3 ms·

In just a few short weeks we have cast aside freedoms it took centuries to win

4 points by mrfusion 6y ago

mrfusion 6y ago
Key quote: The freedom to leave your house when you wish to and go where you will is not a civil liberty or a political liberty. It is part of being a free man or woman. Those who do not have it, who fear being scolded like a child, fined and disgraced for being out on the street without government approval, are like serfs tied to the land they work.
- qubex 6y ago
  It’s a key quote, but it’s not necessarily true, to be perfectly honest. There’s a lot of bluster, false equivalences, and hyperbole going around at the moment, and this seems to be a prime example of that. From where does the analogy flow? We’ve always had behaviours that are forbidden and places that we cannot trespass upon. This could equally be seen as a (hitherto unprecedented, in recent times) extension thereof. I’m not saying it necessarily is, mind you, just offering it as an equally plausible alternative to show how truly arbitrary the statement is. As for the notion of a “free man”, it seems to be a platonic idealisation on par with that of the spherical cow in a vacuum: a convenient theoretical construct suitable for facile speculation, but not one that encompasses the full gamut of the real world’s complexities. There’s many things “free men” are not free from and have never been free from even in jurisdictions that nominally subscribe to the notion (in the US, for example: taxes, the draft when it’s used, & cetera) and these emergency measures are simply a draft of that. The last one is particularly telling: during WWII the American public were told they were fighting for freedom, and were drafted in droves into the ranks of the military — an act that (obviously) was not voluntary. And yet freedom as a platonic ideal endured.
WheelsAtLarge 6y ago
"I have been trying to point out that quite prominent figures in science and medicine do not agree with the policy of several major governments—that stifling personal liberty and crashing their economies will protect us from the Covid-19 virus. And almost nobody has seriously disagreed with me." Ok, who are these people? And if their point of view is so strong why aren't they front-page news? One of the cornerstones of freedom is that individual freedom stops once it impedes on someone else's. We live in a shared society that has limits on everyone's freedom and keeps us from doing anything we want. We have the responsibility for not doing things that will hurt others. In a pandemic, it just so happens that what we do impacts other members of society. It's true, freedom is important but freedom comes with responsibilities to others too. And yes, the freedoms are still there, we just have to understand that freedom does not mean doing anything we want all the time.
- qubex 6y ago
  I herald from Italy, basically Ground Zero of the Western impact with the COVID-19 pandemic, so maybe my view is somewhat biased (though I saw it from afar, as I am currently in nearby Malta). I honestly think it’s way too early to fret about lost freedom. There are very valid reasons why certain behaviours must at the present time be enforced or curtailed. The loss of freedom will only become visible if, once the emergency subsides, the prior ways are prevented from being reinstated. Certainly, some concern is... understandable, at this moment in time, but it’s far from a done deal. I think the right way of framing it is in terms of what (for example) the British endured during World War II: blackouts meant you were not allowed to illuminate anything outdoors during night-time, so as to avoid giving bombers any aid to navigation, and rationing meant that simply having money to spend didn’t necessarily suffice to buy what you wanted — both notions that would make latter-day people bristle. And yet that phase came and went, because it was mandated by circumstances, and ultimately the governments of the day had no nefarious reason to deprive their citizens (subjects, actually, in the cause of Britain, but I digress) from the freedoms that they had enjoyed previously once the reason for suspending those freedoms had passed. Not to mention freedom of the press... So, yes, I can see why people are worked-up about this. But I think the “jury is still out”on these issues. After all, we’re in a totally extraordinary circumstance.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I think if one were really practically and honestly worried about freedom one would be a lot more careful about who you let rule over you.

4 points by mrfusion 6y ago

Key quote: The freedom to leave your house when you wish to and go where you will is not a civil liberty or a political liberty. It is part of being a free man or woman. Those who do not have it, who fear being scolded like a child, fined and disgraced for being out on the street without government approval, are like serfs tied to the land they work.

qubex 6y ago
It’s a key quote, but it’s not necessarily true, to be perfectly honest. There’s a lot of bluster, false equivalences, and hyperbole going around at the moment, and this seems to be a prime example of that. From where does the analogy flow? We’ve always had behaviours that are forbidden and places that we cannot trespass upon. This could equally be seen as a (hitherto unprecedented, in recent times) extension thereof. I’m not saying it necessarily is, mind you, just offering it as an equally plausible alternative to show how truly arbitrary the statement is. As for the notion of a “free man”, it seems to be a platonic idealisation on par with that of the spherical cow in a vacuum: a convenient theoretical construct suitable for facile speculation, but not one that encompasses the full gamut of the real world’s complexities. There’s many things “free men” are not free from and have never been free from even in jurisdictions that nominally subscribe to the notion (in the US, for example: taxes, the draft when it’s used, & cetera) and these emergency measures are simply a draft of that. The last one is particularly telling: during WWII the American public were told they were fighting for freedom, and were drafted in droves into the ranks of the military — an act that (obviously) was not voluntary. And yet freedom as a platonic ideal endured.

WheelsAtLarge 6y ago

"I have been trying to point out that quite prominent figures in science and medicine do not agree with the policy of several major governments—that stifling personal liberty and crashing their economies will protect us from the Covid-19 virus. And almost nobody has seriously disagreed with me." Ok, who are these people? And if their point of view is so strong why aren't they front-page news? One of the cornerstones of freedom is that individual freedom stops once it impedes on someone else's. We live in a shared society that has limits on everyone's freedom and keeps us from doing anything we want. We have the responsibility for not doing things that will hurt others. In a pandemic, it just so happens that what we do impacts other members of society. It's true, freedom is important but freedom comes with responsibilities to others too. And yes, the freedoms are still there, we just have to understand that freedom does not mean doing anything we want all the time.

qubex 6y ago
I herald from Italy, basically Ground Zero of the Western impact with the COVID-19 pandemic, so maybe my view is somewhat biased (though I saw it from afar, as I am currently in nearby Malta). I honestly think it’s way too early to fret about lost freedom. There are very valid reasons why certain behaviours must at the present time be enforced or curtailed. The loss of freedom will only become visible if, once the emergency subsides, the prior ways are prevented from being reinstated. Certainly, some concern is... understandable, at this moment in time, but it’s far from a done deal. I think the right way of framing it is in terms of what (for example) the British endured during World War II: blackouts meant you were not allowed to illuminate anything outdoors during night-time, so as to avoid giving bombers any aid to navigation, and rationing meant that simply having money to spend didn’t necessarily suffice to buy what you wanted — both notions that would make latter-day people bristle. And yet that phase came and went, because it was mandated by circumstances, and ultimately the governments of the day had no nefarious reason to deprive their citizens (subjects, actually, in the cause of Britain, but I digress) from the freedoms that they had enjoyed previously once the reason for suspending those freedoms had passed. Not to mention freedom of the press... So, yes, I can see why people are worked-up about this. But I think the “jury is still out”on these issues. After all, we’re in a totally extraordinary circumstance.
Gibbon1 6y ago
I think if one were really practically and honestly worried about freedom one would be a lot more careful about who you let rule over you.