|
|
|
|
|
|
by netsharc
1041 days ago
|
|
|
Somehow the governments of the world seem to have gotten the terrible task of needing to be the (overly) protective/strict parent(s) to their population, some of which are quietly heeding them, but some other are very whiny against them. And a proper government can't just say "Well fine, you do what you want, let's see where that gets you.". And of course they also had to be overly cautious rather being overly relaxed[1], and if some things were deemed in hindsight to have been unncessary, then the brats get to whine loudly about them afterwards. But it's hindsight, and the governments don't have the luxury of having foresight. Sure some countries might have been lucky with less restrictions and "not so bad" results, but would you want to live in a country governed by luck? I guess that's also a matter of life philosophy (being safe vs living a life with its dangers and risks). [1] Well, I guess that's where views differs, if we reduce it to just 2 sides, the one side would rather have less government involvement, and the other side would prefer more government involvement (in the form of rules and restrictions). |
|
|
You reduce anything to just two sides and you are needlessly polarizing and handicapping your own analytical abilities. If the subject matter is actually serious and not a passing fancy, this is useless.