4 ms·

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 con

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
    Above you asked about hypothetical fatality rates. We could just as easily ask about the economic and social damage caused by the lockdowns. Instead of indulging alarmist hypotheticals, we can look at some of the data available. According to the CDC, there's a 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. This includes people who are already unhealthy. The total number of deaths in Sweden hasn't increased, despite their lack of lockdowns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-... We both seem to agree that lockdowns represent a departure from our ideals of individual liberties. If I am reading you correctly, you're asking for a more gradient interpretation of these. We can agree to disagree here and move on to questioning the efficacy of the lockdowns themselves. If you're suggesting that the ends justify the means, fine. But if the means aren't especially effective at reducing deaths that argument falls apart. Excuse my cynicism, but it isn't hard to imagine the 'ends' as yet another assault on personal freedoms and the agency of individuals. Here the concept of the ends justifying the means fits perfectly. Unfortunately, this perspective isn't out of place with the trend of a growing security state.

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
  Above you asked about hypothetical fatality rates. We could just as easily ask about the economic and social damage caused by the lockdowns. Instead of indulging alarmist hypotheticals, we can look at some of the data available. According to the CDC, there's a 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. This includes people who are already unhealthy. The total number of deaths in Sweden hasn't increased, despite their lack of lockdowns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-... We both seem to agree that lockdowns represent a departure from our ideals of individual liberties. If I am reading you correctly, you're asking for a more gradient interpretation of these. We can agree to disagree here and move on to questioning the efficacy of the lockdowns themselves. If you're suggesting that the ends justify the means, fine. But if the means aren't especially effective at reducing deaths that argument falls apart. Excuse my cynicism, but it isn't hard to imagine the 'ends' as yet another assault on personal freedoms and the agency of individuals. Here the concept of the ends justifying the means fits perfectly. Unfortunately, this perspective isn't out of place with the trend of a growing security state.