Second Independence Day

 I am sick of wearing a mask, and sick of shutdowns and everything that goes with them.  It is obvious now that there is no danger of covid killing large numbers of the population under the age of 60, and the younger one is, the less vulnerable one is.  That's not to say that young people haven't died, and won't die in the future.  People die of all kinds of things, but rightly pay little attention to the things with a very low chance of causing death.  Even if you tried to protect yourself against every possible cause of death, you would still die, and you would lead a miserable existence in the meantime.  That's why I think we should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and letting the rest of us judge our own need for safety and willingness to take risks.

When we are finally free of these covid restrictions, we should declare a second national independence day, and we should declare that we will not allow ourselves to be restricted like this in the future in the name of emergency measures.  I'm all for emergency measures implemented by the executive branch (governors and, to a lesser extent, president), but only for two weeks.  That's my limit for emergencies.  After that, unless something is preventing state legislatures and Congress from holding sessions, all executive restrictions should be eliminated and it should be up to the legislatures to decide.  Are they going to have arduous debates and trouble coming up with restrictions that everyone can agree on?  Probably so.  That's why we have legislatures:  because we can't all agree, and we choose representatives to discuss and debate and come to compromise solutions.  There is no excuse for a democracy to have emergency orders lasting a year or more.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more