The BFD | What Do These Wars Have in Common?

What do the Wars on Drugs, Climate Change, and Covid all have in common?

Answer: they can all be expressed as follows:

We must do X in order to prevent Y where Y is a threat of biblical proportions and X is taking extreme action to prevent the threat, most often including the loss of liberties and giving the state draconian powers.

Take for instance Climate Change. The threat in this case is the end of humanity. This in turn is used to justify actions that inevitably will cost billions, perhaps even trillions, and kill Western economies.

In the case of Covid that threat, according to Jacinda Ardern, was the needless and preventable deaths of thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders even though we have low population density and no land borders.

With regard to the War on Drugs, advocates see themselves as guardians at the gate, valiantly keeping a giant monster at bay. The threat, in this case, is a global health crisis.

In every instance, the evidence for Y is weak or even non-existent, with arguments often amounting to false equivalence. With regard to both Covid and Climate Change, we have highly questionable modelling. During the first round of Covid, proponents of lockdowns would point at Sweden as proof of what would have happened if we hadn’t had had lockdowns, even though there was no significant increase in the death rate in Sweden before and during Covid.

Getting back to the War on Drugs not only are advocates against ending prohibition, but they are also against any kind of liberalisation. If we allow the gate to be opened even a fraction there will be a surge in drug use, they scream. Alcohol and nicotine are presented as proof, as though if methamphetamine were legalised we’d all be scurrying to the local dairy for a hit.

And of course, the ‘greater good’ argument will often raise its head. Sure, there have been cases where someone has missed out on seeing their dying grandma because of being trapped in MIQ but we have to look at the whole picture, or so the argument goes.

So what’s my point?

My point is whenever you hear that drastic and extreme measures are needed to stop a giant monster looming over the horizon remember that it is always, and I mean always, total BS. Often the monster doesn’t even exist and if it does it’s only a fraction of the size that it’s said to be.

Let me be clear here. There is and can never be any threat so big that it justifies losing our liberty and basic human rights.