3 ms·

I think you might want to recalibrate your idea of how dangerous this virus is.

whatshisface 7y ago
The virus is dangerous, but so is a government with unlimited power. This is the complicated and contradictory world we live in...
- Angostura 7y ago
  Bottom line: You have come into contact with coronavirus - the government asks you to self-isolate at home. Do you? Or do you go off to your favourite bar?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    You do, but you're talking about self-isolating. Here's the scenario we're discussing: the US decides that Assange has Diphtheria and tells him to stay home and not talk to anybody. Does he? Cambodia decides that the opposition party conference is full of dirty politicians and cancels it. Do they still try to meet? In the first case, Assange would be protected by due process and a public hearing (that is the present US law for quarantine orders). In the second case, there might be a problem. You do not want the government using an emergency as an excuse to grab unlimited and unchecked power.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Obviously you don't run off to your favorite bar, but it all depends. If the government won't pay you to skip work and your workplace won't give you PTO, you might not have a choice if you want to make rent. And I would certainly flee the area if it were couched as an order rather than a request; I will not put myself in a position where I am essentially under arbitrary arrest by a capricious authority which changes its response every few hours, and I am shocked that anybody would.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      I don't think any society, no matter how libertarian or anarchic, is going to allow people to move freely and conduct business as usual in the face of a pandemic. As always "the right to extend one's fist ends where the nose of another begins". At the very least, individuals with the disease are endangering their fellow citizens if they don't isolate. Arguably, employers that do not make reasonable accommodations for sick employees are also guilty of public endangerment. Of course, their is always the risk that the drastic measures persist once the threat to public health dies down, but it's by no means necessary that such will be the case. Remember: even a small decrease in the growth rate of a disease spread can result in a large decrease in the total number of cases that occur.
- davidw 7y ago
  My suggestions are things that a lot of people could start doing without the government being involved.

The virus is dangerous, but so is a government with unlimited power. This is the complicated and contradictory world we live in...

Angostura 7y ago
Bottom line: You have come into contact with coronavirus - the government asks you to self-isolate at home. Do you? Or do you go off to your favourite bar?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  You do, but you're talking about self-isolating. Here's the scenario we're discussing: the US decides that Assange has Diphtheria and tells him to stay home and not talk to anybody. Does he? Cambodia decides that the opposition party conference is full of dirty politicians and cancels it. Do they still try to meet? In the first case, Assange would be protected by due process and a public hearing (that is the present US law for quarantine orders). In the second case, there might be a problem. You do not want the government using an emergency as an excuse to grab unlimited and unchecked power.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Obviously you don't run off to your favorite bar, but it all depends. If the government won't pay you to skip work and your workplace won't give you PTO, you might not have a choice if you want to make rent. And I would certainly flee the area if it were couched as an order rather than a request; I will not put myself in a position where I am essentially under arbitrary arrest by a capricious authority which changes its response every few hours, and I am shocked that anybody would.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I don't think any society, no matter how libertarian or anarchic, is going to allow people to move freely and conduct business as usual in the face of a pandemic. As always "the right to extend one's fist ends where the nose of another begins". At the very least, individuals with the disease are endangering their fellow citizens if they don't isolate. Arguably, employers that do not make reasonable accommodations for sick employees are also guilty of public endangerment. Of course, their is always the risk that the drastic measures persist once the threat to public health dies down, but it's by no means necessary that such will be the case. Remember: even a small decrease in the growth rate of a disease spread can result in a large decrease in the total number of cases that occur.
davidw 7y ago
My suggestions are things that a lot of people could start doing without the government being involved.