Do We NEED government in Pandemics?

[DeadheadForPaul]

In light of the current swine flu scare, I was thinking about what would happen if we ever had a pandemic in the future...Wouldn't a government be necessary to quarantine individuals? After all, who else has the power to physically quarantine someone?

Don't we need the CDC to track down infected people and isolate them?

thoughts?>

[heavenlyboy34]

Only people who are foolish enough to rely on gov'ment in the first place will rely on it when TSHTF.

[Reason]

Don't we need the CDC to track down infected people and isolate them?

Yes.

And we would feel a lot better about the government doing this if RP was president :)

[DeadheadForPaul]

Only people who are foolish enough to rely on gov'ment in the first place will rely on it when TSHTF.

I'm talking about to prevent SHTF...

I could survive without the gov't...but would like it to stop a health pandemic haha

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm talking about to prevent SHTF...

I could survive without the gov't...but would like it to stop a health pandemic haha


Then, no. Centralized authorities are helpless (ala the government) in real life disasters. The illusion of "safety" projected by state authorities is just that-an illusion. :p Are you old enough to remember 9/11 and the giant hurricane strikes(Katrina, Ivan, etc.)? I remember it. The state and federal "authorities" were just as clusterfucked then as they are now (perhaps even more so)

[Vessol]

I hate to go against the current. But I think so, yes. Only the government has tools at their disposal to reach such the whole nation.

Many people will decry the government's hand in it. But I look at it as part of the minimal government Paine scripted.

The government is there to protect our rights and to protect our homeland Not all attacks on the homeland are from foreign armies or Muslim terrorists.

I'm ready to be flamed for this, but it is my beliefs.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Then, no. Centralized authorities are helpless (ala the government) in real life disasters. The illusion of "safety" projected by state authorities is just that-an illusion. :p Are you old enough to remember 9/11 and the giant hurricane strikes(Katrina, Ivan, etc.)? I remember it. The state and federal "authorities" were just as clusterfucked then as they are now (perhaps even more so)

If I remember correctly, government action has stopped the spread of many things and have actually eradicated them. Did you get polio? Oh yeh, it's not a problem any more.

Like the above poster, I think controlling the spread of a virus or any other health problem falls under our national security.

Microorganisms have killed more people than government ever has

[nate895]

We should be able to quarantine people to prevent pandemics, which results in the mass loss of life and liberty for millions. The courts should first grant 48 hour holding warrants, and then hold a hearing to determine if the threat warrants quarantine.

[silverhawks]

I hate to go against the current. But I think so, yes. Only the government has tools at their disposal to reach such the whole nation.

Many people will decry the government's hand in it. But I look at it as part of the minimal government Paine scripted.

The government is there to protect our rights and to protect our homeland Not all attacks on the homeland are from foreign armies or Muslim terrorists.

I'm ready to be flamed for this, but it is my beliefs.

The First Amendment says you're entitled to your opinion, can't see anyone wanting to flame you for that. :)

However, I'd say that all the government really does is "organise" local efforts in response to disasters. If the local authorities had their own contingency plans, and plans to network with other states, then we might not need FEMA or a similar federal agency. In fact, Katrina showed just how badly FEMA screwed up the situation further.

[silverhawks]

Only people who are foolish enough to rely on gov'ment in the first place will rely on it when TSHTF.

Yes, because those people will give away every last shred of liberty in exchange for safety, surrendering their freedom to place themselves under martial law.

[heavenlyboy34]

If I remember correctly, government action has stopped the spread of many things and have actually eradicated them. Did you get polio? Oh yeh, it's not a problem any more.

Like the above poster, I think controlling the spread of a virus or any other health problem falls under our national security.

Microorganisms have killed more people than government ever has


The government is not the only entity capable of this. Remember that the polio vaccine was created by an INDIVIDUAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#History). Controlling the spread of health problems can be handled by competent people in the free market. It was Pasteur and men like him who discovered microorganisms, not their respective governments. Government has killed more people than any individual ever has. :eek:

[silverhawks]

Government has killed more people than any individual ever has. :eek:

From "Death by Government" (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp):


How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments — the intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century.

The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about 502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about 249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40 percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80 percent of all the people in the U.S.

This number was later revised (http://www.epinions.com/review/Book_Death_by_Government_R_J_Rummel/content_451319336580), to 262,000,000.


This is a dark book, but it has an important message. It makes it clear that governments that hold too much power over their citizens will often mass murder its citizens or mass murder the populations of other countries. There will always be reasons for killing people and means to justify it. We live in a world of conflict and tension. Power is death. The key is to limit what a government can do.

This part is worth noting, as well:


The lesson that Professor Rummel wishes to convey from his research is stated clearly and unequivocally by him:

Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely. . . . The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.

He argues that all the historical evidence shows that "as the arbitrary power of a regime increases, that is, as we move from democratic through authoritarian to totalitarian regimes, the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples. . . . The empirical and theoretical conclusion is this: The way to end war and virtually eliminate democide appears to be through restricting and checking Power, i.e., through fostering democratic freedom, " by which Professor Rummel means individual liberty; limited, constitutional government; and social tolerance of difference and diversity among the peoples in a society.

And as to the reasons for this government-instigated slaughter:


What has motivated governments and their followers and agents to commit murder on this scale against tens of millions of innocent, usually unarmed, victims — men, women and children, young and old? The leading motivations have been ideology (the making of a new socialist man), race (the purifying of or domination by a "superior" racial group), wealth (plundering the most prosperous for the benefit of a select group), or plain cruelty (the imposing of fear and terror to gain control over and obedience from others).

To cover all these motivations under one heading, Professor Rummel suggests the term "democide," from the Greek word demos (people) and the Latin word caedere (to kill). "Democide's necessary and sufficient meaning is the intentional government killing of an unarmed person or people," he says.

Incidentally, the statistics for the United States were not complete for this book; bear in mind that the USA killed 3 million in Vietnam alone during the 20th century.

Here's a related article: 20th Century Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM).

Given this body of evidence, and the criteria for democide, it only becomes a matter of time before we see open totalitarianism and mass killings in the United States - since the current federal government operates with almost unchecked and increasing power over the populace.

[DeadheadForPaul]

The government is not the only entity capable of this. Remember that the polio vaccine was created by an INDIVIDUAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#History). Controlling the spread of health problems can be handled by competent people in the free market. It was Pasteur and men like him who discovered microorganisms, not their respective governments. Government has killed more people than any individual ever has. :eek:

We're not talking about who created particular vaccines. We are talking about the identification and isolation of infected individuals. And if you want to go there, the majority of prominent scientists and researchers received financial support from their respective governments. In the past 20 years, 15 of the 21 most beneficial drugs received substantial public funding

[Vessol]

The First Amendment says you're entitled to your opinion, can't see anyone wanting to flame you for that. :)

However, I'd say that all the government really does is "organise" local efforts in response to disasters. If the local authorities had their own contingency plans, and plans to network with other states, then we might not need FEMA or a similar federal agency. In fact, Katrina showed just how badly FEMA screwed up the situation further.

FEMA fucked up, and I agree local authorities would do a better job, but it's my personal opinion that things would've been worse during Katrina without Federal aid. I could be wrong, but I think in a national pandemic that it has to be combated on the national level.

[DeadheadForPaul]

The First Amendment says you're entitled to your opinion, can't see anyone wanting to flame you for that. :)

However, I'd say that all the government really does is "organise" local efforts in response to disasters. If the local authorities had their own contingency plans, and plans to network with other states, then we might not need FEMA or a similar federal agency. In fact, Katrina showed just how badly FEMA screwed up the situation further.

I doubt anyone is going to defend FEMA's inefficiencies. I don't think that they HURT things...should have been more adequately prepared

Regardless of how you feel about Katrina, this is a different beast to confront. Katrina was located in just 2-3 states. We are talking about a virus that can spread to every corner of the earth. In fact, by the time we were able to recognize it as a potential problem, it had spread across the globe from Mexico to New Zealand to Europe

[heavenlyboy34]

We're not talking about who created particular vaccines. We are talking about the identification and isolation of infected individuals. And if you want to go there, the majority of prominent scientists and researchers received financial support from their respective governments. In the past 20 years, 15 of the 21 most beneficial drugs received substantial public funding

But that simple fact does not prove that government involvement is good or even better than the free market. To make your case as you are trying to do, you would have to compare this to what a free market would provide.

[silverhawks]

I doubt anyone is going to defend FEMA's inefficiencies. I don't think that they HURT things...should have been more adequately prepared.

The main point about Katrina in my mind, was that the government had fair warning and still didn't prepare.


Regardless of how you feel about Katrina, this is a different beast to confront. Katrina was located in just 2-3 states. We are talking about a virus that can spread to every corner of the earth. In fact, by the time we were able to recognize it as a potential problem, it had spread across the globe from Mexico to New Zealand to Europe

My first response to the thought of a deadly virus spreading out over the Earth: the current governments would be hiding in their bunkers, waiting til the virus was finished ravaging the global population.

I can definitely picture troops gunning down civilians trying to get into bunkers where the elite are holed up; camps to isolate the populace from government rather than spreading the virus further; mass graves and corpse burning to dispose of the bodies.

They wouldn't help, they would aim at their own survival - and I think this is backed up by the many plans for "continuity of government" that we've seen: for example, Rex84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84) and Directive 51 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidenti al_Directive). When you add up all of these pieces of law waiting to be activated at once, it paints a picture of a frightening totalitarian regime, stripping every citizen of rights under martial law, rather than attempting to be a protector of the people.

[Vessol]

I thought this was Ron Paul Forums..not the Prison Planet forums..

[DeadheadForPaul]

i thought this was ron paul forums..not the prison planet forums..

+1!

[ChooseLiberty]

I believe in FREE MARKET Pandemics.

Why should the gov't pick the winners and losers?

Let the free market efficiently sort them out and the winners will acquire the assets of the losers and use them more effectively.





:D

[tmosley]

That is one of the few things that I feel falls under the General Welfare Clause. Remember that moving around in public while infected with the virus is the equivalent of having unprotected sex when you know you are HIV+, which I believe is considered to be assault, or possibly attempted murder. Quarantines can be self imposed, but there generally won't be enough people following them to prevent spread of disease.

That said, quarantines should ONLY be administered by local authorities, with the CDC taking an advisory role only. If a town isn't taking appropriate precautions, then neighboring towns would take appropriate action (ie roadblocks between their town and the other). States could shut down state-to-state traffic in extreme circumstances. The only use of the Federal Government would be to shut down international borders (probably by deploying the Army, as such a situation could easily get out of hand with sick refugees coming and spreading the disease everywhere).