In the US, "social security" plays the same role. It's a benefits scheme that's morphed into an identity scheme. This tells you something about how governments work -- all compliance with identity-linked government dealings must be linked to a big government carrot.
Conversation
The thing about schemes like aadhar is that it is a high-modernist "view from nowhere" of citizenry that isn't linked to any specific aspect of citizenship but is all consuming and encompassing.
1
1
5
In the wake of Covid, I am guessing some governments will link access to any state benefits to proof of vaccination or something. Things could get ugly. When the state mainly represents a stick rather than a carrot, people wonder why the state exists.
1
9
This has been a meandering, discursive thread that's a subtweet of 2 big national governments (and 1 big state government) due to some shit I'm dealing with, but let me try distilling a tldr out of this for why I think something big has broken in government and statecraft.
1
1
Government is viable when there is a big enough carrot with which to induce consent of governance by a monopolistic scheme from which there is no opting out, and enough people opt-in even though there is no choice not to. Government rests on people choosing from a set of 1.
1
2
8
In theory, we have consent of the governed and any sort of governance at all because there are collective problems that we think are solved poorly or not at all by private actors. Like pandemic control. **This is the whole reason we agree to being governed at all.**
1
5
In practice though, we have consent of the governed because the collective action problems that actually need governance as the unique solution are rare enough that instead we do a softer consent around entitlements that are not actually governance problems.
1
4
Ie, let's say that perhaps markets would do better on almost everything, including pricing and distributing ag commodities in India, and securing retirement incomes in the US. There's almost nothing the state *must* to do except a) provide security b) wage wars b) stop pandemics
1
2
So why can't we do with just a minimalist night-watchman/night-nurse state that only does those things and leaves the rest alone? Because a state capable of doing those 3 things is by definition big enough to require constant justification and operational use with other duties.
1
4
ie if you have a government capable enough to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic, the kind of problem it is meant for, it has to be given things to do for the other 99 years
2
9
But we only put up with inefficiency of the state doing things like food distribution in the 99 years because we expect it to actually work as designed if there is a problem like a pandemic. If a state fails a pandemic test (or a hot war test, or a real law-and-order test)...??
Replying to
It's an existential crisis. People start wondering: "You had one job...everything else is merely to keep you busy when that job isn't required of you... so if you fail the one job, why are we giving you all the other jobs?"
1
1
13
I'm only concerned with big countries here. The problem is, with respect, simply not that big or hard in small countries. So Covid response is meaningfully comparable across say the US, India, China, the EU (to the extent it is a single zone) etc.
1
6
Kudos to New Zealand, Taiwan etc. But the lessons I am interested in are mainly US+EU+BRIC.
China represents one solution. The state did its One Job. Chinese people have to now decide whether it's worth the other costs of being ruled by the CCP means.
I still wouldn't tbh.
1
7
The US has failed its One Job. Americans now have to decide whether it's worth giving the state another shot with the next big crisis, or simply accept the costs of being ungoverned (aka, periodic culls and die-offs from a more Darwinian, ungoverned frontier ancap existence)
1
9
Despite 284k deaths and Trump, yeah, I'd still choose to live in the US over China. I'll take my chances at securing my own health. As for the choice... , I'm inclined to give the state another shot at getting it right. Unfortunately I don't think most Americans are so inclined.
1
2
This is pretty tough for me to admit. I like to think of myself as macro-compassionate and concerned for all life. But here I am admitting I'd rather give a derelict Trump-trashed state another chance on a pile of 284k bodies rather than be ruled by something like the CCP.
2
4
But like I said, most people won't be willing to give the state another chance. So choosing to take the vaccine will be partly a referendum on "does the state deserve another chance to get it right" (not perfect, since there's a lot more going into the decision to get vaccinated)
1
3
Note that this is NOT a choice between "take the vaccine and risk side effects in order to save 100s of ks of lives" vs. "let people die, I'm healthy enough"
It's a choice between "I trust the state to actually get the rest right if I make this pro-social choice to get vaccine"
1
1
Like consider you're a healthy young person who thinks your covid risk is not that much higher than your vaccine side-effects risk, but you're pro-social and willing to take the shot anyway. Your real conundrum is: do you trust the state not to fuck everything else up?
1
2
We're not talking anti-vaxx crackpot or maga ideologue nut. We're talking a reasonable person. Such a person might think "the initial response disaster was mainly Trump, and if he's out, Biden deserves a chance at getting it right, so I'll take the vaccine"
1
But you might ALSO reason, "Trump made it unnecessarily way worse and maybe cost 100k more deaths, but the main failure was the rest of the state apparatus, and I see no difference under Biden, so they'll screw it up again so fuck it, I'm not getting vaccinated"
1
1
3
I suspect a lot more people are in the second camp. A minority of strongly altruistic people will get vaccinated out of some sense of obligation to help first responders and doctors and other suffering types. But many will be like... "I'll wait and see."
3
3
