Preventing_movement.md 6.3 KB
Benefits of Preventing Movement
A dialogue If there is no perfectly methodical process being utilized to determine the necessity of this preventative treatment being enforced on all members of society, then we have to assume that its more primray motivation factors and causes of inception are related to whatever the advantages being conferred happen to be. We know that it restricts movement, in the broadest sense, but how is that advantageous?
It is not necessarily advantageous, at least not obviously so. Though we could theorize about why someone might wish to prevent anyone from accessing certain restricted areas, like some woke family wishing ot keep undesirables out of particular circles, but there are other advantages conferred by the change.
First, if you are part of the state and on its payroll, then there is an unquestioning admiration of the measures an those who are part of that conglomerate who somehow feels part of the process of formulating and administering solutions (even those who don't actually play any real role in it). Whatever is being formulated is, de-facto, guaranteed to be part of the solution used. In this way, the solution will alwyas seem valuable. It is always being used in some way.
In the software world, we would say that it was deployed or released, and that is something to which one will feel proud for having been a part of.
Furthermore, we know that someon ein such a position is likely engaged, for at least 35 hours per week, in an environment where the narrative is adhered to more congruently and uncritically than in perhaps any other setting, so there is indeed good reason for anyone within the public service to have some form of cognitive bias. That doesn't mean, however, that they are specifically benefitting from the restricting of other people's movement. You need to provide better examples
Very well, that seems reasonable.
It needn't be an immediate benefit with obvious, first order material conequence. There is a range of benefits which can be understood by role. Beginning with the broadest application, we can see that, regardless of the expectation or the importance ascribed to any one role being performed in the private sector, any public servant role is constantly maintained and understood to be an essential one. There is no question that anyone in public service hasn't even the sneaking suspicion that there could be some form of lockdown which would consequently cost them some degree of their livelihood.
Now, you must be thinking that I am confusing employement with movement, but of course I am not. If this is your manner of thought, then you are admitting your own lack of awareness. You see, the very expectation that some individuals be denied access to society is an expression fo a failure to believe in, or recognize, the need for that person's contribution. You might think that "oh, they are imposing risk", and that could be its own technical discussion as to whom has placed the greatest of a particular type of risk, but given that there are many risks, and will always be risks, we msut also deduce that there exist some roles that are more difficult to replace, and some roles which might contribute greater risk due to the nature of the role. We can agree that, even if we are to ignore the case of not being able to work in a space as a case of denying the value of tehir prospective contriution, so too can we say that this is also the case in situations where a person cannot simply be in a space of society.
As the proportion of such restricted spaces grows, so too can we say that they are less important and valuable to society, not simply due to the exptation through expression of exclusion, nor a lack of their being able to contribute, but it is even a necessary aspect of the society itself, in that it obviously cannot continue in a way in which it relies on and deems essential that which it excludes, so it must be, if it were relying on those who are to be excluded, that it should evolve to have no need for them. Their exclusion is a commitment to this.
Whatever contribution may have previously existed is now of no recognizable value, and any embedded effects can be considered as being part of the system, in spit of any previous pathological circumstance.
But, wait. Surely you aren't accusing me of contributing to that exclusion. I am simply abiding by the measures that have been recommended by professionals. I don't get to make these decisions, nor have I the expertise required to do so. We should be grateful that the government is capable of organizing the systems to produce those insgihts, and all indications are that if you are not following the recommendations, you are adding to the problem and placing others at risk.
Are you not astute enough to be able to deduce all the types of risks that are potentiated by each option in the proposed transactions? Surely you understand risks such as violence and lethal force, or the risk of survival being made more difficult by constraining money and food? And not just that of those whom you prevent from making a living, but all those who suffer as a consequence of loss of productivity, manifestation of systemic/intersystemic bottlenecks, and elisions resulting from state-imposed restrictions? We are not even at the point of discussion where we have specified a form of datum with which to evaluate comparisons of these ever complex and at times disparate concerns.
You, if you have an amateur understanding of health, community, civilization and its advancement, should be screaming at the top of your lungs, demanding an upgrade and refinement of a discourse which includes all of the conflicting voices, in the spirit of liberal democracy. Instead, you live in ignorance and fear, pretending to gain a complete perspective, but lazy enough to uncritically absorb all that is presented, or at least to be apathetic enough to repeat it without giving it due scrutiny. And now, charmingly enough, taking at face value any narrative which proclaims that there exist other perspectives, but that they are false and not to be observed by anyone civlized.
For you to have faith that this is reliable, even in matters so conequential to coming generations, is an artifact of a lazy and cowardly disposition, which consumes the narrative as entertainment, and commits their own friends and kin to the judgments of others' theories.