There’s a darling children’s book called “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” In it, there’s a cute exploration of how that mouse will continue asking for things that go along with cookies and would be oh-so-reasonable to provide…or unreasonable to deny him. After all, what good’s a cookie without a glass of milk?
I’ve been saying, more so recently, that a certain kind of society has been described, in writing, for a very long time. It has been easy for those who disagree with me to declare that such things are from the strange imaginations of fiction authors and fear-mongers. Actually, many features of that society are within our technological grasp already. Now, some of those things are becoming socially possible, even demanded.
What used to be a land of “mind your own business” and “help your neighbor” has “become mind your neighbor’s business” and “help your fellow protestors.” Now it’s shifting again with the COVID response, into something straight out of Orwell, or, straight out of scripture. We, on both sides, have been trying to legislate moral and social responsibility. Sorry kids, morality and responsibility are within the individual, based on training and life experience. Attempts to shape that by law have been shown disastrous because humans are power-hungry and/or rebels. Both tendencies, when fully unleashed, bring death and destruction. That’s why America was established on the idea that responsible people could self-govern and reach documented agreements on those rules minimally necessary to maintain civility among a free citizenry. Sure, we get it wrong sometimes, and we’ve long ago surpassed minimally necessary – part of the debates the two parties used to have and a demonstration of power-hungry politics.
According to this link, a man asserts that the U.S. Government is preparing to perform door-to-door testing for COVID and follow up with enforced quarantines, including supervised isolated housing for children who may be exposed to carriers. I’ve not investigated as far as I’d like to, yet. I will toss you a little “didn’t we say that was abhorrent when foreign children were being housed en masse away from the families who brought them across the border illegally? Hmm?” Yeah, that’s a rabbit hole we won’t be diving into here. I encourage you to explore the irony for yourself.
I did, however, take a solid look at the document he pointed out, US House Bill 6666. It’s easy to read, roughly two pages, clearly stated, and easily available from its official source. This link encourages a straight-forward read and an end to the fearmongering that exploded on social media in early May. I’m all for straightforward and reasonable. Now, reason this: if I were to show you my budget with a line item for Tiny House Savings or ASL Tutor, would you not conclude that I intend, someday, to apply the saved funds to their declared purpose? Yeah, that’s why people make budgets and earmark funds. So, a document that says the national government wants to establish funding earmarked for paying organizations to conduct testing and “for other purposes” — probably means there’s intent to identify and pay organizations to do whatever the authorities deem appropriate, even if it’s beyond those activities explicitly declared in the document. (That, friends, is what “other” means in legaleze – if you’ve been an employee with the phrase “other duties as assigned” in the job description with an out-of-bounds boss, you understand.)
Ok, you might think I’m falling into the fearmongering camp – surely our concerned and thoughtful leaders wouldn’t come up with outlandish ideas like prosecuting florists and bakers or arresting barbers and hairdressers (who already sterilize their tools between every customer). Fair enough — here’s the list of services they intend for the allocated funds to provide for:
- conduct diagnostic testing for COVID-19
- trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals
- support the quarantine of such contacts
- mobile health units
- testing individuals and providing individuals with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences
If you can’t see where this well-intentioned piece of potential law will set a precedent that can (will) go VERY wrong in the hands of power-hungry humans, you need to read more Dickens and Orwell, or, y’know, scripture.
Item 1, testing: fair enough. I agree that people should be able to assess their personal status and/or risk. If it were available now, I’d be signing up to find out if it’s safe for me to hug my mother – she has no immune system, and I’d rather not send her into a health crisis by carrying some undetected virus whose favorite battlefield is the respiratory system.
Item 2, tracing and monitoring: uh…NO. Or, more colloquially, H-No. Ok, I’m fully aware that Amazon knows where I have packages shipped, Google knows when I’ve been to Meijer (by address), my bank knows what I bought there, and Facebook knows who my friends are and which ones participate in which activities I pursue. That’s more than plenty. Didn’t we have enough of that nonsense when the HIV freakout was in high gear? Didn’t we say at that time that people and their chosen activities, even hook-ups and abortions, were nobody’s business? I bought milk and candy today – and unless I invite someone to share in it, that’s nobody’s business.
Item 3, supporting the quarantine of such contacts: have you heard the phrase, “I’m with the government, I’m here to help”? It’s another colloquialism generally admitting that introducing government support tends to have the same results as inviting a three-year-old to help you bake a cake. You may get a suitable cake, but it’ll take longer and you’ll have twice the mess to clean up in the kitchen. In this case, imagine what support might be provided to whom – given that the pool of “such contacts” is anyone in your realm who might have ordered a pizza from an establishment where someone’s potentially infected brother wrecked his skateboard. I’ll take care of my own loved ones, thanks anyway.
Item 4, mobile health units: this one’s a little more on the fence. Bringing the equipment and expertise into a community so that folks can voluntarily get diagnostic services is a great idea – as long as we don’t skip over that word “voluntarily.” Red Cross has a mobile blood donation unit, we can give of ourselves to save lives without having to drive all the way downtown. But the day someone knocks on my door and grabs my arm without my expressed consent? To quote the gatekeeper of Oz, “Not no way, not no how!” Mobile mammogram units? Fabulous idea – but I’ll make my own appointment, thanks. Back away from the shirt or risk the need for a mobile first-aid unit.
Item 5, at their residences: I’ll keep this short, see Item 4, or Constitutional Amendment 4 – that’s the one about search & seizure.
There you have it, a quick analysis of a bill that, if signed into law, simply states that Congress will add a COVID-19 line item to the budget for this year and as many years as it takes to wipe out this illness. Now, look at the precedent being set by this and the many seasons in history when good intentions set disastrous precedents. Or, quoting Glenn Beck, “When did we go from ‘flatten the curve’ to ‘make sure no one gets sick?'” In the link, he highlights some of the extreme decisions that have been made across the U.S. in the name of keeping everyone safe.
Personal responsibility means I’ll keep my cooties to myself and appreciate you doing the same. That’s what masks in public and frequent handwashing are expected to do. Laws to enforce the ideal of no death is in direct opposition to the ideals that support abortion and assisted suicide. Some of us will get sick anyway, it happens. All of us, barring rapture, will die at some point. There’s a wide variety of sources — the first was murder, and in many instances, the body just shuts down because bio-systems are not eternal. We need laws to deal with those who deliberately cause the death of other humans – but laws to ensure that no one dies? As Spock would say, “Illogical.”
Something else illogical? Just gonna toss this out there…. let’s not go getting ridiculous about the sequential number assigned to this bill. It’s intriguing to be sure, but let’s focus on the content and precedent more than the superstitious. According to the worldwide best-selling single-bound collection of sixty-six books, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. (But the groundwork’s certainly being laid.)
Stay calm. Pay attention. Respond appropriately. Now, who wants to give the mouse their cookie?