7 ms·
You literally do have the right to do that, at least legally. Edit: yes, and Holmes was wrong — and the decision overturned. The Brandenburg precedent establis
by bhupy 6y ago
You literally do have the right to do that, at least legally.
Edit: yes, and Holmes was wrong — and the decision overturned. The Brandenburg precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Promoting the opening of the economy (notwithstanding the death count) fails this test, as it is manifestly not "lawless" to spread disease by living your life. If you had smallpox and accidentally spread it to me by going on about your own life, you cannot be held liable for that.
- pmiller2 6y agoRights are not limited to "legal" rights.
- bhupy 6y agoYou're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
- pmiller2 6y agoIn neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
- bhupy 6y agoIncorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.
- pmiller2 6y agoUnder what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?
- bhupy 6y ago> Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
- pmiller2 6y agoExcept that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
- bhupy 6y agoYes, and a COVID-negative individual doesn't kill, in your words, "60,000+ people" if they want to go about their lives during a pandemic.
- pmiller2 6y agoWell, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people in a car accident by driving. Can you reframe your objection now? If I spread the coronavirus by going about my day as normal, how many infections would that result in, and how many deaths, hmm?
- bhupy 6y agoWell, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?
- pmiller2 6y agoThere is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
- pmiller2 6y agoIt absolutely is a crime to knowingly spread an infectious disease in many states. For example: https://www.shouselaw.com/willful-exposure https://www.shouselaw.com/willful-exposure
- bhupy 6y agoSure, but one of the biggest complications of COVID is that majority of transmission is asymptomatic.
- pmiller2 6y agoAnd, that's almost the entire reason why lockdowns are necessary to prevent its spread. Remember how we had lockdowns when Ebola came to the US? Oh, yeah, we didn't, because it only spreads when symptoms are present.
- bhupy 6y agoSure, it's definitely an argument in favor of lockdowns — and I don't necessarily disagree with that. What I disagree with is the argument that even entertaining the counterargument (that the deaths are some how "worth it") is tantamount to daylight murder. We have the right to entertain that tradeoff, and we also have the right to exercise it if society decides to.
- pmiller2 6y agoNo, we don't have the right to entertain a tradeoff that sacrifices people for profits.
- bhupy 6y agoFirst of all, we absolutely have the legal right — it's well within the confines of the Brandenburg test, so I have no idea what you're on about there. Second of all, we entertain this tradeoff all the time. If we just all stopped driving cars, we would save about 35,000 lives per year. It would likely cripple the economy (until we can find alternatives), but we all just decide that it's worth it to not cripple the economy. It's an example of us sacrificing lives for economic activity (or in your words, "profit"). Maybe the tradeoff is actually wrong (and it could be!), but it's by no means illegal to make that tradeoff...