3 ms·

Somehow many on hacker news willfully forgot about the concept of externalities and simply saw government policies enforcing social distancing as a violation of

Somehow many on hacker news willfully forgot about the concept of externalities and simply saw government policies enforcing social distancing as a violation of one's rights. The consequence of the virus on leaving your house is similar to you walking around with a Russian roulette pistol that randomly fires at others who are sufficiently close to you (with the probability determined by a myriad of factors including if you have covid). In that case, you are a clear harm to others and a bring that can deprive them of their rights. It is why we will likely need to force people to get vaccinated, despite their objections, as their choices don't simply affect themselves. "Your body, your choice" is valid for things where there isn't some massive externality on others from your choices. Abortion has no impact on other beings with rights (as we do not assigned rights to a fetus). If you decided to irradiate yourself like the firefighters in Chernobyl and then in the few days you had remaining to live try to be around people you disliked, it would be totally reasonable to force you to be confined to a medical space where you couldn't kill others. However, a communicable disease is even worse. I would be fine with people who understood the risks of radiation making the choice to be around you because they would be basically only choosing to take that radiation/cancer risk on themselves (their body, their choice). But with a communicable disease, they can catch the disease and spread it to others who don't consent. That is where the "my body, my choice" is no longer valid.

aww_dang 6y ago
Leaving aside the hypothetical, let us examine what we know to be rights in the US. The first amendment provides a right to assemble. There is no right to be protected from COVID. It seems relatively straightforward.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  There’s also nothing in the constitution about murder, but it’s still illegal. Your rights end where they harm someone else. And killing someone is a valid reason to restrict your rights. Vaccines are a good example of this.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I'm sorry but the comparison to murder reads as hyperbole. People who deliberately spread any illness should be punished. That isn't what we are talking about here.
chokeartist 6y ago
I have a more authoritative body of text that I believe everyone should remind themselves of (yourself especially): > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No emergency, situation, or "externality" will ever supersede this body of text as it is currently written. That is not a bug. That's a feature. A feature namely to prevent people like you from grabbing power and constricting rights when challenges inevitably arise.
- ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
  > a more authoritative body of text. Thanks for your appeal to authority, but such logical fallacies are not an answer to my points. And constitutional originalism is a terrible philosophy. We have learned so much since our founding fathers wrote that document, but I'll quote the author of the bill of rights for just how ludicrous it is: "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." The concept of externalities is A fundamental part of an understanding of rights in modern philosophy and the social sciences. A direct response to it as opposed to a quoted dismissal would be appreciated. Additionally, the supreme court has held in many cases that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not allowed. Libel is not allowed. In both cases because of the harms to others and the lack of any positive value of said speech. You quoted a text pretending like you are standing on some solid ground of an absolute and inviolable philosophy yet even the conservative supreme court chef justice recognizes limits of these rights as shown through Justice Roberts siding with limiting the rights of religious organizations to gather during the pandemic so long as those rights are not limited more than the rights of comparable secular organizations.
  - chokeartist 6y ago
    Predictable wall of text. Nothing you said changes my opinion. People like you come and go all the time with claims that "it is different" or "it is nuanced". It never is.
syshum 6y ago
>>Abortion has no impact on other beings with rights (as we do not assigned rights to a fetus). Aside from the fact that in law we do, if for example you were to commit a felony and in the act of that felony a pregnant women died, you would be charged with both the murder of the women and the unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is a very real one that defyes your logic here The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness. However like person A "everyone else" also voluntary left their home thus assuming the risk. Thus there is no externalities in this equation at all. If person A got sick then they assumed that risk like everyone else. For example I did not attend any holiday gatherings, nor have I been physically into a store since like April, all shopping is down online, and delivered or curbside pickup. I assessed the risks to myself and deemed curbside is my personal acceptable risk vector. For others they are fine with continuing to shop in the stores, everyone in that store has assumed that risk. Likewise Family Gatherings where outside my comfort zone, however everyone that did have family gathers has assumed the risk for for them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

aww_dang 6y ago

Leaving aside the hypothetical, let us examine what we know to be rights in the US. The first amendment provides a right to assemble. There is no right to be protected from COVID. It seems relatively straightforward.

colejohnson66 6y ago
There’s also nothing in the constitution about murder, but it’s still illegal. Your rights end where they harm someone else. And killing someone is a valid reason to restrict your rights. Vaccines are a good example of this.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm sorry but the comparison to murder reads as hyperbole. People who deliberately spread any illness should be punished. That isn't what we are talking about here.

chokeartist 6y ago

I have a more authoritative body of text that I believe everyone should remind themselves of (yourself especially): > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No emergency, situation, or "externality" will ever supersede this body of text as it is currently written. That is not a bug. That's a feature. A feature namely to prevent people like you from grabbing power and constricting rights when challenges inevitably arise.

ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
> a more authoritative body of text. Thanks for your appeal to authority, but such logical fallacies are not an answer to my points. And constitutional originalism is a terrible philosophy. We have learned so much since our founding fathers wrote that document, but I'll quote the author of the bill of rights for just how ludicrous it is: "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." The concept of externalities is A fundamental part of an understanding of rights in modern philosophy and the social sciences. A direct response to it as opposed to a quoted dismissal would be appreciated. Additionally, the supreme court has held in many cases that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not allowed. Libel is not allowed. In both cases because of the harms to others and the lack of any positive value of said speech. You quoted a text pretending like you are standing on some solid ground of an absolute and inviolable philosophy yet even the conservative supreme court chef justice recognizes limits of these rights as shown through Justice Roberts siding with limiting the rights of religious organizations to gather during the pandemic so long as those rights are not limited more than the rights of comparable secular organizations.
- chokeartist 6y ago
  Predictable wall of text. Nothing you said changes my opinion. People like you come and go all the time with claims that "it is different" or "it is nuanced". It never is.

syshum 6y ago

>>Abortion has no impact on other beings with rights (as we do not assigned rights to a fetus). Aside from the fact that in law we do, if for example you were to commit a felony and in the act of that felony a pregnant women died, you would be charged with both the murder of the women and the unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is a very real one that defyes your logic here The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness. However like person A "everyone else" also voluntary left their home thus assuming the risk. Thus there is no externalities in this equation at all. If person A got sick then they assumed that risk like everyone else. For example I did not attend any holiday gatherings, nor have I been physically into a store since like April, all shopping is down online, and delivered or curbside pickup. I assessed the risks to myself and deemed curbside is my personal acceptable risk vector. For others they are fine with continuing to shop in the stores, everyone in that store has assumed that risk. Likewise Family Gatherings where outside my comfort zone, however everyone that did have family gathers has assumed the risk for for them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]