3 ms·

> Ahh the old "greater good", most violations of human rights begin with a speech about the greater good... And yet, plenty of controls to protect people don't

> Ahh the old "greater good", most violations of human rights begin with a speech about the greater good... And yet, plenty of controls to protect people don't turn into permanent revocations of human rights. Why, when this argument comes up, do we conveniently forget about those? Do you really think that the plan of governments around the world is to cripple their GDP output and keep everyone locked inside as some sort of mass population control exercise? And a pandemic that would benefit from these types of actions was just a great time to pull the trigger without anyone noticing? I honestly don't understand this argument. On one end of the spectrum you have complete freedom with no laws, police & fire departments, public education, militaries, government welfare programs, airport security, etc. On the other hand, you have whatever world you fear we'll end up in when all of our rights are stripped. It would seem to me that most first world countries sit somewhere between those two, because we've generally decided there are many freedoms we're happy to give up (some temporarily, some permanently) for the betterment of society overall. Particularly those where one person's freedom would directly impact another person's right to life. You can certainly say that you think we should open the country back up and that these restrictions are unnecessary, and provide your supporting data for that argument. But suggesting that this is some fundamental violation of human rights feels like quite a reach.

syshum 6y ago
>And yet, plenty of controls to protect people don't turn into permanent revocations of human rights. I am sure we are going to disagree on many of those. I am sure my definition of human rights, and liberty is very different from yours. >Do you really think that the plan of governments around the world is to cripple their GDP output and keep everyone locked inside as some sort of mass population control exercise? No, I do not believe it is conspiracy of population control, I think it run of the mill every day incompetence, panic, and fear at work the road to hell is not paved with evil conspiracy, it is paved with good intentions To be clear, I would not oppose all of the governments response to this pandemic, however I do oppose many many of the provisions of the lock down orders. I also oppose many of the individual actions of government officials, things like threatening a teen with arrest for an Instagram post, or the mayor of Chicago threatening to arrest anyone for getting a hair cut while posting on social media her getting a haircut... or releasing thousands of inmates from prison then arresting a business owner, putting her in the same jail that was deemed to unfit for convicted criminals all for refusing to close her business... >I honestly don't understand this argument. it is clear you do not understand the argument, you probably also do not understand why anyone would want to put individualism over the collective, or rights above safety >> But suggesting that this is some fundamental violation of human rights feels like quite a reach. I guess that depends on what you call human rights. I believe that all human rights flow from the Principle of Self Ownership. I believe in individualism and voluntary cooperation. I reject collectivism and cooperation via force. I believe tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry and I do not believe the majority has the ethical right to deiced that I give up my rights for their safety, or that because the majority agrees to "give up" their rights they then have the ethical right to use force to compel me to give up mine. I believe the law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense, the law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. In that defense there is some room for government action to defend people from COVID, however I believe many of the governments actions moved far beyond justifiable defense, into organizing injustice.

syshum 6y ago

>And yet, plenty of controls to protect people don't turn into permanent revocations of human rights. I am sure we are going to disagree on many of those. I am sure my definition of human rights, and liberty is very different from yours. >Do you really think that the plan of governments around the world is to cripple their GDP output and keep everyone locked inside as some sort of mass population control exercise? No, I do not believe it is conspiracy of population control, I think it run of the mill every day incompetence, panic, and fear at work the road to hell is not paved with evil conspiracy, it is paved with good intentions To be clear, I would not oppose all of the governments response to this pandemic, however I do oppose many many of the provisions of the lock down orders. I also oppose many of the individual actions of government officials, things like threatening a teen with arrest for an Instagram post, or the mayor of Chicago threatening to arrest anyone for getting a hair cut while posting on social media her getting a haircut... or releasing thousands of inmates from prison then arresting a business owner, putting her in the same jail that was deemed to unfit for convicted criminals all for refusing to close her business... >I honestly don't understand this argument. it is clear you do not understand the argument, you probably also do not understand why anyone would want to put individualism over the collective, or rights above safety >> But suggesting that this is some fundamental violation of human rights feels like quite a reach. I guess that depends on what you call human rights. I believe that all human rights flow from the Principle of Self Ownership. I believe in individualism and voluntary cooperation. I reject collectivism and cooperation via force. I believe tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry and I do not believe the majority has the ethical right to deiced that I give up my rights for their safety, or that because the majority agrees to "give up" their rights they then have the ethical right to use force to compel me to give up mine. I believe the law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense, the law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. In that defense there is some room for government action to defend people from COVID, however I believe many of the governments actions moved far beyond justifiable defense, into organizing injustice.