3 ms·

One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/be

One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/benefit makes sense (do you save sufficient lives with a measure to offset the cost of the restrictions). As you point out, this is collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place. There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place." You can't proclaim this as a universal principle. Modern civilisation requires a significant amount of collectivism. Think of the justice system. Back in 18th century England prisoners were charged for being in Jail and by judges to be judged - with massive corruption. Courts were not open to public. There was no police or detectives - they were seen as totalitarian and opressive. Arrests depended on hue and cry and violent criminals openly boasted of their deeds in pubs
enjeyw 6y ago
>There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose. I agree that "being able to gather with your friends" is a great thing, but I don't see why it's a sacred right that is "outrageous" to restrict no matter the consequences. Like a lot of these debates, this sort of things comes down to your personal beliefs in the relative importances of: - "The right as an invididual to do X" - "The right as an individual to not be negatively affected by someone else doing X" Most actions all on the spectrum somewhere: "Society has decided it's acceptable for me to drive a car, even though it puts pedestrians at risk of being run over" "Society has decided that it's not acceptable for me to drive a car when intoxicated, even if's really inconvenient for me to get a taxi home, because the risk of me killing a pedistrian is too high" "Society isn't quite sure what the maximum speed that I can drive a car at on a surban street (and get to my destination faster, while increasing the risk of killing someone), but it's not 'as fast as I can go', and it's not '2 MPH'". Its the same with "the right to gather with friends, and in the process increase the chances that I'll get COVID and pass it on to someone who dies from it". Simply declaring it "outrageous" not to maintain that right is overly simplistic, and I think that actually, some form of utilitiarian thinking is very helpful. In short, you can't just reject utilitarian thinking just because your utility function is different to that of society's.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite the wording, it applies to states too.
  - enjeyw 6y ago
    To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for stable society? Or do you consider the document to be literally sacred in its own right like the Ten Commandments or the Quran?
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe. So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t treat the concept of a constitution with any seriousness. > but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. That is, again, literally how it works. For example, that is why here in the United States it is not illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, whereas in Germany or France you will get fined and thrown in jail. Specifically Supreme Court decisions rely on precedent from previous cases; this is called Stare Decisis. Precedent is only to be overturned when clearly the wrong call was made (for example the SCOTUS decision permitting Japanese internment camps) —- To summarize, the genesis of America lies in the notion that we have inalienable rights that are not granted by the government but rather given by God (I think of this metaphorically since I don’t believe in a god). Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. So in conclusion, despite the implication of your “Quran” question...yes, it really is a sacred document. Not just bevause it is the source code for our country, but because the ideas contsined within it are revolutionary and beautiful. For evidence of how revolutionary they are, I submit your (good-faith) incredulity with the entire concept :P

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

"collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place." You can't proclaim this as a universal principle. Modern civilisation requires a significant amount of collectivism. Think of the justice system. Back in 18th century England prisoners were charged for being in Jail and by judges to be judged - with massive corruption. Courts were not open to public. There was no police or detectives - they were seen as totalitarian and opressive. Arrests depended on hue and cry and violent criminals openly boasted of their deeds in pubs

enjeyw 6y ago

>There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose. I agree that "being able to gather with your friends" is a great thing, but I don't see why it's a sacred right that is "outrageous" to restrict no matter the consequences. Like a lot of these debates, this sort of things comes down to your personal beliefs in the relative importances of: - "The right as an invididual to do X" - "The right as an individual to not be negatively affected by someone else doing X" Most actions all on the spectrum somewhere: "Society has decided it's acceptable for me to drive a car, even though it puts pedestrians at risk of being run over" "Society has decided that it's not acceptable for me to drive a car when intoxicated, even if's really inconvenient for me to get a taxi home, because the risk of me killing a pedistrian is too high" "Society isn't quite sure what the maximum speed that I can drive a car at on a surban street (and get to my destination faster, while increasing the risk of killing someone), but it's not 'as fast as I can go', and it's not '2 MPH'". Its the same with "the right to gather with friends, and in the process increase the chances that I'll get COVID and pass it on to someone who dies from it". Simply declaring it "outrageous" not to maintain that right is overly simplistic, and I think that actually, some form of utilitiarian thinking is very helpful. In short, you can't just reject utilitarian thinking just because your utility function is different to that of society's.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite the wording, it applies to states too.
- enjeyw 6y ago
  To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for stable society? Or do you consider the document to be literally sacred in its own right like the Ten Commandments or the Quran?
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe. So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t treat the concept of a constitution with any seriousness. > but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. That is, again, literally how it works. For example, that is why here in the United States it is not illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, whereas in Germany or France you will get fined and thrown in jail. Specifically Supreme Court decisions rely on precedent from previous cases; this is called Stare Decisis. Precedent is only to be overturned when clearly the wrong call was made (for example the SCOTUS decision permitting Japanese internment camps) —- To summarize, the genesis of America lies in the notion that we have inalienable rights that are not granted by the government but rather given by God (I think of this metaphorically since I don’t believe in a god). Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. So in conclusion, despite the implication of your “Quran” question...yes, it really is a sacred document. Not just bevause it is the source code for our country, but because the ideas contsined within it are revolutionary and beautiful. For evidence of how revolutionary they are, I submit your (good-faith) incredulity with the entire concept :P