Originally Posted by
Drummond
There it is. I said no such thing as what you'd claimed for me. QED.
I think contexts are getting just a little muddled in all this.
I've highlighted STTAB's lack of consistency, from his overall argument. Namely ... don't trust Government, except ... when you DO ... and then, trust one (in total defiance of a claim not to) to such an extent that you'll accept seeing powers seized which facilitate total dictation to the general public. Given that the reason to take that action can be said to 'hang together', so, that power is taken, applied, nobody is allowed to choose otherwise, in the face of an authority's insistence upon it, one you 'don't trust' ....
Untrustworthy people are people who are entitled to dictate to you, remove your freedom of choice ? They're entitled to set that precedent, create and implement laws, making such diktats you can only defy by breaking those laws ?
The answer to this seems obvious to me. States of emergency apply to situations that are emergencies ! Such as, if national security is seriously compromised. Or, where a SERIOUS health emergency exists, threatening life &/or limb.
I seriously doubt that measles qualifies ! Bird flu could (in my view, it does). An ebola outbreak would. But ... measles ?
I'm of the view that a Government taking on powers, and insisting on their mandatory implementation, for something as relatively mild as MEASLES, for God's sake (!!) must be one exercising power for the sake of it. It's an over-reaction. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. I automatically question the motivation of the action taken.
What concerns me is that I think I'm observing what I'd fear, namely, the automatic acceptance of Governments taking on dictatorial powers just because THEY say they want to. It's a means to an end, and maybe the automatic acceptance of that IS already a precedent people accept ?
If so ... you will see a steady erosion of democratic accountability in everyday life. Almost worse, you won't even recognise what's happening. And ... STTAB's illustrated inconsistencies will be reflected by attitudes adopted everywhere.
There's the common good, yes. And then, there's the Nanny State, which exists to create a culture of dependence.
In such a culture .. who questions authority ?
Your military equivalence, there, reinforces the National Security aspect, which applies where there really is a need to defend society's best interests. That's a little different to guarding against the 'horrific' prospect of actually risking getting measles !!!
I say that there is a difference. Or would you be prepared to send armadas of warships as a countering action to people back home catching bad colds ? Does the one really equate to the other ?
I wasn't the first person who used the 'herd' term, and when it was first mentioned, I questioned its use.
This is MEASLES we're talking about !
.... and I'm sure that choice played a part in all of that.
I've never had an immunisation shot of any kind, ever. But still, I've led a healthy life. I've been exposed, to my certain knowledge, to measles and meningitis outbreaks (my mother died of meningitis), but, my immune system coped easily (if, in fact, it even needed to). I don't say that such shots are a waste of time, or that recourse to them shouldn't exist. But I do believe that such hysteria exists (which is totally exploitable) on this, where it shouldn't.