Utilitarianism is the philosophical theory that the moral worth of an action can be determined by a mathematical calculation.  The ‘good’ is to be determined by a “hedonic calculus” that rates pleasures and pains and decides which is predominant.  In Jeremy Bentham’s classic statement, “”it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.”

One of its major shortcomings was that no one could develop a calculus to measure the implicit ‘utils’ of an action, and therefore, it offered no way to compare Action A to Action B.  Today, we tend to laugh at the stupidity of trying to measure an emotion or utility of an action.  But perhaps we protest too quickly.  Isn’t this the unstated basis of Washington and most state governors’ emergency decrees today?  We are told that government officials are balancing deaths from covid-19 against the untold sufferings of millions caused by the ‘stay at home’ and ‘close down’ executive orders.  Increased suicide deaths, increased abuse of children and spouses, wiped out life savings, wiped out hope pale in comparison to the deaths that may occur from the disease.  Few officials or pundits point out the unforeseen consequences of their edicts, because it is assumed without discussion that saving an unstated number of deaths overrides all considerations.

Lest we forget, wealth/money/finances are important!  They represent our means to do life.  For some, it represents their ability to achieve dreams; for others (perhaps of lessor means), it may be the ability to feed the kids or get necessary medical care. The wealth so casually thrown away by forcing shutdowns and unemployment equates to diminished life for many, perhaps for many years.  Nor does the fact the deaths may happen more slowly and be hidden by poverty and systemic problems obviate the truth.

Just as important is the government’s power grab taking place under cover of the pandemic.  The analogy of war is appropriate.  War has always been “the health of the state.”  Historically, war has led to a curtailment of civil liberties, even incarceration for non-crimes, or loss of freedom of the press.   It has also been associated with “wartime socialism,” the historian’s name for America’s version of a command economy.  After the war, freedoms are often restored – but not all. The elite loves this centralization, has eagerly embraced it, even though every country that has accepted it fully has become a living hell.  And even when not fully embraced, to the extent it has been adopted, the quality of life and economic well-being of the masses has suffered.

Yet such understanding is absent from our leaders in Washington and the media.  The media quotes Dr. Fauci approvingly.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said he doesn’t know why the United States hasn’t instituted a nationwide stay-at-home order amid the spread of COVID-19, saying the country “really should be” doing so to protect American lives.

 “I don’t understand why that’s not happening,” Fauci, one of the leading scientific voices behind the country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, told CNN on Thursday. “The tension between federally mandated versus states’ rights to do what they want is something I don’t want to get into. But if you look at what is going on in this country, I do not understand why we are not doing that. We really should be.”

Many people have suffered and died for the safeguards to freedom he so cavalierly dismisses.  His focus on one thing – the number of people with the virus – dismisses the essence of our country without a second glance.  (Expertise in one field does not necessarily carry over to another!)  His blindness to the ‘people affects’ of government control of a society and economy cannot allow us as a people to throw away the freedoms our country was founded on.  The horrors of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela (and others) are worse by far than the covid-19 effects on Italy, Spain, and New York City.

You see, there is no mathematical calculus that can tell us if an enforced economic shutdown combined with enforced “social distancing” is better or worse than a voluntary, self-government response.  It is not a question of pain on one hand and death on the other.  There will be horror on both sides, regardless of our response.  It’s not a question of calculus, but of ethics.  Ethics, of necessity, includes such concepts as justice, freedom, and the quality of life.  That discussion is sadly missing in almost every article and analysis I’ve seen of our current situation.  It is unbelievably sad, and does not augur well for our future.

It is time for Washington and Harrisburg (or whatever the state) to stop playing god and limit themselves to the job they were assigned to!

(Quote from:  https://frontier.yahoo.com/huffpost/dr-anthony-fauci-stay-at-home-orders-040921847.html)

Sometimes it takes an extreme situation to open our eyes to what’s before us every day.  The covid-19 panic is one of those events.

Did you notice the response by government (both state and national) to the illness?  Most responses fall under one of two types.  One type of response – the one government is ‘good’ at – are the orders to “social distance” oneself, to close down businesses and gatherings.  The orders are blanket orders, affecting everyone in a large geographical area, regardless of their circumstances.  The “heavy hand of government” takes on its full meaning here.

The second type of response is a more rational response.  Dozens of government regulations hindering the medical profession and a free market response have been rescinded, at least for a while.  Permissions have been granted to do everything from increase the number of ICU hospital beds (!), to emulate Italy’s move of using “split” ventilators, to allow use of a tried-and-true, tested medicine for malaria to be tried against covid-19.  Others are just as infuriating – the FDA loosened regulations on the development of test kits (after medical professionals were screaming out the need), allowing licensed health care professionals to work in other states, to loosening laws hindering the utilization of teledoc services.  The states followed suite; Pennsylvania, for example, now allows a doctor to “be affiliated with” more than two hospitals, allows retired health care professionals to lend a hand during the crisis without renewing their license, and many other similar loosenings of the restrictions on the free market.

For many years, libertarians have pointed out the best thing government can do – in an emergency or daily life – is to get out of the way, remove the laws and regulations that bind and hinder people’s (non-force initiating) actions.  Covid-19 makes it obvious to anyone with open eyes.

For many years, our country has been having a debate about “socialized” versus “market” medicine.  Our current situation shows there is no “market” medical system in America.  The debate, really, is between nationalized and socialized medicine; socialized medicine is a fait accompli, the current norm.

Socialized medicine, of course, is a necessity for a government that has abrogated the prerogatives of God to itself.  For many years now, politicians and most of the population have looked to government to save them from whatever ills are besetting.  Whether a natural disaster such as a hurricane or virus, or a health care crisis, or an economic downturn, people’s eyes and expectations turn to Washington for relief and salvation.

I’m afraid we’ll find out that, in this area also, Washington is the god that fails!

Errors in thinking destroy lives.  We realize that, on an individual level, when we see the unhealthy choices people make; ‘drowning my sorrow tonight is worthwhile’ is widely recognized as an action in self-destruction.

One of the major errors in thinking is ‘dropping the context’ in which a decision must be made.  For a thought process to lead to a valid conclusion, the full context must be taken into account.  That means immediate and long-range results.  It also means narrow as well as wide-ranging ripple effects.

You would have to go far to find this principle exemplified better than in the public response to covid-19.  Responses have been myopic, at best.

Obviously, care needs to be exercised in this situation – extreme care in the case of the more vulnerable.  And that includes people understanding that being a carrier is not being a good neighbor.  “Flattening the curve” is a valid medical concern.

However, fighting the virus is not the only input to this equation.  For years, we’ve been told – correctly – that poverty kills.  Whether it leads to people not seeking medical help when they should, or a burden of debt that makes one a slave to the credit card company, or whatever, poverty does destroy life (often slowly.)  Where’s the discussion during this time of the tradeoff between the strictly medical viewpoint being pursued by those in charge and a broader point of view that includes the ramifications of the forced shutdown, likely leading to a recession or worse?  Statism kills too, but I see almost no discussion of any limits the government should have on its actions during this time.  The so-called empathetic response to the mandated economic hardships is bailouts – millions for the big business types, a thousand or two for the working man – as part of a trillion dollar response package by the Fed and Treasury.  For years I’ve believed that the national debt was the biggest issue facing America.  This will not make it better!

Unfortunately for us, politicians live by the motto of never letting a crisis go to waste.  This virus has handed them a wonderful opportunity – and they jumped on it with both feet, turning a medical problem into a full-blown economic crisis.  The stress of the formerly degenerating economic market has now been put down by a massive stimulus/bail out package and interest rates of zero.  The spectre of a control economy is back, fanned by elites who have wanted that ever since the world wars showed how it could be done.  It’s little wonder Sanders has dropped out of sight; he’s superfluous now.

The most haunting aspect of the discussion, however, is the unchallenged assumption underlying the many edicts, that government should have the authority to control our lives, jobs, and movements.  It’s sad that the only real pushback to the draconian shutdowns was from the narcissistic hedonists on college break.  We have morphed from a nation of responsible individualists to a nation of sheep, meekly following the latest rule.

The French economist Bastiat published a short story many years ago entitled the Parable of the Broken Window.  To paraphrase it, a boy breaks a window, and the townspeople decide it was a good thing because now the hardware store and a contractor will see business to fix it.  Bastiat’s answer was, no, you must take into consideration the unseen consequences as well.  Now, the money going to restore the status quo will not be used to purchase new shoes the window owner needed.  So after fixing the window, the owner is sitting where he was – a good window and worn out shoes – but minus the savings used to fix the window.  And the shoe store is out of a sale.  A fallacy in thinking led the townspeople to embrace a destructive action.

I’m afraid that is where we find ourselves today.  We will be living with the consequences of our destructive actions well past this particular flu season.