Mandatory Corona Police Powers

In a matter of hours a proposed voluntary government corona program seems to have become compulsory:

Well, that did not last very long. Just earlier today I posted a piece in which I looked at Australian government proposals to have a VOLUNTARY monitoring app for phones to track the spread of corona. As I said, while the proposal is meant to be an opt-in sort of affair, there is always the danger that it will become compulsory. As I wrote:

Another thing all good students of history know is that often what starts out as an optional, voluntary government policy quickly becomes a mandatory one. Or if it does not become mandatory, it ends up with the same result. The government can very easily say, “Either you agree to this program or policy or you will not be allowed basic goods and services.”

But now all the headlines are talking about a mandatory rollout of this policy. As one news report puts it:

Mobile phone tracking software could be compulsory if not enough Australians voluntarily download the application to help in coronavirus case tracing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says at least 40 per cent of the population needs to use the app to make it effective.

‘My preference is to give Australians a go at getting it right. That’s my plan A and I really want plan A to work,’ he told Triple M on Friday. Mr Morrison has likened using the tracing app to national service. ‘I know this would be something they might not normally do at an ordinary time but this is not an ordinary time. If you download this app you’ll be helping save someone’s life,’ he said.

Hmm, from voluntary to a very good possibility of mandatory. How quickly and easily this occurred. It did not take much at all for this transition to transpire. Why am I not surprised? And all this because of a threat that may be nowhere near as bad as its remedy.

Once again, I urge you to look at the actual hard numbers to see if all these austere measures make sense. And please do not look at the wildly speculative projections, guestimates, and modelling. Deal with the real figures. Let me offer two sets of comparative figures.

Consider the actual numbers concerning the flu and corona in Australia right now. Last year over 900 Australians died from influenza. Yes, that was above the average, but it helps to put things in perspective. So far we have had 65 corona deaths (out of a population of 25.5 million) and all the relevant statistical curves are flat as a pancake. We do NOT lock down Australia each year because of the flu. See the figures here:

And consider another set of numbers, comparing two nations with two different approaches to corona. While America has had a lot of corona deaths (35,000 – out of 331 million people), it so far has just 105 corona deaths per million people. Compare this with Sweden: it has 132 deaths per million people.

Keep this in mind: this is deaths PER MILLION people. Thus in terms of actual percentages, there is no real difference at all between the two countries. Yet Sweden has not gone down the draconian path of total lockdown that the US has. Two quite different approaches to the crisis, but two rather similar outcomes in terms of deaths per million.

Once again, it is the hard numbers that matter here. Let me conclude by doing what I often do: urge us to learn from history. A cursory study of history will reveal that many dictators and tyrants came to power by dealing with – or promising to deal with – various emergencies and crises.

It could be a breakdown in law and order, real or perceived external threats, economic crises, or what have you, but the masses tended to support these leaders in their rise to power in the face of such threats. One expert who has examined these truths is worth appealing to here.

The Austrian-British philosopher and economist F. A. Hayek, in the third volume of his classic Law, Legislation and Liberty (University of Chicago Press, 1979) has a short section on “Emergency powers” (pp. 124-126). The first half of that is worth sharing here:

The basic principle of a free society, that the coercive powers of government are restricted to the enforcement of universal rules of just conduct, and cannot be used for the achievement of particular purposes, though essential to the normal working of such a society, may yet have to be temporarily suspended when the long-run preservation of that order is itself threatened. Though normally the individuals need be concerned only with their own concrete aims, and in pursuing them will best serve the common welfare, there may temporarily arise circumstances when the preservation of the over-all order becomes the overruling common purpose, and when in consequence the spontaneous order, on a local or national scale, must for a time be converted into an organization. When an external enemy threatens, when rebellion or lawless violence has broken out, or a natural catastrophe requires quick action by whatever means can be secured, powers of compulsory organization, which normally nobody possesses, must be granted to somebody. Like an animal in flight from mortal danger society may in such situations have to suspend temporarily even vital functions on which in the long run its existence depends if it is to escape destruction.

The conditions under which such emergency powers may be granted without creating the danger that they will be retained when the absolute necessity has passed are among the most difficult and important points a constitution must decide on. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed such emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist. Indeed if all needs felt by important groups that can be satisfied only by the exercise of dictatorial powers constitute an emergency, every situation is an emergency situation. It has been contended with some plausibility that whoever has the power to proclaim an emergency and on this ground to suspend any part of the constitution is the true sovereign. This would seem to be true enough if any person or body were able to arrogate to itself such emergency powers by declaring a state of emergency.

Let me highlight the key sentence from that second paragraph: “‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed such emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist.”

One can see how easy it is for any political leader to milk a crisis for all its worth. The temptation is always there, and that for the simple reason that power is so seductive and so corrupting. Even the best of leaders are not immune from the destructive virus of escalating power grabs.

If nothing else, one humorous meme making the rounds is worth running with here: “We are developing an app that will track politicians and alert civilians if they are at risk of coming in contact with one.” That might be a much more useful app than the current one being planned.

[1221 words]

14 Replies to “Mandatory Corona Police Powers”

  1. I just heard on local radio (Adelaide) that according to the premier Steven Marshall, that social distancing will be in “for a very long time”.. This is insane! He said things won’t change til a vaccine is found. What’s he mean by ” very long time”? 18 months? Many people are going to go mad if this happens & anarchy will ensue. And the economy will never recover. He didn’t sound too upset saying it. I’m really convinced now that there must be another agenda behind this & a totalitarian police state is what it’s about.

  2. monitoring app for phones to track the spread of corona

    Why aren’t the greens up in arms over this? Having (an estimated) 18,000,000 phones in OZ continually monitoring and recording what other phones are in range then sending the info somewhere has to use a lot of energy even though individual phone use is low.

    A workmate is safe though, he has an old company phone on which the OS won’t support modern apps. 🙂

  3. Who will have access to the bio-data we all voluntarily hand over with our roadside swabs?

  4. Thanks Bill for your perceptive articles on the C.V., especially the call to keep asking questions. Today our P.M. has said that monitoring devices will be voluntary. I wouldn’t be wearing one even if they became mandatory because it would be State overreach on our freedom of movement.
    A comment on some statistics. There were 900 deaths from the flu last year even though we had a vaccine and no official restrictions. To compare with C.V. we’d have to know how many of those who died didn’t have the vaccine. How many were in contact with others who had the flu? And so on. The various age groups would also help.
    Yes, comparatively speaking we’ve only had 60+ deaths from the C.V. thus far. But one can only speculate how many deaths we would’ve had from the C.V. if Australia had simply no restrictions at all. All those returning were allowed in. No testing on them or anyone. No sanitising. No social distancing. No borders closed and so on. Obviously there’s no vaccine as yet either.
    I would venture to say that to date we would’ve had far more than 900 deaths. Restrictions have kept the total low. When and how to lift them is the challenge.
    A comment on the leaders’ press statements. Certainly every death from C.V. is regrettable and sympathy can be extended to families. However, I don’t recall any public sympathy being extended to families who lost a loved one from the flu last year.
    Much more publicity has come this year about the C.V. and the 60+deaths.

  5. Thanks Graham. Of course at the end of the day you are guessing about the real numbers just as much as I am and everyone else is – including the experts! No one knows how many have died from corona, and no one knows how many might have died had we not had this massive lockdown. It is all basically guesswork. And those who have read even some of my 40 articles on corona will know that I have always said that some measures are needed, such as hand-washing, social distancing, some closure of gatherings, some reasonable and temporary shutdowns, etc. So I am certainly not arguing for a complete hands-off approach here, but one that carefully weighs up the costs and benefits – one that insists that the cure must not become worse than the disease.

    But we can begin to measure – at least somewhat – certain other bits of data, such as how many more mental health cases we have had, suicides we have had, and so on, because of the national shutdown and economic devastation, etc. So I will continue to sound the alarm about the risks of statism as well. See this new piece for example:

    But thanks again for your thoughts.

  6. Bill you are a blessing. Thank you for reminding us that we have an obligation, as part of our faith walk, to ‘think,’ seeking GOD’s wisdom, understanding, knowledge, discernment and revelation – and not just blindly allow the blind to lead us. The Bible warns us about this. I viewed the link provided by Mike Claydon. Thank you also Mike. It was scary but it makes sense!! Question is ‘does our Government understand what they are doing? Or – is it ignorant and like a puppet being controlled and manipulated by a malevolent authority?’ The baby boomers and subsequent generations have largely been taught ‘what to think’ and not ‘how to think.’ I think this is because we, as individuals and Nations, have excluded GOD and drifted far away from GOD and the truth and authority of HIS Word and done what is right in our own eyes. Like Nebuchadnezzar we are having a wild and beastly wilderness experience, living like a beast of the field until we come to our senses and acknowledge GOD and acknowledge that all HIS ways are just and perfect and submit to HIS will. Choice is ours!! Sure hope we come to our senses soon! Bless you.

  7. Dont forget once they have this data they will have everything they need to start handing out fines for “unauthorized gatherings”. They wont need location data, they will have evidence you were with an “unauthorized number of people”.

    I dont trust them at all and so far they have shown little common sense in handling policing this stuff.

  8. Thanks Jason. Yes, what really worries me are all these folks (including far too many Christians) who are so clueless and believe that governments are usually benign, and technologies are usually beneficial. All governments and all technologies are far too easily corrupted. We must always keep an eye on this.

  9. I guess I will just leave my phone in voluntary lockdown when I take my walk.

  10. And now we learn that Amazon has the contract to store the data. What could possibly go wrong? Mmmmm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *