10 ms·

If they had made it a temporary law and fined people heavily at the very beginning it would have saved thousands of lives and jobs. Look at the countries that a

If they had made it a temporary law and fined people heavily at the very beginning it would have saved thousands of lives and jobs. Look at the countries that acted swiftly back in January and February.

vorpalhex 6y ago
In the US, legal requirements would have been met with more resistance and people not wearing masks intentionally and probably civil unrest. Sometimes asking is better than demanding. Texas asked and had excellent compliance. Michigan demanded and had angry protestors.
- kilroy_jones 6y ago
  That people consider civil unrest because they're told to wear masks for a few months in order to prevent countless deaths is more a sign of a broken culture than anything else.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    This is a US specific phenomenon, and it's not a new one. I will further argue it is a critical principle for Democracy. The issue is not being asked to wear a mask, the issue is legally mandating them. I can ask you to donate money to a political party - you may say no, but me asking is perfectly fine. If I force you under duress to donate - well, that's something else, isn't it? Freedom is the ability to say no, even if that isn't an optimal choice. Taking that freedom away leads to bad outcomes like arresting people for unpopular views and sending Muslims to "re-education" camps.
    - kilroy_jones 6y ago
      I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. What about those laws applying to children? What about smoking laws? The US already has numerous laws that few people complain about because they've come to recognize them as necessary for the public good. But that was only after they were passed and enforced.
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        I have no innate right to use government roads. Likewise, kids do not have rights the same way an adult does. The government can compel education until you're 18 (thankfully). We do not have laws because they are good. It is the case that some laws are good, but we have laws because the goal of governments is to govern the people. The difference between a democracy and an oligarch is the source of that right. I have no special rights over you. I am not any better, I am not empowered by any god or special bloodline. I, if elected in a democracy, can pass laws but I can't limit your rights. I can't compel you to worship somebody, limit what you say or take your property - even if I have a good reason.
        kilroy_jones 6y ago
        Well, being good and for the public good are separate concepts in my mind. That aside, you never addressed the smoking, seatbelt or helmet laws with regard to adults. Permissible or not?
        vorpalhex 6y ago
        Smoking laws are restrictions. You can't smoke within 30ft of an eating establishment or in a car with a child. You want to go home and chain smoke yourself to cancer? Have fun. Likewise, you couldn't restrict smoking at home typically. Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). Likewise for drivers licenses and minimum road hours. A good case here is the Texas anti-sodomy law (Lawrence v Texas) that was struck down in 2006(!) after being used to go after gay men. Here Texas made claims it was acting for the public good, SC ruled the state had no presence on a private matter outside the public eye.
        BubRoss 6y ago
        What about wearing pants? Is wearing pants a compelled action?
        6y ago
  - abdulmuhaimin 6y ago
    I think this is a prevalent culture in US. Individual freedom right trumps any kind of community right/effort.
dkdk8283 6y ago
This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. That’s not the type of country I want to live in.
- kilroy_jones 6y ago
  It's not dangerous at all. The US already has helmet laws for motorcycles and kids on bikes, seatbelt laws, gun laws around safe use and numerous other laws that prevent people from inadvertently affecting others lives. Making people wear masks in public transport or other public settings during a pandemic is hardly an overreach in comparison.

vorpalhex 6y ago

In the US, legal requirements would have been met with more resistance and people not wearing masks intentionally and probably civil unrest. Sometimes asking is better than demanding. Texas asked and had excellent compliance. Michigan demanded and had angry protestors.

kilroy_jones 6y ago
That people consider civil unrest because they're told to wear masks for a few months in order to prevent countless deaths is more a sign of a broken culture than anything else.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  This is a US specific phenomenon, and it's not a new one. I will further argue it is a critical principle for Democracy. The issue is not being asked to wear a mask, the issue is legally mandating them. I can ask you to donate money to a political party - you may say no, but me asking is perfectly fine. If I force you under duress to donate - well, that's something else, isn't it? Freedom is the ability to say no, even if that isn't an optimal choice. Taking that freedom away leads to bad outcomes like arresting people for unpopular views and sending Muslims to "re-education" camps.
  - kilroy_jones 6y ago
    I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. What about those laws applying to children? What about smoking laws? The US already has numerous laws that few people complain about because they've come to recognize them as necessary for the public good. But that was only after they were passed and enforced.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      I have no innate right to use government roads. Likewise, kids do not have rights the same way an adult does. The government can compel education until you're 18 (thankfully). We do not have laws because they are good. It is the case that some laws are good, but we have laws because the goal of governments is to govern the people. The difference between a democracy and an oligarch is the source of that right. I have no special rights over you. I am not any better, I am not empowered by any god or special bloodline. I, if elected in a democracy, can pass laws but I can't limit your rights. I can't compel you to worship somebody, limit what you say or take your property - even if I have a good reason.
      - kilroy_jones 6y ago
        Well, being good and for the public good are separate concepts in my mind. That aside, you never addressed the smoking, seatbelt or helmet laws with regard to adults. Permissible or not?
        vorpalhex 6y ago
        Smoking laws are restrictions. You can't smoke within 30ft of an eating establishment or in a car with a child. You want to go home and chain smoke yourself to cancer? Have fun. Likewise, you couldn't restrict smoking at home typically. Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). Likewise for drivers licenses and minimum road hours. A good case here is the Texas anti-sodomy law (Lawrence v Texas) that was struck down in 2006(!) after being used to go after gay men. Here Texas made claims it was acting for the public good, SC ruled the state had no presence on a private matter outside the public eye.
        BubRoss 6y ago
        What about wearing pants? Is wearing pants a compelled action?
        6y ago
- abdulmuhaimin 6y ago
  I think this is a prevalent culture in US. Individual freedom right trumps any kind of community right/effort.

dkdk8283 6y ago

This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. That’s not the type of country I want to live in.

kilroy_jones 6y ago
It's not dangerous at all. The US already has helmet laws for motorcycles and kids on bikes, seatbelt laws, gun laws around safe use and numerous other laws that prevent people from inadvertently affecting others lives. Making people wear masks in public transport or other public settings during a pandemic is hardly an overreach in comparison.