No. Government generally has a much better big picture than you do and thus is more likely to get it right.
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.
I recommend the book "Seeing Like a State" by James C. Scott:
>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.
Strong disagree. The government big picture sets heuristics that makes sense for a lot of people a lot of the time. Even when it's right, it does not take into account personal circumstance which is only knowable to the individual.
I am not sure how anyone can claim this with a strait face having lived through 2020-2023.... which is living memory so I do not have to do back into the recorded history to show government failure. I can just talk about my lived experience at how completely incompetent government is at managing "emergencies"
Central planning is always bad, be it for emergencies or economics or anything else
Why does there need to be an alternative, and yes central planning often does prevent both local planning and individuals " doing the best for themselves. " for example in the context of Covid response there were many FEDERAL policies put in place that preventing local authorities from overriding them, and prevented "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Some of these were over turned by the courts after months or years of fighting, some the central planners just rescinded, but in all cases the central planning supplanted local and individual freedom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
Abuses and corruption is how government is done in the US. Sure. That's a problem. As much at the federal as local levels. People can't help themselves. But would the ideal really be to remove all federal action?
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.
There are multiple issues here that seems to stem from taking my comments in a way not intended.
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.
No, the local residents and first responders have a much better big picture on local issues, which a wildfire most definitely is. The problem with wildfires is a lot of personnel and management get shipped in from elsewhere, and they often have no clue on local conditions. I have great admiration for the firefighters that work wildfires, but the management is awful. But, I'm probably bitter because the Fed burned my parents' house down due to mismanagement of a wildfire.
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.