7 ms·

>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (

>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Whether you agree with it or not, how would a mask mandate not be an authoritarian restriction?

stormbrew 6y ago
Are all legal restrictions on what clothes you should wear in public authoritarian to you? Many of them exist to make sure you don't die (eg. food prep/serving sanitation, medical practice) of preventable causes. If "authoritarian" includes every rule that affects how we interact with each other in public you've pretty much gone into nihilistic territory it seems to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dTal 6y ago
  A significant political contingent does indeed object to any and all rules. They call themselves nice words like "libertarian" and "small government", but the basic ideology is really just anarchy.
starfallg 6y ago
Is a prohibition of setting your neighbours house on fire an authoritarian restriction? How about a mandate to clear the pavement/sidewalk in front of your house of snow so that pedestrians don't fall and break their hip? Having laws doesn't mean you're being oppressed.
- sethammons 6y ago
  Except, by definition, you are. We, as a society, have determined that certain freedoms are given up for certain benefits. Is it age discrimination to prevent having a driver’s license before age 16? Yup! Is a freedom taken from you by having a law preventing arson? Yep, and we mostly all agree that is good. The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    > The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging. The key factor here is that there are very good and obvious reasons to wear a mask, while the trade-off is a minor inconvenience. It's arguably less effort than shovelling snow from the front of your house. If the vast majority of us are obliging due to the hope that it has an effect, with little to no negative effects, why are people making this a hill they want to die on? Worse still, why are people making this a hill for others to die on?
  - afpx 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that any government rules on the individual are authoritarian? I think most would disagree with that.
    - sethammons 6y ago
      Well. The definition of authoritarian includes the following: > favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Is that not the definition? Government authority over individual freedom. Am I missing something?
- thebeefytaco 6y ago
  No, you don't have the freedom to destroy someone else's property. I get the point of view that "you don't have the freedom to infect others", but where do you logically draw the line with something like that? Why weren't we already required to wear biohazard suits in public? Humans have been spreading disease as long as we've been around. Your reasoning is so blunt, saying that just become some laws are justified, all laws are justified. Should you not have the privilege to drive, because every time you do you risk your life and others?
  - starfallg 6y ago
    I'm only being blunt because I was responding to a blunt assertion. The fact of the matter is that the temporary restrictions for the purpose of public health are mild inconveniences. Those measure are, by and large, reasonable and proportionate. It's the pushback that isn't.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
You're confusing a mild inconvenience for oppressing your freedoms.
- thebeefytaco 6y ago
  You're confusing the ease of compliance with the nature of the order itself. As an example, banning certain words could be considered a "mild inconvenience", but it's clearly a violation of the first amendment. Border patrol and other police checkpoints, are a "mild inconvenience". They may very well help catch more criminals, but police need to have probable cause and can't just go on fishing expeditions. As far as a _federal_ mask mandate, it's clearly not within the enumerated powers. I think you could potentially make an argument for state/local mask mandates when it comes to _public_ areas, given that all powers not granted to the federal goverment are reserved for the states and the people. I would still probably consider that authoritarian in nature. That's just for masks as well. As far as locking down or limiting size of gatherings, while it may be a very good idea to do something like that during a pandemic, Imo it wouldn't be constitutional, as the freedom of assembly is explicitly protected in the first amendment. Freedom can be dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    I hate to sound like a broken record, but now I fear you've confused the concept of freedom for your constitution. If your idea of freedom is incompatible with a mask-wearing mandate, then I guess I should be able to grocery shop completely naked while masturbating without anyone infringing on my freedoms too?
jointpdf 6y ago
I can think of a few reasons: - 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates have the green light from the general public). [https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-health-politics-lifestyle-9126a38ef22c244f9ca18f9584061f8d https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-out...] - One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it from anarchy. Not wearing a mask in crowded places (in expectation) causes harm to others. Obviously there is a cost/benefit involved, so welding people into their homes is too extreme. - There is effectively zero enforcement of these mandates. I’ve never seen cops or workers enforce these rules. On the other hand, if I walked into a grocery store without pants on, I’d bet my ass that I’d get swiftly carted off to the loony bin.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  75% of Americans believe there's an invisible man in the sky that grants you wishes if you pray hard enough. Not a good test for policy decisions....what about science instead? -"Not wearing a mask in crowded places causes harm to others. Not happening in Sweden. Maybe the people in Sweden have troll blood so they don't need masks. or maybe the jury is still out on that statement. - "Zero enforcement?" Half of the museums in the U.S. are shutting down permanently. 50% of restaurants in New York City are shuttering. 40 million additional Americans are jobless. The level of critical thought in America is just so sad.
  - jointpdf 6y ago
    Sure, let’s talk about the science supporting mask wearing. Read these and come back with a good faith argument: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 [Edit: removed “#ref-CR4” from end of first link]
    - 6y ago

stormbrew 6y ago

Are all legal restrictions on what clothes you should wear in public authoritarian to you? Many of them exist to make sure you don't die (eg. food prep/serving sanitation, medical practice) of preventable causes. If "authoritarian" includes every rule that affects how we interact with each other in public you've pretty much gone into nihilistic territory it seems to me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dTal 6y ago
A significant political contingent does indeed object to any and all rules. They call themselves nice words like "libertarian" and "small government", but the basic ideology is really just anarchy.

starfallg 6y ago

Is a prohibition of setting your neighbours house on fire an authoritarian restriction? How about a mandate to clear the pavement/sidewalk in front of your house of snow so that pedestrians don't fall and break their hip? Having laws doesn't mean you're being oppressed.

sethammons 6y ago
Except, by definition, you are. We, as a society, have determined that certain freedoms are given up for certain benefits. Is it age discrimination to prevent having a driver’s license before age 16? Yup! Is a freedom taken from you by having a law preventing arson? Yep, and we mostly all agree that is good. The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
- starfallg 6y ago
  > The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging. The key factor here is that there are very good and obvious reasons to wear a mask, while the trade-off is a minor inconvenience. It's arguably less effort than shovelling snow from the front of your house. If the vast majority of us are obliging due to the hope that it has an effect, with little to no negative effects, why are people making this a hill they want to die on? Worse still, why are people making this a hill for others to die on?
- afpx 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that any government rules on the individual are authoritarian? I think most would disagree with that.
  - sethammons 6y ago
    Well. The definition of authoritarian includes the following: > favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Is that not the definition? Government authority over individual freedom. Am I missing something?
thebeefytaco 6y ago
No, you don't have the freedom to destroy someone else's property. I get the point of view that "you don't have the freedom to infect others", but where do you logically draw the line with something like that? Why weren't we already required to wear biohazard suits in public? Humans have been spreading disease as long as we've been around. Your reasoning is so blunt, saying that just become some laws are justified, all laws are justified. Should you not have the privilege to drive, because every time you do you risk your life and others?
- starfallg 6y ago
  I'm only being blunt because I was responding to a blunt assertion. The fact of the matter is that the temporary restrictions for the purpose of public health are mild inconveniences. Those measure are, by and large, reasonable and proportionate. It's the pushback that isn't.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

You're confusing a mild inconvenience for oppressing your freedoms.

thebeefytaco 6y ago
You're confusing the ease of compliance with the nature of the order itself. As an example, banning certain words could be considered a "mild inconvenience", but it's clearly a violation of the first amendment. Border patrol and other police checkpoints, are a "mild inconvenience". They may very well help catch more criminals, but police need to have probable cause and can't just go on fishing expeditions. As far as a _federal_ mask mandate, it's clearly not within the enumerated powers. I think you could potentially make an argument for state/local mask mandates when it comes to _public_ areas, given that all powers not granted to the federal goverment are reserved for the states and the people. I would still probably consider that authoritarian in nature. That's just for masks as well. As far as locking down or limiting size of gatherings, while it may be a very good idea to do something like that during a pandemic, Imo it wouldn't be constitutional, as the freedom of assembly is explicitly protected in the first amendment. Freedom can be dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  I hate to sound like a broken record, but now I fear you've confused the concept of freedom for your constitution. If your idea of freedom is incompatible with a mask-wearing mandate, then I guess I should be able to grocery shop completely naked while masturbating without anyone infringing on my freedoms too?

jointpdf 6y ago

I can think of a few reasons: - 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates have the green light from the general public). [https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-health-politics-lifestyle-9126a38ef22c244f9ca18f9584061f8d https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-out...] - One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it from anarchy. Not wearing a mask in crowded places (in expectation) causes harm to others. Obviously there is a cost/benefit involved, so welding people into their homes is too extreme. - There is effectively zero enforcement of these mandates. I’ve never seen cops or workers enforce these rules. On the other hand, if I walked into a grocery store without pants on, I’d bet my ass that I’d get swiftly carted off to the loony bin.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
75% of Americans believe there's an invisible man in the sky that grants you wishes if you pray hard enough. Not a good test for policy decisions....what about science instead? -"Not wearing a mask in crowded places causes harm to others. Not happening in Sweden. Maybe the people in Sweden have troll blood so they don't need masks. or maybe the jury is still out on that statement. - "Zero enforcement?" Half of the museums in the U.S. are shutting down permanently. 50% of restaurants in New York City are shuttering. 40 million additional Americans are jobless. The level of critical thought in America is just so sad.
- jointpdf 6y ago
  Sure, let’s talk about the science supporting mask wearing. Read these and come back with a good faith argument: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 [Edit: removed “#ref-CR4” from end of first link]
  - 6y ago