7 ms·

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 th

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?
        vorpalhex 6y ago
        Would you be running around naked unless someone required otherwise? Some of us just enjoy wearing comfy pants.
        fzeroracer 6y ago
        You seem to be changing the argument rather than answering the question. Do you believe public decency laws are the result of the state overextending its hand?
        BubRoss 6y ago
        You are doging the question, maybe because you realize that you can't answer it without lying or contradicting yourself. Do you agree with the fact that you are compelled to wear clothes? After all a mask is essentially clothing.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong. Laws that impose extra liability on you if you are in an accident and cause harm (including harm to yourself) and aren't wearing a seatbelt or a helmet? Those would be fine. Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them.
    - jdkee 6y ago
      "Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong." Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt? Go back and read the second part of my post, which you failed to quote, which addresses exactly this issue.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them. That is not how people work. They never think it will happen to them.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > What about smoking laws? I don't think the government should be able to make smoking outright illegal (except on government property like government buildings), but I think owners of individual homes and businesses and public spaces (e.g., malls) should have the right to prohibit it, with violations of the owner's prohibition being punishable by law (similar to how, say, trespassing would be handled).
abdulmuhaimin 6y ago
I think this is a prevalent culture in US. Individual freedom right trumps any kind of community right/effort.

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?
        vorpalhex 6y ago
        Would you be running around naked unless someone required otherwise? Some of us just enjoy wearing comfy pants.
        fzeroracer 6y ago
        You seem to be changing the argument rather than answering the question. Do you believe public decency laws are the result of the state overextending its hand?
        BubRoss 6y ago
        You are doging the question, maybe because you realize that you can't answer it without lying or contradicting yourself. Do you agree with the fact that you are compelled to wear clothes? After all a mask is essentially clothing.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong. Laws that impose extra liability on you if you are in an accident and cause harm (including harm to yourself) and aren't wearing a seatbelt or a helmet? Those would be fine. Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them.
  - jdkee 6y ago
    "Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong." Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt? Go back and read the second part of my post, which you failed to quote, which addresses exactly this issue.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them. That is not how people work. They never think it will happen to them.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > What about smoking laws? I don't think the government should be able to make smoking outright illegal (except on government property like government buildings), but I think owners of individual homes and businesses and public spaces (e.g., malls) should have the right to prohibit it, with violations of the owner's prohibition being punishable by law (similar to how, say, trespassing would be handled).

abdulmuhaimin 6y ago

I think this is a prevalent culture in US. Individual freedom right trumps any kind of community right/effort.