zlacker

Yes. For the government, apathy and inaction is always the best possible policy.

>>golerg+(OP)
I wish more people still held this view. When in doubt a government should avoid acting for fear of unintended consequences.

>>golerg+(OP)
Have you lived in a country where the citizens believe that the government is overall apathetic to their situations? It often doesn't create a utopia, but rather a lot of cynicism and reliance on family support networks. I'm an American currently in East Africa and I imagine many if not most people here would say the government doesn't care about them and does very little for them. So what ends up happening is that since there is little government/social welfare programs, people rely on family welfare. And well, if you don't have a rich family, your life can be really really really hard, if you even survive.

Your family doesn't have money? No food. No service at the emergency room. Heck, even no water.

I think there's a balance and that people who want more apathy and inaction may not realize what it's like when that's actually the case.

>>_heimd+Vr
Government is just a collection of people, collection of unknown neighbors. Action can lead to unintended consequences, but so can inaction. Someone is bleeding on the street, do you help? If you help, you might get HIV, if they were attacked the attacker might come after you, the person might even attack you. If you don't help, they might bleed out on the street, they might have permanent damage, or something else.

Do you act or do you not act?

Both have unintended, often unpredictable consequences.

>>jimkle+R81
> Government is just a collection of people, collection of unknown neighbors.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. None of the politicians in Washington are my neighbors, the closes one lives about 300 miles away but he is never actually home. Those politicians have an extreme amount of control over my life, well beyond what seems reasonable given how disconnected we are.

> Do you act or do you not act?

That varies a lot, but context is everything. If I see someone bleeding out, yes I would help. I generally have basic first aid on me including a tourniquet and chest seals. If I have open cuts on my hands and no gloves I'd have to consider the risk of infection, but if someone is likely to die I think I would take the risk (you never know until you're in the situation though).

If someone is attacked on the street, again yes I'd likely act. Context still matters, if I'm 30 feet away and the person has a gun I'd be of no use unless I'm also armed, and even then I'd have to draw before they saw me. If someone is getting beat up, mugged, even stabbed, sure I'd jump in. I think of have a really hard time living with the knowledge that I watched someone get attacked or murdered and did nothing.