6 ms·

>> 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 pe

by 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.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    To be clear: I was neither advocating for or against lockdowns. I'm advocating thoughtfulness of trade-offs, informed by (but not limited to) data; as opposed to rigid ideology, or knee-jerk gut reactions. And in particular: to recognize that even if one believes that the data of a specific real-world circumstance clearly favors one end of the spectrum, there are also circumstances where the data can break the other way. Therefore we need to be tolerant and open-minded to good-faith skepticism in either direction. The fact that a wrong answer can be fatal makes it all the more important to avoid what Daniel Schmachtenberger refers to as "limbic highjacking", or more colloquially, "being triggered" (which includes both fear of death, and fear of losing autonomy). > ends justifying the means... the trend of a growing security state It's also worth remembering that these are not mutually exclusive: that circumstances exist where the ends do justify the means, yet are also used as a cynical power grab with additional negative externalities. Again, the only way to know the difference is dispassionate discernment (what Julia Galef refers to as "scout mindset" rather than "soldier mindset" [0]). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8

by syshum 6y ago

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.
- lukifer 6y ago
  To be clear: I was neither advocating for or against lockdowns. I'm advocating thoughtfulness of trade-offs, informed by (but not limited to) data; as opposed to rigid ideology, or knee-jerk gut reactions. And in particular: to recognize that even if one believes that the data of a specific real-world circumstance clearly favors one end of the spectrum, there are also circumstances where the data can break the other way. Therefore we need to be tolerant and open-minded to good-faith skepticism in either direction. The fact that a wrong answer can be fatal makes it all the more important to avoid what Daniel Schmachtenberger refers to as "limbic highjacking", or more colloquially, "being triggered" (which includes both fear of death, and fear of losing autonomy). > ends justifying the means... the trend of a growing security state It's also worth remembering that these are not mutually exclusive: that circumstances exist where the ends do justify the means, yet are also used as a cynical power grab with additional negative externalities. Again, the only way to know the difference is dispassionate discernment (what Julia Galef refers to as "scout mindset" rather than "soldier mindset" [0]). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8