State Paternalism - The balance between the collective and the individual & Covid 19

State paternalism is problematic for a number of reasons, it obstructs people from helping themselves, it creates dependence rather than independence, it encroaches on personal choice and it kills initiative. The state, rather than regulating and controlling people, should educate and facilitate. Of course, there are extreme instances when the state must respond to the common good, emergencies like Covid 19 or a war. However, even in the context of an extreme circumstance, the government should seek to help people help themselves - rather than forcing people to heal.

When we had H1N1, a family member having a precondition which qualified them for early vaccination attended for vaccination. The government solution to vaccinating people was to set up a vaccination centre in a church - 100s people congregated there to get their vaccination; the most vulnerable. We never knew who was presymptomatic, who was an asymptomatic carrier or who was unaffected and neither did the government - yet they did it anyway. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to respond to a contagious disease by congregating people or by bringing them to a central hospital. It makes more sense to maintain social distancing, to isolate people from one another. So why then did the government do such a silly thing and why are they still doing such silly things? Now with Covid 19, they have people reporting to centralized treatment centres, centralized testing centres etc.. 

I think the reason the government would congregate people during a pandemic to vaccinate is so medical professionals can administer the shot. The better solution would be to distribute the vaccination kits to people's homes via a courier or special Canada Post and have people administer the vaccine to themselves. I give myself B6 and B12 injections all the time, I give myself the flu shot every year - there are few simpler tasks than giving an injection - yet the government is willing to put lives at risk - why.

Why does the government insist that I have a prescription from a doctor to get a drug? A smart person would seek the advice of a doctor before starting on to a new drug - I would - yet the government insists that every time I want drugs I have to get a prescription - even ones I've been taken before. In most cases, it is a complete waste fo time and resources. The doctor prescribes medication often absent the knowledge of what other drugs a person is taking - especially now when so many people rely on walk-in clinics and there is little continuity of care. In all my years of attending to pharmacies, I've never had anyone ask about my diet, my other medications or supplements herbal or otherwise. So the "safeguards" that are touted as the reason these regulations are in place, are ineffective. So why have them?

The challenge we face when state paternalism controls our actions is, the solutions are delivered by edict, top-down, a one size fits all solution for the entire population. It is good for the government to provide pertinent information and to coordinate a response; it is bad when the government impairs people's capacity to care for themselves, especially when governments' assumption of generalised incompetence puts people at greater risk. We need to support people in being self-reliant, independent and resilient - if you give people the data and the tools, they are their best keepers. When you allow varied and independent response to challenges, a 1000 flowers bloom and new best practices emerge.

The depth of knowledge that resides in the population, or in the case of Covid 19 with the medical personnel, can never be accessed under a collection of edicts. Is just a fact of life, if I, by myself, list all the green vegetables I can think of, that 10 people will list many more. It is a paradox, that the collective, is best served by individuals acting in harmony to a cause rather than under the thumb of leadership/authority. It is a truth, that the best decisions are made closest to the point of action, that is to say, that people affected by all the immediacies of a given circumstance are best equipped to respond - rather than some centralized authority somewhere. There is a trend toward the infantilisation of the population, it effects control by dependence - it is insidious and one of the greatest risks to our liberty.

President Obama’s Anti-Gun Tirade

When there is a dramatic event like a mass shooting, emotions run high – that’s permitted; in fact one can take comfort that Mr. Obama demonstrates such a high degree of compassion. Unfortunately, that is where my appreciation for his dialog on the issue of gun control ends.  As the head of state he has an obligation to express empathy for people affected AND reflect reality in his discourse, to be responsible in representing the facts. What we witnessed in is post Roseburg talk was a demonstration in politicking and a lack of understanding OR willful blindness, to what the second amendment is all about.

Mr. Obama mentions the routine response to mass shootings in the United States and yet makes no effort at going after the cultural underpinnings of the challenge. Switzerland has as many handguns per capita and people go there for safe holidays, so it is clear the there is a cultural driver here. It may be the celebrity culture colliding with gun access or some other phenomena. The press’s inclination to sensationalize these events, their willingness to deliver the 15 minutes of fame (infamy) to the “shooter” maybe effecting a contagion.  

Mr. Obama seemed to indicate an escalation in gun violence, there is, in fact a reduction – the trend has been downward since 1981.

Mr. Obama failed to contextualize the risk related to gun ownership, 11,078 or 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 is a lower risk than taking 80mgs of aspirin daily, which kills 8 in 100,000. The very same year, over 100,000 Americans died of preventable medical accidents – This article in Forbs suggests an even higher number of deaths from preventable medical accidents http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/09/23/stunning-news-on-preventable-deaths-in-hospitals/ some 440,000.  

Mr. Obama indicates that public opinion is supporting his call for gun control, Pew Research disagrees.

http://www.people-press.org/category/publications/

Mr. Obama it seems, is looking to England for direction on gun control, a 180 degree turn from the founders of the United States. Mr. Obama, of all people, has forgotten that the founders were eager to protect people from oppression. The primary consideration for including the second amendment in the constitution, is the ongoing assurance that people can mass, armed, to uphold their rights in the face of tyranny. Mr. Obama it seems, despite his heritage, has forgotten the lessons the founding fathers had learned so painfully from European history – by way of example, the English were able to quell Scottish independence for generations by disarming them. The founders of the United States knew, from experience, that tyranny happens when the populous has no means to enforce their will. The United States is one of the freest jurisdictions in the world, its very founding happened because people armed themselves to enforce their will. Mr. Obama extended consideration for firearm use in Hunting, Sport and self-protection – he failed to recognize the primary element for the 2^nd amendment's inclusion in the constitution. It is a unique cultural and structural element of the United States government, that it retains the right of the citizenry to oppose government miss direction – and what a success it has been.

Mr. Obama sites Australia as the bastion of reason for gun control; they eventually got to central storage of long guns. Mr. Obama sites England as an example, during IRA crime activity, England had nearly as high firearm related crime. Who wants to live in a country that is so risk adverse that a 3.5 chance in 100,000 is too great – no one will be skiing any more, let alone driving a car.

Availability Heuristic Salient is a useful concept by which to understand some of the public's fear and how politicians exploit that fear. In these instances, like a mass shooting, the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example, becomes more credible than actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally "available", the single example is considered as representative of the whole, rather than as just a single example in a range of data. Salient events tend to distort the judgement of risk.

I would urge the United States to resist the temptation to embrace nouveau social engineering, over the time tested constitution and the mass of wisdom that was brought to it by the founders of the United States; or, if you’re going to think about changing, let reason guide you. 

Click here for more thinking on the issue

Gun Control - No Thanks

As a Canadian interested in firearms, I am often dismayed at the anti-gun culture that has been cultivated in Canada. There has been an intentional effort, by primarily liberal federal governments, to actuate an anti-gun culture – under the rubric of public safety, but mostly as a cultural differentiation with the United States. The issue has been successfully, but inappropriately, attached to women’s issues and negative events associated with crime. One expects that any issue is subject to distortion in a competitive political situation, as competing factions fight it out attempting to sway the public and government; it seems this issue heightens this phenomenon. I find myself, a person who prides himself on being balanced and rational, getting very impassioned when I enter into discourse; I have concluded it really is “cultural” – culture, like morals, comes with your mother’s milk, you just believe. So I’ve forced myself through the process of exploring the “other side” on numerous occasions, to attempt to understand better the anti-gun movement – I come out of the process convinced that guns are okay, they come with some risk, but when the risk is contextualized to daily life it is minimal.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/141201/dq141201a-eng.htm

“Research suggests that about 70,000 patients a year experience preventable, serious injury as a result of treatments. More shocking, a landmark study published a decade ago estimated that as many as 23,000 Canadian adults die annually because of preventable “adverse events” in acute-care hospitals alone.” National Post  http://news.nationalpost.com/health/inside-canadas-secret-world-of-medical-errors-there-is-a-lot-of-lying-theres-a-lot-of-cover-up

”About one in five (21%) firearm-related deaths in Canada is the result of a criminal offence, while the majority (79%) are the result of suicide, accident, or legal intervention (Statistics Canada 2012).”

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.pdf

Part of the challenge of addressing this issue is that it has been so political in Canada. At one side of the issue are the Conservatives who have used the issue as a vote-getter from the more conservative rural voter, and on the other side, Liberals, using it as a vote-getter from the urban and largely female population. The attachment to women’s issues has most Canadian women wanting gun control or the removal of guns from private hands altogether.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

The cultural divorce between Canada as a nation and guns is a divergence from nearly our entire history. Canada since first contact has had firearms at the heart of its development; the fur trade was facilitated in large measure by firearms and their trade. I find the history of firearms as they have interfaced with our history in Canada a fascinating thing, as Canadians built Canada, firearms were a critical element of the process; since our inception, people have had and used firearms. There is no merit in ignoring this reality and it is a political red herring to whitewash an important aspect of our history or to lose it to an attempt to build a cultural firewall around Canada in a way that is adversarial to gun owners.

There have been several occasions where I’ve attempted to “enlighten” a person from the anti-gun lobby as to what my attachment to firearms is; to have them understand what resides in me that makes them important. For me, firearms have an interesting history, they are fascinating in function, form and action and they are a useful tool. They are cultural icons of self-reliance. They offer security in so much, that if things ever get tough I can always go get something to eat. I spend a lot of time in the wilderness and take comfort in having a firearm along for protection in bear country and the like. Some of my firearms were my father’s, there is a strong inter-generational appreciation – and once again, a cultural inclination to share a weapon between generations. You can in one way or another rationalize various aspects of my culture away with any number of “arguments”, but for me, I feel better knowing I have a firearm for these reasons - I "believe" in them. It is okay for others to rationalize away my reasons for having them, it is unacceptable that government legislates away my right to have one when there is very little risk in my or other law-abiding people having guns.

In the context of the United States a portion of the “gun culture” holds firearms are a means of domestic protection. I believe there is a constitutional argument in Canada as well for the retention of firearms as an instrument for personal safety. Section seven of the Charter offers as human rights, Life, Liberty and Security of person. In the same manner, the Canadian Supreme Court held that if the state is unable to see to the health of an individual as readily as the individual themselves, the individual themself has the right to deploy personal resources to purchase or seek treatment independently. It is clear that while the police services are exemplary in Canada, police are unable to respond as readily as an individual to a serious immediate threat; it is an imperative, then, that the state support self-protection.   

The right to bear arms is granted in the constitution of the United States to protect the authority of the people, the concern that drove the inclusion of the second amendment by the founders of the country was the history that showed, that a disarmed populous was without means to assert itself and generated the hundreds of years of oppression that preceded the founding of the United States. There is a cost to the second amendment in the United States, one needs to keep an eye on the benefit - take a look at history and tell me that people have never been exploited or suppressed - then tell me the rationale for the second amendment is invalid.  Scotland, a country that many of the founders of the United States were from or were educated by, was forced to servitude for generations. We have evolved to where we are in the modern world, with the enlightenment's values growing; in large measure due to the influence of the United States in the world, we need to be mindful of what the values of the enlightenment have brought us and by what means they have progressed.

The Canadian leadership’s desire to provide a national identity separate and apart from the United States is necessary, we want and must build a strong and independent Canada. In the process, however, we should retain from all places cultural artifacts that serve progress and that protect documents like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom has never been a “free” or “no risk” venture, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the advancement of enlightenment values it represents holds as equity 500 years of toil, hard fights and massive confrontations – we sit at the pinnacle of human existence today because people accepted risk for progress.

Many in the Canadian intellectual “bank”, our academics particularly, rail against firearms partly out of fear, (note I said fear and as opposed to public safety) and partly because they are influenced by the manufactured and recent culture that was introduced as a means of to differentiate Canada from the United States. There is strong resistance to the culture of “self-reliance” and independence by many in our “governing elite”, a cultural element that is strongly represented among firearm owners, this is partly residual from our history of governance and partly because it is antithetical to the culture of dependence that shores up the collectivist agenda. The rift over firearms in Canada is a cultural rift, it is my sincere hope we can reconcile it in a way that will let me do a little bird hunting in the fall and a little time in the bush with the comfort of having my rifle along.