Every Tragedy Caused by Government Is Done with the Best of Intentions

A prediction: When it becomes incontrovertible that forced vaccinations and lockdowns have done more harm than good, all the people in power who have caused this harm will excuse their totalitarian madness by claiming they "had the best of intentions."

Oh, we had the people's best interests at heart, really.

We were only trying to save lives.

Nobody could have predicted all this harm.

Followed, in short order, by a final self-indulgent We're the real victims here for caring too much."

It will be the latest painful example in a long line of human tragedies that arose only because the ruling elite controlling the levers of government responded to a perceived problem in the world by exploiting it for their own enrichment, re-engineering it to become more toxic and painful for ordinary people than it otherwise would have been, and then applauding their own efforts as "heroic" and "wise" examples of good governance, contrary to all evidence suggesting otherwise.

President Johnson's "war on poverty" caused more poverty, deepened the dependence upon government welfare of those most economically vulnerable, and initiated a collapse in marriage rates and two-parent families that continues to this day.

President Nixon's "war on drugs" subsidized the monopoly power of drug cartels south of the border, helped create a schizophrenic national security policy that at times aligned American strategic objectives with those of the same global drug czars designated enemies, and produced a U.S. incarceration rate that still leads the world.

President Bush's "war on terror" in response to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor not only led to two of the longest wars in U.S. history without producing clear-cut long-term victories but also initiated a mass surveillance state that is now used against Americans by the FBI, NSA, and U.S. military to target constitutionally protected political beliefs.

President Obama's insistence that "health care is a right" that required the government to take over an entire industry (and close to one-fifth of the economy) has only exacerbated the costs of medical treatment, increased the cost of insurance, wrecked the financial viability of rural hospitals, politicized the work of medical professionals, and destroyed the doctor-patient relationship by inserting the government's eyes and ears into every treatment room.

And in every one of these examples, the ruling elite who convinced ordinary Americans to go along with their plans "had the best of intentions."  Sure, the powers of government agencies increased.  Sure, people were left with less control over their own lives.  Sure, a tremendous amount of predictable, as well as unexpected, harm fell on the very Americans those plans were ostensibly created to protect.  But "nobody could have known," right?  The "experts were unanimous" in their conclusions.  The government was "just trying to save lives."  Anybody who questions the government's "good intentions" is an "extremist."

You'll notice that each and every time the ruling class executes this strategy, a number of themes reappear:

(1) The government gives itself unprecedented powers in order to combat a terrifying emergency that must be stopped.

(2) The emergency never actually goes away, and in fact, the greater the level of institutional failure, the more necessary it becomes for the government not only to maintain its newfound powers but also to regularly enhance those powers in its endless efforts to be successful. 

(3) Anybody who attempts to warn that the government's ill-conceived and impetuous actions will only lead to more varied and severe harms is immediately demonized as imbecilic, uncaring, or selfish.

Who could be against wars on poverty, abusive drug use, or terror?  Who could possibly argue against health care or against doing anything required "even if it saves only one life"?  It's an emergency!  If intergenerational poverty and government dependence are rising, it must be because we have not yet spent enough money on the problem.  If drugs and violence continue spilling over the border, there must be another law or dedicated police force or stimulus check that will fix America's cultural and spiritual malaise.  If we haven't won the war on terror, it's because we will always find someone new to call a "terrorist," even if that person wears a red MAGA cap.

There always has to be some kind of crisis, right?  Government only exists to "solve crises," so if one does not arise naturally, it is imperative that those with power find something — anything — to justify why they have more power than you.

Now, what about our current crisis?  Are we in a better or worse position since it began?  Did it make sense to hobble the global economy, permanently destroy hundreds of thousands of small businesses that will never return, and light the fuse to a debt bomb that will make it much more painful for all people to support themselves into old age?  Well, if you're Walmart or Amazon, small-time competition is gone, and profits are through the roof.  If you're a member of the governing ruling class, then financial power has been concentrated into a smaller oligarchy than before, and potential future dissent has been starved or eliminated.  If you have been excitedly preparing for a New World Order where people are dependent on government welfare and possess few private resources of their own, then the "Great Reset" has been glorious.  If you are an ordinary citizen, however, you have never been poorer, your life savings have never been more threatened by central banks' efforts to collapse the value of their currencies, and future economic growth has never been more uncertain, as national governments dictatorially rule at whim as to which industries or sectors of the economy are allowed to flourish.

Did it make sense to enact dystopian lockdowns on society, deny the healthy benefits of human fellowship, threaten religious gatherings with criminal sanctions and fines, and prevent friends and families from sharing each other's company?  It certainly allowed governments to control the flow of information, spot nonconformists and free thinkers, and keep "the herd" in check.  It certainly expanded and cemented the reach of technological monopolies into every home and ushered in a new era of mass censorship and organized propaganda on a scale never before seen.  For ordinary people, however, epidemics of loneliness, addiction, undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and obesity from lack of movement will continue to take lives when they would otherwise have not.

Does it make sense to begin mandating faux vaccines to our healthy youth when the risk of side effects often outweighs any potential benefits?  Does it make sense for pregnant women to be injected with a serum before the potential hazards to their babies are known?  Does it make sense to force people who have already recovered from the virus and who now have robust immunity to undergo experimental treatment, nonetheless?  Well, it makes sense if the goals are to increase pharmaceutical industry profits, increase political donations from those companies to the same politicians supporting "vaccine" mandates, train people to accept the use of digital passports so that governments may more easily track their movements, and prevent the formation of any "control group" of unvaccinated against whom the "vaccinated" can be compared over time to determine any resulting long-term harms.  For ordinary citizens, the government's goals amount to an unprecedented loss of personal freedom.

Still, governments (1) saw an emergency that (2) had to be stopped at any cost, and (3) anybody who questions their new powers is being imbecilic, uncaring, and selfish.

May we all always remember the extraordinary teacher, Angelo Codevilla.

Image: TheDigitalArtist via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.