toe is real and resulted from impact governed by physical laws. That should be the basis for limited government authority, not theoretical discussions of philosophy.
'In fairness, the response to COVID by many ordinary Americans left much to be desired.'
Like the people who not only accepted draconian rule, but begged for more?
"and don't get me started..."
"and don't get me started..."
The line so nice, you had to write it twice?
Ostensibly you are a journalist, so yes, let's get you started.
"And don't get me started on how politicians reacted. Some of the initial emergency edicts were justifiable, but then governors realized they could ram through unrelated (or tangentially related) political priorities by invoking fear." Greenhut, you seem to leave out that 90% of those politicians including Governors were Democrats. Every example you cited was in a Democrat controlled area. Prove me wrong.
Mike DeWine (R) Ohio
Be said 90%.
I believe the fake COVID crisis was a dry run to see how the masses would react to oppression.
We failed the test miserably.
We allowed quacks like Fauci to scare us into submission and meekly allowed closet fascist governors to close down schools, businesses and place restrictions on us with impunity.
Maybe the next "crisis" the powers that be will go whole hog and launch their much coveted socialist slave state with all the trimmings like re-education camps, gulags and firing squads.
Watchoo mean 'we' white man?!
^Agree with this one. The little-by-little fascist governing has been going on for decades. One of the greatest assets of the Trump Administration was its De-Regulation (change of direction) that happened. Pathetic as that attempt was; It was still a move away from the little-by-little more fascist governing direction.
"I'm not saying that COVID didn't require a reasonable response"
Since he doesn't bother to define what he would consider a reasonable response, I have no idea if I agree with this or not.
Upthread, I linked an early 2020 article by Greenhut where he goes into some detail about how reasonable he thought everything was about the response, until he thought they went too far.
I have no idea if I agree with this or not.
You’re being generous to Reason and Greenhut.
This is the battered wife that is Reason talking itself into staying before the next beating. A massive portion of us didn't get it in any way that would be reported or recorded without more of Ron Bailey's mass surveillance state. We knew the overwhelming majority of us were going to survive by taking less than a full week of sick time, but Reason's telling itself that something along the lines of the government telling everyone, except essential workers, to take "two weeks" of sick time, even if they weren't sick, was just a reasonable response.
Well my initial posting of this seems to have gotten eaten by the server, so let's try this again.
The inconvenient truth that most of you don't want to hear:
Society at large is not going to tolerate "do nothing" as a response to a once-in-a-century global pandemic from an unknown virus of unknown lethality. Just like society at large is not going to tolerate "step over dead bodies on your way to the salt mine" and "shoot illegals at the border" as rational responses to the problems of poverty and immigration, respectively. When faced with social problems, reasonable people of good will and charity ought to step up and engage in voluntary action to help ameliorate those problems. If they don't, then government can and will impose unreasonable rules onto everyone.
Your realistic alternatives are:
Do something voluntarily to help with solving social problems;
or
Do something coerced by government to force you to "solve" social problems.
There is no realistic world in which large numbers of libertarian misanthropes get to sit back and do nothing and let social problems fester and grow, and nobody does anything about it. If there is a problem of sufficient magnitude, government will step in to try to "solve" it and use the worst methods and the worst levels of coercion to try to do so.
There is no realistic world composed of libertarian misanthropes who don't care about anyone else and just sit in their cave all day bitching about the gubmint.
So I understand all the bitching and moaning about the heavy-handed government response, and I am sympathetic to a lot of it. But now that the emergency part of the pandemic is behind us, it behooves libertarians to think clearly and thoughtfully about what a realistic libertarian response to a pandemic-like emergency might be. "Do nothing and fend for yourself" isn't it.
There’s a large spectrum in between ‘doing nothing’ and obviously dubious, yet opportunistic authoritarian quasi martial law measures implemented by democrat governors.
By the way, many of those same governors (Gavin Newsom, I’m looking at you) are salivating at the prospect of forcing a social credit system on the US. Their ‘emergency orders’ were a great way to start testing public response to such measures.
The reason the server ate your comment is because it's fking retarded.
There are many options between do nothing and go full nazi, but ass hats such as yourself did not want to hear them. Instead they and you mocked those other options. So don't come on here with your pathetic straw man arguments trying to play the adult. You don't get to save face, you nazi piece of trash. We have not forgotten.
# No amnesty!
This comment was meant for chemjeff radical fknut.
Yes it was. And well said.
There is no realistic world in which large numbers of libertarian misanthropes get to sit back and do nothing and let social problems fester and grow, and nobody does anything about it.
Bears in trunks.
Yout reliance on absurd metaphors, malapropisms and fallacies is legendary at this point. This post relies on all three, but particularly egregious is your use of the word "misanthrope" as if it is hateful to believe that most people will make good decisions if left to their own devices. In fact, you are the misanthrope. You and the rest of the "cult of expertise".
The one thing that should be taken from the COVID debacle is that central planning in an emergency every bit as ineffective as at any other time. Even in an emergency, individuals making their own decisions lead to better outcomes than putting the "right men" in charge. The role of government should end at providing information.
The government never solves problems, people do. Anyone that advocates otherwise is the misanthrope.
Also a refutation of jeffy the misanthrope.
To paraphrase Charles Schulz - Progressives love the People. It's people they don't like.