3 ms·

Watch for that phrase, "this time is different". It commonly signals the special pleading fallacy. Parallel: "Spying one everyone's communication is different

Watch for that phrase, "this time is different". It commonly signals the special pleading fallacy. Parallel: "Spying one everyone's communication is different because it is not just someone's own freedoms, but everyone else's right to be protected from terrorists."

albntomat0 6y ago
I'm not sure that follows from the circumstances. There are plenty of instances of the government restricting individual freedoms for the safety of others. Examples include everything from speed limits to prohibitions against developing my own nuclear weapons. The balancing test is which freedoms for what degree of protection. We collectively make that determination through a system of government.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  It depends upon the premise which you extrapolate from. You could start with the premise of natural rights as described in the founding documents. Alternatively you could proceed from a realpolitik perspective of what has been possible for the US gov historically and in the present. The government does many things and without exception these actions are construed as being for the public good. Despite this, we have witnessed countless abuses of authority. Simply observing that an action is possible for government or that a precedent exists for a particular government action, is not the same as rationalizing it as just. Of course there's still room for moderation and pragmatism. It would be impossible to exist in the real world without some measure of pragmatism, but we should also strive for our ideals.
lukifer 6y ago
This seems to analogize roughly to the halting problem proof: because one can have no rights or liberty while dead, there is no right which is immune from a contrived example (real or imagined), which would demand violating that right for collective survival. (For example: a "Dark Forest" scenario, where a hostile alien intelligence would destroy all life in Earth if we're discovered, and therefore worldwide surveillance is required to prevent anyone emitting an interstellar signal.) I never thought that terrorism was an existential threat that necessitated the Patriot Act or the GWOT, but one could imagine a scenario in which it was. What makes a worldwide epidemic so comparatively unique, is that it's quantifiable, and imagining alternative scenarios involves a smooth probability distribution. Those against lockdowns: would you change your mind if the fatality rate or R-number was 10% higher? Those for: same question, 10% lower? 50%? 1000%? Indeed, those making (specious) comparisons of COVID to flu season, have instead prompted me to wonder if we should have seasonal mask mandates to reduce flu deaths also. I'm a pretty fervent civil libertarian, with a healthy distrust of the state, but it's not clear where that line should be drawn.
- syshum 6y ago
  >> but it's not clear where that line should be drawn. For civil libertarians it is very clear where the line is... It is certainly not criminalizing every person that wants to make a living in a business deemed by a despot governor to be "non-essential" while similar businesses that happen to be political allies or have higher priced lawyers are allow to remain open (for example Walmart could still sell Lamps, chairs, tables, etc, but Acme Furniture Store was forced close (True story from PA). Or Amazon was still allowed to ship online orders, but Jane Doe's Knickknacks was not allowed to even sell online during the pandemic....(true story from NJ)) For Civil Libertarians livelihood can not be separated from Life, and Life with out freedom is not life at all. Simply taking in oxygen and exhaling CO2 is not "life". Life is living, interacting, being productive, enjoying the fruits of our labor, etc. Life is not about existing, people that believe that are some of the saddest people on earth.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    There is a difference between holding a principle, and holding an absolutist principle, absent thoughtfulness and discernment. While there are circumstances where it's admirable to risk death for a principle (fighting to free slaves, refusing to comply with literal Nazis), there are also circumstances where it is the height of foolishness (the right to keep lights on at night in an apartment building during the WW2 London bombings). > Life is not about existing Existing is necessary but not sufficient for life. And while there's a strong argument for allowing the individual to risk or even choose death (seat belt laws, assisted suicide), the real crux of the matter is when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others. The moral evil of reducing freedom through the state's monopoly on force (such as a mask mandate) must be weighed against the moral evil of reducing freedom through harm (such as infection with a fatal illness). Whatever plausible scenario you can imagine that goes too far in one direction, you would be correct; and yet I can balance it with a plausible scenario that goes too far in the other direction. There is no rule or principle that frees us from the necessity of thoughtful discernment and debate.
    - aww_dang 6y ago

albntomat0 6y ago

I'm not sure that follows from the circumstances. There are plenty of instances of the government restricting individual freedoms for the safety of others. Examples include everything from speed limits to prohibitions against developing my own nuclear weapons. The balancing test is which freedoms for what degree of protection. We collectively make that determination through a system of government.

aww_dang 6y ago
It depends upon the premise which you extrapolate from. You could start with the premise of natural rights as described in the founding documents. Alternatively you could proceed from a realpolitik perspective of what has been possible for the US gov historically and in the present. The government does many things and without exception these actions are construed as being for the public good. Despite this, we have witnessed countless abuses of authority. Simply observing that an action is possible for government or that a precedent exists for a particular government action, is not the same as rationalizing it as just. Of course there's still room for moderation and pragmatism. It would be impossible to exist in the real world without some measure of pragmatism, but we should also strive for our ideals.

lukifer 6y ago

This seems to analogize roughly to the halting problem proof: because one can have no rights or liberty while dead, there is no right which is immune from a contrived example (real or imagined), which would demand violating that right for collective survival. (For example: a "Dark Forest" scenario, where a hostile alien intelligence would destroy all life in Earth if we're discovered, and therefore worldwide surveillance is required to prevent anyone emitting an interstellar signal.) I never thought that terrorism was an existential threat that necessitated the Patriot Act or the GWOT, but one could imagine a scenario in which it was. What makes a worldwide epidemic so comparatively unique, is that it's quantifiable, and imagining alternative scenarios involves a smooth probability distribution. Those against lockdowns: would you change your mind if the fatality rate or R-number was 10% higher? Those for: same question, 10% lower? 50%? 1000%? Indeed, those making (specious) comparisons of COVID to flu season, have instead prompted me to wonder if we should have seasonal mask mandates to reduce flu deaths also. I'm a pretty fervent civil libertarian, with a healthy distrust of the state, but it's not clear where that line should be drawn.

syshum 6y ago
>> but it's not clear where that line should be drawn. For civil libertarians it is very clear where the line is... It is certainly not criminalizing every person that wants to make a living in a business deemed by a despot governor to be "non-essential" while similar businesses that happen to be political allies or have higher priced lawyers are allow to remain open (for example Walmart could still sell Lamps, chairs, tables, etc, but Acme Furniture Store was forced close (True story from PA). Or Amazon was still allowed to ship online orders, but Jane Doe's Knickknacks was not allowed to even sell online during the pandemic....(true story from NJ)) For Civil Libertarians livelihood can not be separated from Life, and Life with out freedom is not life at all. Simply taking in oxygen and exhaling CO2 is not "life". Life is living, interacting, being productive, enjoying the fruits of our labor, etc. Life is not about existing, people that believe that are some of the saddest people on earth.
- lukifer 6y ago
  There is a difference between holding a principle, and holding an absolutist principle, absent thoughtfulness and discernment. While there are circumstances where it's admirable to risk death for a principle (fighting to free slaves, refusing to comply with literal Nazis), there are also circumstances where it is the height of foolishness (the right to keep lights on at night in an apartment building during the WW2 London bombings). > Life is not about existing Existing is necessary but not sufficient for life. And while there's a strong argument for allowing the individual to risk or even choose death (seat belt laws, assisted suicide), the real crux of the matter is when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others. The moral evil of reducing freedom through the state's monopoly on force (such as a mask mandate) must be weighed against the moral evil of reducing freedom through harm (such as infection with a fatal illness). Whatever plausible scenario you can imagine that goes too far in one direction, you would be correct; and yet I can balance it with a plausible scenario that goes too far in the other direction. There is no rule or principle that frees us from the necessity of thoughtful discernment and debate.
  - aww_dang 6y ago