4 ms·
> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate h
by astrea 6y ago
> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society.
How do you balance that with another person's right to live? If you as a free person decide "F it, I don't want to stay cooped up despite my positive diagnosis." Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?
- leetcrew 6y agono, it's not fair, but that's the inherent risk of freedom. people might not do what's best for you, or even themselves. under this model, the government actually has to cultivate a position of trust/legitimacy rather than just compelling people to do (or not do) things. it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time, whether or not there is a credible threat of punishment. we tend to notice bad behavior more in our day-to-day lives precisely because it is not the default. you never notice all the dog walkers that dutifully clean up after their pets, but you'll surely remember that one piece of dog shit you stepped in on the way to work. the news almost exclusively covers outliers. in my state, we have mandatory shelter-in-place under threat of fines/imprisonment, but the police don't really have any way of knowing whether you are violating the order. people mostly follow it anyway, because they are convinced of the severity of the issue.
- apacheCamel 6y ago>it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time... I think consideration here is extremely subjective. If what you say is even true, that most people are considerate, what defines considerate here? People think they should leave their shopping carts wherever since that's the job of the cart attendant. Are they considerate because without them, that person may not have a job since all the carts are just pushed back to the store?
- leetcrew 6y agoof course it's subjective. it depends on local norms (many of are unwritten and/or implicit) which vary a lot from place to place. a lot of it just boils down to treating other people the way (you think) they want to be treated. do you think there are a lot of cart attendants that are grateful for people scattering carts all over the parking lot?
- apacheCamel 6y agoNo, I can't imagine a single cart attendant would appreciate the extra work. What I am trying to say is: yes a good portion of people probably do follow the rules, despite the possibility of not having any negative consequences but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the rules. There are people who "just want a haircut despite my cough, what could possibly happen" and will infect people along the way. Sure, they were considerate because they considered staying home but that barber needs the money. Maybe they think it is considerate, but I have a feeling a lot of other people won't.
- leetcrew 6y agoI don't necessarily think we should get rid of the rules either, but for a somewhat different reason. I do believe that free citizens who a.) trust their government officials and b.) can do so without severe economic stress will generally follow official recommendations without the threat of force. at least, enough of them will follow it that the outliers don't really matter. unfortunately, we don't have a good system to support barbers, who would prefer not to risk catching/spreading the virus but need the money, or barbershop owners, who would prefer to stay closed but need to pay rent. so I do actually support the lockdown as a somewhat dirty hack to trigger benefits for these people.
- apacheCamel 6y agoI can fully agree with that sentiment.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago> Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public? Why is it that for all of history this hasn't been an issue for infectious diseases until now?
- vkou 6y agoIt has, in fact, been an issue, which is why epidemic laws have been drafted, in the past, to control that behaviour.
- Gibbon1 6y agoIt's funny you have no clue that the state used to run Tuberculosis sanitariums. Hint the imates didn't have a choice. New York had a sanitarium where they sent people with infectious diseases unless they had a physician to vouch for their care. Public health authorities would quarantine families for scarlet fever. They'd put as a red notice on your door. All perfectly legal.
- kabaka 6y agoThe idea of living together in a society/city is believing that your neighbour does not wish you ill intent. The question your should ask yourself is if you got it, do you trust yourself to self-quarantine.