When the alternative is invasive, Orwellian monitoring and inhumane enforcement by an authoritarian state, I'll take 40% compliance every time.
Remember... governments NEVER give up these powers readily.
Remember... governments NEVER give up these powers readily.
The West had massively draconian laws during the last similar protracted existential problem, WW2, and gave them up just fine when it finished.
The New Deal occurred before WW2 as a way to simulate things out of the Great Depression. Turns out war is even a bigger economic stimulus package than social programs.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
> and the military industrial complex...
Actually, the US did:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilization_of_United_State...
Then the Korean War happened:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
It turns out the Communists were expansionist and needed a counter-weight in influence.
Your opinion is not factually supported. A million people were prosecuted for breaking lockdown laws in the UK.
That's his point. He's drawing a contrast to blackout laws,by claiming that an individual sees direct benefit from compliance (not getting bombed) while breaking lockdown doesn't create a lot of risk for the vast majority of offenders.
Ie, if a hypothetical person was 100% optimizing for self-interest, they would not break blackout laws but would break lockdown laws. This is a dramatic difference in dynamics when seeking to understand differences in compliance.
Yes… except that’s the other way around from what happened in reality. People did break blackout lockdown rules but they generally didn’t break COVID lockdown rules.
Though it sounds like you're saying you misspoke, and intended to say that people broke the blackout rules. That makes a lot more sense, thanks for clarifying
Your assertion that a million people were prosecuted seems far fetched.
1. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/6500-coronavirus-related-pro...
Which has lead to tens of thousands of deaths that have not occurred in Australia.