3 ms·

I wonder what case fatality ratio / infectivity combo it would take for people with this take on liberty to agree that sometimes societies should give up libert

I wonder what case fatality ratio / infectivity combo it would take for people with this take on liberty to agree that sometimes societies should give up liberty. I am not sure there is one, I feel like we have a death cult in charge of our country. I wonder how many are dead because you have to die on a mask/gathering hill? I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain it but when people take risks, like that large wedding that infected dozens of people, it later kills people who didn’t even attend. doesn’t personal freedom end when the effects aren’t personal?

sokoloff 6y ago
If we could ensure that restrictions would be no greater and no longer than reasonably proportional to the risk, I think people would be more willing to give the government temporary power beyond what the Constitution protects. Given that the government has such a terrible track record on giving up power and a decidedly mixed track record of delivery of promised/hoped for benefits, plenty of people could reasonably prefer to protect a century of liberty.
mdifrgechd 6y ago
Just because you believe that there is some benevolent authority that we can just "give up liberty" to an everything will be ok doesn't make it the only opinion, even if it's easier to think about. It's easy to see how if there is attention and power that comes with a big enough crisis, everything suddenly gets framed as such a crisis (see rights violations, climate crisis, war on drugs, bullying, etc.) So you better hope that whoever gets to exercise absolute power in the case of a crisis is on your side and shares your values. Those who trade liberty for security get neither as the saying goes. But I think the above is well understood, and I guess rejected by some, because I see so many positions that think giving away our freedom is ok. What we really need are stronger politicians who can unite people and find compromises between freedom and public health measures, that help us collectively move forward. This crisis has shown how weak politicians have become (and how horribly technocrats and corporates have been at filling that void). Leadership is not forcing people to do stuff, that only makes society more divided and undermines attempts to solve problems. We need leadership and we don't have it.
burnthrow 6y ago
> doesn’t personal freedom end when the effects aren’t personal? Yes, this is why all civilized nations outlawed whistling within earshot.
macinjosh 6y ago
I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain it, like the people who didn’t attend that wedding but got it from someone who did also decided to interact with the person who did. There is a chance you could hit and kill someone in a car accident next time you go out. Should you have stayed home to avoid that risk? In any situation with risk involved there will always be stories like the wedding mentioned. The point is that people should be free to take on as much or as little amount of risk as they want. If you have compromised health or a very low tolerance for risk maybe you should make the decision to avoid people as much as possible, wear a mask, work from home, etc.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  I see, so you should be free to go out spewing virus on people for whatever reason you like. Because you want to get a beer in a bar or eat out. Meanwhile I should have to potentially quit my job, or not get groceries, live apart from parents, or wife, so I can avoid coming into contact with your selfish choices, indirectly. allrighty then.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    Wow what an unhinged reply. 1. If I did get it I would self quarantine. Not go out and ‘spew’ it. I wear my mask when appropriate, I socially distance, and I only go out when I need to. 2. I never said I want to go out to a bar. I want to visit my family and let them see my newborn daughter. I want my niece and nephew to have social interactions and a real education. I want to be able to conduct my business so I can feed my family. 3. Lockdowns and quarantines have already cost many, many people their jobs, time with family, time we’ll never get back, and it has even killed people. With current approaches everyone suffers instead regardless of their situation.

sokoloff 6y ago

If we could ensure that restrictions would be no greater and no longer than reasonably proportional to the risk, I think people would be more willing to give the government temporary power beyond what the Constitution protects. Given that the government has such a terrible track record on giving up power and a decidedly mixed track record of delivery of promised/hoped for benefits, plenty of people could reasonably prefer to protect a century of liberty.

mdifrgechd 6y ago

Just because you believe that there is some benevolent authority that we can just "give up liberty" to an everything will be ok doesn't make it the only opinion, even if it's easier to think about. It's easy to see how if there is attention and power that comes with a big enough crisis, everything suddenly gets framed as such a crisis (see rights violations, climate crisis, war on drugs, bullying, etc.) So you better hope that whoever gets to exercise absolute power in the case of a crisis is on your side and shares your values. Those who trade liberty for security get neither as the saying goes. But I think the above is well understood, and I guess rejected by some, because I see so many positions that think giving away our freedom is ok. What we really need are stronger politicians who can unite people and find compromises between freedom and public health measures, that help us collectively move forward. This crisis has shown how weak politicians have become (and how horribly technocrats and corporates have been at filling that void). Leadership is not forcing people to do stuff, that only makes society more divided and undermines attempts to solve problems. We need leadership and we don't have it.

burnthrow 6y ago

> doesn’t personal freedom end when the effects aren’t personal? Yes, this is why all civilized nations outlawed whistling within earshot.

macinjosh 6y ago

I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain it, like the people who didn’t attend that wedding but got it from someone who did also decided to interact with the person who did. There is a chance you could hit and kill someone in a car accident next time you go out. Should you have stayed home to avoid that risk? In any situation with risk involved there will always be stories like the wedding mentioned. The point is that people should be free to take on as much or as little amount of risk as they want. If you have compromised health or a very low tolerance for risk maybe you should make the decision to avoid people as much as possible, wear a mask, work from home, etc.

gameswithgo 6y ago
I see, so you should be free to go out spewing virus on people for whatever reason you like. Because you want to get a beer in a bar or eat out. Meanwhile I should have to potentially quit my job, or not get groceries, live apart from parents, or wife, so I can avoid coming into contact with your selfish choices, indirectly. allrighty then.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Wow what an unhinged reply. 1. If I did get it I would self quarantine. Not go out and ‘spew’ it. I wear my mask when appropriate, I socially distance, and I only go out when I need to. 2. I never said I want to go out to a bar. I want to visit my family and let them see my newborn daughter. I want my niece and nephew to have social interactions and a real education. I want to be able to conduct my business so I can feed my family. 3. Lockdowns and quarantines have already cost many, many people their jobs, time with family, time we’ll never get back, and it has even killed people. With current approaches everyone suffers instead regardless of their situation.