Skip to main content

Government at Any Level is Unfit to Run Your Life


In plain English this time. What is the right way to think about the risk of Covid? About three percent of people who get Covid are dying from it. That number drops precipitously for those outside a few well-defined risk groups (namely older adults and those with certain preexisting conditions). People do risky things every day. We all get in cars, some smoke cigarettes, and most of us eat things we know are unhealthy. Here’s a list of the top causes of death in the U.S. since the first confirmed Covid death: Heart disease (340,889), Cancer (299,358), Covid-19 (148,772), Lower respiratory disease (78,443), Stroke (78,350), Alzheimer’s (66,401), Diabetes (49,215), and Influenza/Pneumonia (30,216). In addition, car accidents cause about 38,000 deaths per year in the U.S. To reiterate: we get in cars, smoke cigarettes, and eat things we know are terrible for us. We do these things every day. We do them without thinking about it. 


Some caveats to the Covid numbers: there is reason to think the reported deaths may be higher than the actual deaths. The U.K. health department recently reduced their Covid death count by 11 percent, owing to a recognition that their methodology for counting such deaths was over-inclusive (the new methodology still includes deaths of people who tested positive for Covid in the last 4 weeks, regardless of the actual cause of death). Our own CDC Director is on record admitting that hospitals have a financial incentive to overreport how many lives Covid has claimed. We also don’t know how many people have such mild symptoms that they don’t know they’re sick, meaning that the three percent fatality rate is likely too high, both because there are fewer deaths and more exposures than have been reported. But even assuming the numbers are exactly right, total deaths from Covid in the U.S. are closer to the ninth leading cause of death (Septicemia, with 19,796) than they are to the second. 


So why does Covid inspire so much more fear than those other causes? Likely because it’s new. Fear of the novel isn’t, itself, novel. It’s as old as time. This is not a situation where there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Covid is serious. Some amount of fear is understandable. Certainly some caution is rational, especially for those in high risk categories and their caretakers. But it is not rational to let a disease that is usually mild induce a national panic. It is not rational to let fear of death diminish life as we know it. It is not rational to allow anyone else to override and deride our own individual judgments over how best to run our lives. Self determination, choosing the acceptable balance of risk and reward for ourselves and our families, is a precious freedom, not one to be handed over lightly— especially to those who fancy themselves central planners over every aspect of life. 


We need to weigh the real risks of our decisions against the known costs of the alternatives. And there are real costs to keeping the economy shuttered, only a few of which are financial. Some are emotional. Some are physical. Some are immediate, but others may not be recognized for years, and some may remain invisible. Then there are those that go to the heart of our national character. Are we learning to substitute edicts from on high for our own judgements in matters of our private affairs?    


Socialist central planning of the economy has proven utterly disastrous time and time again. What makes us think we have the ability or the right to dictate to people what health risks they are allowed to take? How can someone working in government who has never met you possibly know what’s best for you? Since no one knows the future, we often can’t be sure of the best choice for ourselves. But given that uncertainty, there is certainly no one qualified to weigh risk and reward for anyone else. There is dignity in choosing our own paths, bearing responsibility, and working through the consequences. A top-down mandate dictating how individuals navigate a temporary epidemic that is killing three percent of those who get it strips us of that dignity. It robs us of the responsibilities inherent to the human condition. It conditions us to accept subservience of our God-given faculties to the judgment of faraway bureaucrats. 


Here’s what lifting mandates - whether full lockdown or “only” mask requirements doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that everyone will be ordered to go to a crowded mall and lick the door handles. It doesn’t mean that anyone will be forced to go outside at all. It merely reopens that latter option to anyone who judges risks acceptable. Do you honestly believe that anyone anywhere, much less anyone in government, knows enough about you to override your judgment? 


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha...

What if Legislators Were Licensed? Well, Just to Make a Point...

1889 Institute, as a general matter, objects to occupational licensing. We have written about it more than any other subject. The scant benefits simply do not outweigh the enormous costs to consumers and entrepreneurs, and  the  burdens that disproportionately impact the poor.   It must be noted that the remainder of this post is a work of satire. This should be obvious to anyone who has read even one of our papers, but each of the proposals below has an analogous provision in Oklahoma licensing laws. To those supportive of government-created cartels, these proposals might sound almost reasonable.  A material threat to the public safety and welfare has for too long gone entirely unregulated, unrestrained and unchecked. This menace has the power to corrode not only mere industries, but to corrupt the entire state economy. It’s no overstatement to say that the practitioners of this perilous profession hold the power to destroy democracy as we know it. After a...

Same Ol’ Story: Blocking Opportunity, Freedom, Prosperity

I know. Sometimes we sound like a broken record. ANOTHER blog about licensing? Long-term care administration licensing? Seriously? Does this theme not get old? Well, yeah, it’s old. We wish we could stop writing about what may very well be the stupidest, most onerous, and most disgusting type of regulation on the books. Frankly, until something is done about it, we don’t believe we have a choice. And more should be getting done. This is not a partisan issue, after all. The Obama administration put out a white paper on the over-abundance of licensing in the United States and its deleterious effects. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has a do-nothing Occupational Licensing Advisory Commission headed by Labor Commissioner Leslie Osborn who clearly couldn’t care less. They rarely meet and almost never recommend that the legislature repeal a license. Nonetheless, NOTHING is more fundamental to freedom than the ownership of oneself. Therefore, the most basic freedom we have is the right to sell our...

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...