6 ms·

I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. I’m all about choice. If you want to stay h

I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. I’m all about choice. If you want to stay home, please do. Unbiased advice coupled with freedom of movement is really the only thing I can accept. Help me be smart, but don’t tell me what to do under the premise of civil fines.

renewiltord 6y ago
I think that's fair, but using the No Harm Principle as a guide, I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. You should be able to, of course, collect from anyone who could have infected you. FWIW I also value personal liberty above restrictions but I do value internalizing externalities concurrently.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. The US is also full of people who literally cannot afford to take sick days, which creates a culture of people going to work sick and toughing it out. Even in middle-class and upper middle-class jobs there's a prevalent fear of having to be seen in the office at all cost to avoid being fired. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of this, with the addition of being extra cruel against people who are not privileged enough to have a cushy job that allows them to work from home.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.
    - tertius 6y ago
      I'd you hit someone with a car, they will likely die. If you expose someone to corona on purpose (i.e. you're so drunk you can't avoid people) they likely won't die. It's not Ebola. And the analogy doesn't fit. How about speeding? That fits a little better.
      - yread 6y ago
        If you drunk drive you likely won't hit anyone. But it is more likely than if you don't.
        tertius 6y ago
        Agreed. But if you're walking without a mask you are MUCH less likely to kill someone...
        effingwewt 6y ago
        Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Whereas it's possible you may kill a small number of people while drunk in a car- even if we assume it's a bus you are driving and hit several other buses- eventually your vehicle or yourself will have sustained injuries keeping you or it from harming others further. However you could easily infect who knows how many people since covid is transmissable, and anyone you infected will keep infecting others, every one of which is your fault. Exponential growth. Not only deaths but possible permanent damage to respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems. I agree, do what you want, but I think you should also be liable for the damages you inflict on others. If this means jail time (possibly life if enough are infected and killed), how does that help your 'personal freedom'.
        tertius 6y ago
        > Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the public per incident than a Covid infectious positive case. This is glaringly obvious. Secondly, you don't need to be immuno-compromised to be killed by a car. I.e. that's a small section of the population. Digressing: There are many things in society where the risk of injury exists where it probably isn't a good idea to punish the person causing injury. One problem with drunk driving is that it is illegal. It's not just illegal to kill someone while driving drunk. So no injury is even required. Yet, being near others in a grocery store with a cloth mask (that does practically nothing) isn't nearly as dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. So you're making a point about injury where the law starts way before that, risk of injury. But everything has risk. Playing baseball is risky of the off chance of the ball hitting someone in the head. Less risky, but could kill someone, say someone who was skull-compromised like an infant. Do you want to outlaw baseball games? That's an obvious "way on the other side of the spectrum" example. Where do you draw the line? And clearly, drunk driving (driving not even being a right) is MUCH more dangerous than possibly infecting someone with a virus that kills, to be honest, a minority of those infected. There are other viruses for example that is also transmitted in the same way, kills somewhat less frequently though like the flu. Do you propose (like drunk driving) that not wearing a mask in public period should be illegal? Because you never know if you're interacting with someone who is immuno-compromised.
  - biddit 6y ago
    > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intentionally and maliciously is one thing, but there is a level below that, which is well-established: reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic is somewhere within the ballpark of this, and it’s reasonable to enforce and punish it, as we do with other reckless behaviors.
    - tertius 6y ago
      Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
        pindab0ter 6y ago
        So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
        davvolun 6y ago
        Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.
- siliconmountain 6y ago
  The first couple weeks, I was all "let's stay inside" and "those people are wreckless!" and "ok, those partygoers were egregious, fine them!" After a few weeks I realized it was mostly to reduce hospital load. It's been 9+ months now, and it wont end anytime next year. If a government leader thinks they can put pandora back in the box at this point, by taking more liberties away, they're a fool
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, my home is in SF and I'm just about to go out to get some dinner in Hollywood so you know where I am on this issue but I do understand the need to ensure that personal liberty doesn't ruin society through externalities.
  - zbentley 6y ago
    > If a government leader thinks they can put pandora back in the box at this point, by taking more liberties away, they're a fool I don't think anyone believes they're putting pandora back in the box. Most officials pushing for restrictions are compromising their public goodwill (and [re]electability) to try to save lives.
    - siliconmountain 6y ago
      >Most officials pushing for restrictions are compromising their public goodwill (and [re]electability) to try to save lives. The governor of CA violated his own rules to attend a party while demanding others dont https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-...
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Liable for what? The virus is a separate agent from humans carrying it, like a background weather condition. It isn’t the person unknowingly carrying it who is causing harm. It also seems arbitrary to assign liability to such an intermediary. If anyone is liable it might be the CCP, for initially suppressing reports of the coronavirus when that information could’ve prevented international spread. Would you support everyone with COVID taking China’s government to international court? Also where would your proposed approach to managing externalities end? If you want to start tracing the cost of externalities across the board then you have to also do things like start taxing people below certain IQ levels for the externality of being a burden (net loss of utility) on society.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  > I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. My entire rationale is that this has shifted to risk management. Can’t I be taught how to minimize the probability of infecting others? It’s not black and white. I can conduct my life and do my best to help my fellow human. There is no fault here and this shouldn’t remotely suggest “covid transmission insurance”. It’s about making educated, science based risk calculations. Right?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Sure, and your personal liability insurance should be really cheap if you're acting safely so it won't even matter. If you want to be slightly riskier then your insurance will be more expensive. Or you can go without and be on the hook.
    - dkdk8283 6y ago
      I wasn’t literally suggesting insurance but using it to address concerns of compliance. Liberty is implicit trust that you’ll do the right thing. Can’t we have that?
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Well, no, because we have differing views on what The Right Thing™ is.
mindslight 6y ago
Most people aren't in a position of choosing whether to go into work or not. Talking about personal choice only makes sense after addressing the debt treadmill that's forcing most everyone to keep churning. Without that, you're fallaciously invoking libertarianism in support of what is really a top-down system.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Killing jobs won’t help debt treadmills, either. It will likely have a cascade effect to many folks. We know a lot more about covid than we did 8 months ago. It’s reasonable to allow someone to measure their own risk. If that means they absolutely must work I support it. Philosophically I think there’s a great deal of reflection to be done but it shouldn’t force folks who are willing to accept the risk to abandon their routine.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Er yeah, my point is that we at least need to mitigate the debt treadmill (eg suspend all rent and interest) before it's sensible to talk about individuals being able to evaluate their own risk tolerance versus need for income. Ideally we'd slowly unwind the debt spiral in non-crisis times by raising interest rates and letting the various asset bubbles deflate (ie young people could buy houses again). Failing that it would be a long term benefit if the treadmill were allowed to lock up via defaults, although it would be painful in the immediate future. Realistically there's no political will to do any of this, but my overall point remains about the overarching structure of our society not being one based on voluntary association. Insisting individuals have a choice while they do not is Orwellian tyranny.
macintux 6y ago
> I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. As much as I find Objectivism distasteful, even they agreed the right to throw a punch ends at someone else's face. It's not about you contracting a serious virus; the problem is you're going to spread it around unknowingly for days.
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  Let's not create an either-or strawman for either side on this issue. The fact of the matter is - there has always been and always will be a convenience/liberty <---> safety tradeoff. This is a spectrum. We can all disagree with each other on where the right place is to draw the line on the spectrum - but it is ridiculous to imply that reasonable people can't have drawn their line (for good reasons) in a different place than you.
  - macintux 6y ago
    I agree, but a statement like "I value my personal liberty over all else" is not about finding a reasonable tradeoff. Furthermore, following that up with "even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus" means it's not about valuing the health and safety of others, just yourself.
    - tertius 6y ago
      I don't think you're following. You have probably drawn this line in similar areas in life yourself but were probably not thoughtful about it because the media wasn't shaming you into it.
    - rwcarlsen 6y ago
      So he draws his line in a different place. Perhaps he didn't do his full position justice. Maybe he feels like the lost human connection, dress code for your face, forced shutdown of certain businesses, school closures (and online learning) are costs that are not worth the benefit we get. I could hardly blame him. The online communities I follow often seem to be overwhelmingly in support of stricter mitigations, etc. Maybe he feels like he's been yelling into the wind for too long to keep up the nuanced discussions. For me personally, I likely feel similar to him. From all the data I've seen - the vast majority of people - especially the workforce - have very little to worry about personally. The small (but not negligible) fraction of people that have increased risk can often reasonable take their own appropriate extra precautions. Then there is the even smaller fraction that can't reasonable take the precautions that they feel they need - those are the people we should work to support directly. We should be able to do this without broad, sweeping measures that are just completely not necessary for the direct benefit of most people.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Totally agree. Those who are risk averse should impose restrictions on themselves, not require everyone else to alter their lives. Life after all, carries risks. Anything you do has a nonzero risk. And if normal life is OK during a seasonal flu why is COVID any different? It seems arbitrary to suddenly claim that personal choice and individual assessment of risk-benefit tradeoff is not allowed above some risk threshold. Same for the potential reality of required vaccinations - bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and it should not be violated. I say this as someone who wears masks, hasn’t been to any gatherings, and is fully vaccinated. Freedom and choice matters.
jrootabega 6y ago
More power to you. Sustain yourself with your own self-contained air supply in your personal biosphere until the pandemic is over, and feel free to do whatever you want. Oh.. Look at that. You also appear to be instantly allergic to criticism. Be sure not to expose yourself to any.
atomi 6y ago
I also value my right to life and people being careless and needlessly propagating the virus puts that at risk.

renewiltord 6y ago

I think that's fair, but using the No Harm Principle as a guide, I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. You should be able to, of course, collect from anyone who could have infected you. FWIW I also value personal liberty above restrictions but I do value internalizing externalities concurrently.

henrikschroder 6y ago
> I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. The US is also full of people who literally cannot afford to take sick days, which creates a culture of people going to work sick and toughing it out. Even in middle-class and upper middle-class jobs there's a prevalent fear of having to be seen in the office at all cost to avoid being fired. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of this, with the addition of being extra cruel against people who are not privileged enough to have a cushy job that allows them to work from home.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.
  - tertius 6y ago
    I'd you hit someone with a car, they will likely die. If you expose someone to corona on purpose (i.e. you're so drunk you can't avoid people) they likely won't die. It's not Ebola. And the analogy doesn't fit. How about speeding? That fits a little better.
    - yread 6y ago
      If you drunk drive you likely won't hit anyone. But it is more likely than if you don't.
      - tertius 6y ago
        Agreed. But if you're walking without a mask you are MUCH less likely to kill someone...
        effingwewt 6y ago
        Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Whereas it's possible you may kill a small number of people while drunk in a car- even if we assume it's a bus you are driving and hit several other buses- eventually your vehicle or yourself will have sustained injuries keeping you or it from harming others further. However you could easily infect who knows how many people since covid is transmissable, and anyone you infected will keep infecting others, every one of which is your fault. Exponential growth. Not only deaths but possible permanent damage to respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems. I agree, do what you want, but I think you should also be liable for the damages you inflict on others. If this means jail time (possibly life if enough are infected and killed), how does that help your 'personal freedom'.
        tertius 6y ago
        > Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the public per incident than a Covid infectious positive case. This is glaringly obvious. Secondly, you don't need to be immuno-compromised to be killed by a car. I.e. that's a small section of the population. Digressing: There are many things in society where the risk of injury exists where it probably isn't a good idea to punish the person causing injury. One problem with drunk driving is that it is illegal. It's not just illegal to kill someone while driving drunk. So no injury is even required. Yet, being near others in a grocery store with a cloth mask (that does practically nothing) isn't nearly as dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. So you're making a point about injury where the law starts way before that, risk of injury. But everything has risk. Playing baseball is risky of the off chance of the ball hitting someone in the head. Less risky, but could kill someone, say someone who was skull-compromised like an infant. Do you want to outlaw baseball games? That's an obvious "way on the other side of the spectrum" example. Where do you draw the line? And clearly, drunk driving (driving not even being a right) is MUCH more dangerous than possibly infecting someone with a virus that kills, to be honest, a minority of those infected. There are other viruses for example that is also transmitted in the same way, kills somewhat less frequently though like the flu. Do you propose (like drunk driving) that not wearing a mask in public period should be illegal? Because you never know if you're interacting with someone who is immuno-compromised.
- biddit 6y ago
  > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intentionally and maliciously is one thing, but there is a level below that, which is well-established: reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic is somewhere within the ballpark of this, and it’s reasonable to enforce and punish it, as we do with other reckless behaviors.
  - tertius 6y ago
    Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
      - pindab0ter 6y ago
        So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
        davvolun 6y ago
        Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.
siliconmountain 6y ago
The first couple weeks, I was all "let's stay inside" and "those people are wreckless!" and "ok, those partygoers were egregious, fine them!" After a few weeks I realized it was mostly to reduce hospital load. It's been 9+ months now, and it wont end anytime next year. If a government leader thinks they can put pandora back in the box at this point, by taking more liberties away, they're a fool
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, my home is in SF and I'm just about to go out to get some dinner in Hollywood so you know where I am on this issue but I do understand the need to ensure that personal liberty doesn't ruin society through externalities.
- zbentley 6y ago
  > If a government leader thinks they can put pandora back in the box at this point, by taking more liberties away, they're a fool I don't think anyone believes they're putting pandora back in the box. Most officials pushing for restrictions are compromising their public goodwill (and [re]electability) to try to save lives.
  - siliconmountain 6y ago
    >Most officials pushing for restrictions are compromising their public goodwill (and [re]electability) to try to save lives. The governor of CA violated his own rules to attend a party while demanding others dont https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-...
throwawaysea 6y ago
Liable for what? The virus is a separate agent from humans carrying it, like a background weather condition. It isn’t the person unknowingly carrying it who is causing harm. It also seems arbitrary to assign liability to such an intermediary. If anyone is liable it might be the CCP, for initially suppressing reports of the coronavirus when that information could’ve prevented international spread. Would you support everyone with COVID taking China’s government to international court? Also where would your proposed approach to managing externalities end? If you want to start tracing the cost of externalities across the board then you have to also do things like start taxing people below certain IQ levels for the externality of being a burden (net loss of utility) on society.
dkdk8283 6y ago
> I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. My entire rationale is that this has shifted to risk management. Can’t I be taught how to minimize the probability of infecting others? It’s not black and white. I can conduct my life and do my best to help my fellow human. There is no fault here and this shouldn’t remotely suggest “covid transmission insurance”. It’s about making educated, science based risk calculations. Right?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure, and your personal liability insurance should be really cheap if you're acting safely so it won't even matter. If you want to be slightly riskier then your insurance will be more expensive. Or you can go without and be on the hook.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    I wasn’t literally suggesting insurance but using it to address concerns of compliance. Liberty is implicit trust that you’ll do the right thing. Can’t we have that?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Well, no, because we have differing views on what The Right Thing™ is.

mindslight 6y ago

Most people aren't in a position of choosing whether to go into work or not. Talking about personal choice only makes sense after addressing the debt treadmill that's forcing most everyone to keep churning. Without that, you're fallaciously invoking libertarianism in support of what is really a top-down system.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Killing jobs won’t help debt treadmills, either. It will likely have a cascade effect to many folks. We know a lot more about covid than we did 8 months ago. It’s reasonable to allow someone to measure their own risk. If that means they absolutely must work I support it. Philosophically I think there’s a great deal of reflection to be done but it shouldn’t force folks who are willing to accept the risk to abandon their routine.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Er yeah, my point is that we at least need to mitigate the debt treadmill (eg suspend all rent and interest) before it's sensible to talk about individuals being able to evaluate their own risk tolerance versus need for income. Ideally we'd slowly unwind the debt spiral in non-crisis times by raising interest rates and letting the various asset bubbles deflate (ie young people could buy houses again). Failing that it would be a long term benefit if the treadmill were allowed to lock up via defaults, although it would be painful in the immediate future. Realistically there's no political will to do any of this, but my overall point remains about the overarching structure of our society not being one based on voluntary association. Insisting individuals have a choice while they do not is Orwellian tyranny.

macintux 6y ago

> I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. As much as I find Objectivism distasteful, even they agreed the right to throw a punch ends at someone else's face. It's not about you contracting a serious virus; the problem is you're going to spread it around unknowingly for days.

rwcarlsen 6y ago
Let's not create an either-or strawman for either side on this issue. The fact of the matter is - there has always been and always will be a convenience/liberty <---> safety tradeoff. This is a spectrum. We can all disagree with each other on where the right place is to draw the line on the spectrum - but it is ridiculous to imply that reasonable people can't have drawn their line (for good reasons) in a different place than you.
- macintux 6y ago
  I agree, but a statement like "I value my personal liberty over all else" is not about finding a reasonable tradeoff. Furthermore, following that up with "even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus" means it's not about valuing the health and safety of others, just yourself.
  - tertius 6y ago
    I don't think you're following. You have probably drawn this line in similar areas in life yourself but were probably not thoughtful about it because the media wasn't shaming you into it.
  - rwcarlsen 6y ago
    So he draws his line in a different place. Perhaps he didn't do his full position justice. Maybe he feels like the lost human connection, dress code for your face, forced shutdown of certain businesses, school closures (and online learning) are costs that are not worth the benefit we get. I could hardly blame him. The online communities I follow often seem to be overwhelmingly in support of stricter mitigations, etc. Maybe he feels like he's been yelling into the wind for too long to keep up the nuanced discussions. For me personally, I likely feel similar to him. From all the data I've seen - the vast majority of people - especially the workforce - have very little to worry about personally. The small (but not negligible) fraction of people that have increased risk can often reasonable take their own appropriate extra precautions. Then there is the even smaller fraction that can't reasonable take the precautions that they feel they need - those are the people we should work to support directly. We should be able to do this without broad, sweeping measures that are just completely not necessary for the direct benefit of most people.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Totally agree. Those who are risk averse should impose restrictions on themselves, not require everyone else to alter their lives. Life after all, carries risks. Anything you do has a nonzero risk. And if normal life is OK during a seasonal flu why is COVID any different? It seems arbitrary to suddenly claim that personal choice and individual assessment of risk-benefit tradeoff is not allowed above some risk threshold. Same for the potential reality of required vaccinations - bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and it should not be violated. I say this as someone who wears masks, hasn’t been to any gatherings, and is fully vaccinated. Freedom and choice matters.

jrootabega 6y ago

More power to you. Sustain yourself with your own self-contained air supply in your personal biosphere until the pandemic is over, and feel free to do whatever you want. Oh.. Look at that. You also appear to be instantly allergic to criticism. Be sure not to expose yourself to any.

atomi 6y ago

I also value my right to life and people being careless and needlessly propagating the virus puts that at risk.