Government works best which is subservient to the people, the second it becomes something else bad things will happen
Where they typically get it wrong is avoiding a known small risk vs a possible bigger risk. However, in this case it seems to be a known small risk vs a certain much bigger risk.
Central planning is always bad, be it for emergencies or economics or anything else
I mean there isn't much alternative to central planning. But that doesn't prevent local planning and individuals doing the best for themselves.
Some of these were over turned by the courts after months or years of fighting, some the central planners just rescinded, but in all cases the central planning supplanted local and individual freedom
In the context of Maui, I bet there are federal policies in place on the subject of Forrest management, fire control, etc that all supplant local authority, and certainly remove individual control
In the case of Covid, as much as the top policies were messed up in places, individuals around me very much paid attention and did what they could in addition or in place of that. They still run their own testing standards for example and take anything from CDC with a grain of salt (that will take a LONG time to fix - probably for the better). For one, the massive amounts of money poured into vaccines and lab tests and home tests, IMO, made a difference that would have been much harder to achieve for locals or purely commercial efforts.
For example, I am fine with the CDC Existing, I am fine with them advocating the public do x, or y, I am fine with them establishing protocols and guidance for people
I am not fine with them having the authority to order people to do X, or to exceed their authority prohibiting evictions, or working with private industry to target people for censorship that dared to question their advice or many of the other things
Again read my opening comment "Government works best which is subservient to the people" this means the government can ADVISE people on the best actions to take, but should not ORDER people to do it...
The second the government has the power to ORDER you do something well you are now a serf and not a free person.
>Scott shows how central governments attempt to force legibility on their subjects, and fail to see complex, valuable forms of local social order and knowledge. A main theme of this book, illustrated by his historic examples, is that states operate systems of power toward 'legibility' in order to see their subjects correctly in a top-down, modernist, model that is flawed, problematic, and often ends poorly for subjects. The goal of local legibility by the state is transparency from the top down, from the top of the tower or the center/seat of the government, so the state can effectively operate upon their subjects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State#:~:text=....
Yeah, the big picture includes sacrificing you in favor of somebody more "important" than you.
The Cajun Navy started out with someone's great aunt rounding up some bass boats in the swamp to send to New Orleans after Katrina. It now has dispatchers on call (which takes pressure off of the 911 system) collecting needs, channeling volunteers where rescues are needed, and piping emergencies to 911. Also, has built expertise around post-disaster rebuilding - CNGF has boots on the ground in Maui.
Only you have the personal context.
I know several people that have ignored fire evacuation orders and saved their homes instead. No fire department is going to tell people to fight the fire because they don't know people's individual situations.
Shelter and place orders are another funny one. I have a lot of fond memories ignoring shelter in place orders hiking and camping in the wilderness during covid. It probably reduced my risk versus Sheltering at home. Blanket orders were one size fits all, made to address the person that is going to parties and bars.
The government is never looking out for your individual interests. It only cares about the average, and you can be the person that dies as collateral damage from an order that still has a good average outcome
This only works up to a point. If everyone stays home and turns on their sprinklers and hoses, the water distribution system quickly fails, and then NOBODY can fight the fire, be it individuals or the average. This is a very simple lesson that was learned more than a century ago. Acting in a selfish manner only works if a tiny fraction of people do that. We typically name these people after a certain excreting orifice for a reason.
The people that I know that fought fires are Rural and not even on a distribution system. They saved their home while the firefighters passively watched their neighbors houses burned down. The firefighters orders were to make sure there were no fires by a Road intersection, and since there weren't, this meant standing around doing nothing for 24 hours within shouting distance of houses burning down. A good example of how public priorities don't always match your personal priorities.
I get that people hate non-conformists and deviance, but Not everything needs to be an us vs them zero-sum game.
I was thinking more about sheltering from tornados and hurricanes.
Im not saying never follow orders, just that by definition universal orders aren't best for everyone in every situation. Common sense goes a long way towards contextualizing them and their usefulness.
For example at different times I have went to my basement during while the tornado sirens where going off, and other times I have stood outside looking at the clouds...
Why because I took the governments recommendation, added my own information from various weather sources, radar, and decades of experience and formulated my personal risk at that moment
Lots of wildfire stories include people who ignored evacuation orders and died. This is just silly confirmation bias. The large majority of people who survive wildfires do so because they listened to government officials and implying that people should ignore evacuation orders is frankly stupidly dangerous.
>Shelter and place orders are another funny one. I have a lot of fond memories ignoring shelter in place orders hiking and camping in the wilderness during covid. It probably reduced my risk versus Sheltering at home. Blanket orders were one size fits all, made to address the person that is going to parties and bars.
How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.
Edit* I literally just got notice of a level 3 evac that doesn't cover me but is near me. I'm sure all those "non-conformists" will stay and make life miserable for firefighters.
Are you claiming that government orders are optimal 100% of the time in 100% of situations? If not, then sometimes it is wrong, and it might be wrong for you.
>How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.
Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.
Of course not. Your example was just not a situation where not following orders was individually optimal. You and your friends are suffering from confirmation bias. They did something incredibly stupid and dangerous and put their lives at risk and more importantly, increased risk for the firefighters working the job. It happened to work out but that doesn't mean it was wise. They could have just as easily died or killed a firefighter who was trying to rescue them.
Why don't you reach out to a wildland firefighters outfit and see their perspective on what bullshit they have to deal with when dumbasses don't evacuate.
For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, following emergency instructions is the optimal outcome. Even in this case, the folks who went around the barrier didn't know that going around was safer than going back. They gambled and it worked out.
>Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.
Ah yes, I'm sure you magically went from your bedroom to wilderness miles away from anyone else without stopping or interacting with anyone!
Look, I'm not saying going out in the wilderness was wrong, its just silly to think it lowered your risk at all.
You can't claim that they put their lives at risk and made a stupid mistake without that information.
The same holds true for the covid example. You don't know the specifics and are making a generalization. It is in fact possible to go camping without interacting with people.