3 ms·

I think the root question is actually political. It comes down to: What's the correct tradeoff between an individual's right to life/liberty vs. well-being of

I think the root question is actually political. It comes down to: What's the correct tradeoff between an individual's right to life/liberty vs. well-being of the whole/society? People fall on different sides of that tradeoff all the time, and that question is at the core of almost all political disagreements.

tremon 6y ago
I don't believe that's the question that drives the US. The question that drives the US seems to be "how little money can we spend on the rest of society while still maintaining our own billions"?
doctor_eval 6y ago
It seems to me not so much "life and liberty" but rather "life OR liberty" - and somehow liberty is winning.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Consider the quote: "Give me liberty or give me death" Liberty winning may seem counterintuitive but not everyone sees it that way. Most wars have been fought by people that value their form of liberty over death.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Most wars have been fought by people that value their form of liberty over death. Most wars have been fought by conscripts, slaves or soldiers who otherwise only wanted to come back home alive, pawns in chess games played with human lives by the elite powers. Even the American Revolution was for the most part a tax revolt by the wealthy against the British Crown. And none of those wars have been against the tyranny of medicine and science. Benjamin Franklin, the man responsible for the famous (and almost universally misapplied) quote about those who trade a little freedom for security deserving neither, lost his son to one of the many smallpox outbreaks in the early US. In his autobiography, he mentions bitterly regretting not having given his son the smallpox vaccine[0]. He did not once declare that affording his son the "liberty" of dying from smallpox was worth the sacrifice versus the "temporary safety" of vaccination - and this was during a time when vaccination was new, still controversial, and much less safe than now. Rather, he became a passionate advocate for vaccination and public health. So believe what you like, but the Founding Fathers very likely would not have been on the side of the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers or their form of liberty. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653186/
    - aeternum 6y ago
      >Most wars have been fought by conscripts, slaves or soldiers who otherwise only wanted to come back home alive I don't think you've spent much time with US military types if you believe this to be the case. Willingness to die for a country or cause was even more prevalent in the past than it is now. I agree the Founding Fathers would very likely not have been on the side of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, they were generally intellectual and on the side of science. However I'm not so sure about the lockdowns, they would almost certainly oppose giving the federal gov. the power to issue a lockdown but may have been okay with local lockdowns.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >However I'm not so sure about the lockdowns, they would almost certainly oppose giving the federal gov. the power to issue a lockdown but may have been okay with local lockdowns. They would probably be split on that, but also would probably agree that lockdowns in some form were not unreasonable, so long as they were temporary and based on sound science.
xenadu02 6y ago
If Trump had said "I'M DECLARING WAR ON COVID!! Lockdown is necessary, WEAR YOUR FREEDOM MASK WE WILL WIN!" what would have been the outcome? I am fairly certain there wouldn't be any of this hand-wringing about "tradeoffs" between rights and liberty. Deficits only matter when the other party is in charge, elections are only fraudulent when we lose, and science is a hoax when conclusions don't support what we wanted to do anyway. My main fear is this: Reality may have a "well-known bias" but it also has the benefit of being true and backed by the physical laws of the universe. Eventually reality catches up. We are damn lucky that COVID wasn't much worse. We're also very lucky Trump is not a great policy maker and surrounds himself with sycophants and loyalists rather than ruthless movers and shakers. But he laid down the template and I have no doubt would-be dictators and evil people in both parties are salivating at the prospect of replicating his methods but with much more competence. That is extremely dangerous and something we should all be very afraid of. And I really mean the threat is coming from both directions. Republicans have certainly proven they have no principles, but imagine a populist Democrat cut from the Trump cloth with a dash of competent leadership who decides term-limits are for suckers? I remember in the 90s when Republicans were all about winning people over with their ideas and actually championed making it easier to vote because if you have good ideas and policies why would you be afraid? You should be able to win hearts and minds. Who knew we'd end up here? One of the many reasons I left the party.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I believe the “we are at war with COVID” mentality is what Vietnam went with, so yes I think it could have worked here too!
prawn 6y ago
I think that's an eternal discussion, and relates directly to COVID via things like lockdowns. The politicisation of masks though just strikes me as incredible. Wear a mask, sanitise, etc and freely continue some semblance of your regular life while catering for the well-being of all around you - surely that's a reasonable balance?

tremon 6y ago

I don't believe that's the question that drives the US. The question that drives the US seems to be "how little money can we spend on the rest of society while still maintaining our own billions"?

doctor_eval 6y ago

It seems to me not so much "life and liberty" but rather "life OR liberty" - and somehow liberty is winning.

aeternum 6y ago
Consider the quote: "Give me liberty or give me death" Liberty winning may seem counterintuitive but not everyone sees it that way. Most wars have been fought by people that value their form of liberty over death.
- krapp 6y ago
  >Most wars have been fought by people that value their form of liberty over death. Most wars have been fought by conscripts, slaves or soldiers who otherwise only wanted to come back home alive, pawns in chess games played with human lives by the elite powers. Even the American Revolution was for the most part a tax revolt by the wealthy against the British Crown. And none of those wars have been against the tyranny of medicine and science. Benjamin Franklin, the man responsible for the famous (and almost universally misapplied) quote about those who trade a little freedom for security deserving neither, lost his son to one of the many smallpox outbreaks in the early US. In his autobiography, he mentions bitterly regretting not having given his son the smallpox vaccine[0]. He did not once declare that affording his son the "liberty" of dying from smallpox was worth the sacrifice versus the "temporary safety" of vaccination - and this was during a time when vaccination was new, still controversial, and much less safe than now. Rather, he became a passionate advocate for vaccination and public health. So believe what you like, but the Founding Fathers very likely would not have been on the side of the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers or their form of liberty. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653186/
  - aeternum 6y ago
    >Most wars have been fought by conscripts, slaves or soldiers who otherwise only wanted to come back home alive I don't think you've spent much time with US military types if you believe this to be the case. Willingness to die for a country or cause was even more prevalent in the past than it is now. I agree the Founding Fathers would very likely not have been on the side of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, they were generally intellectual and on the side of science. However I'm not so sure about the lockdowns, they would almost certainly oppose giving the federal gov. the power to issue a lockdown but may have been okay with local lockdowns.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >However I'm not so sure about the lockdowns, they would almost certainly oppose giving the federal gov. the power to issue a lockdown but may have been okay with local lockdowns. They would probably be split on that, but also would probably agree that lockdowns in some form were not unreasonable, so long as they were temporary and based on sound science.

xenadu02 6y ago

If Trump had said "I'M DECLARING WAR ON COVID!! Lockdown is necessary, WEAR YOUR FREEDOM MASK WE WILL WIN!" what would have been the outcome? I am fairly certain there wouldn't be any of this hand-wringing about "tradeoffs" between rights and liberty. Deficits only matter when the other party is in charge, elections are only fraudulent when we lose, and science is a hoax when conclusions don't support what we wanted to do anyway. My main fear is this: Reality may have a "well-known bias" but it also has the benefit of being true and backed by the physical laws of the universe. Eventually reality catches up. We are damn lucky that COVID wasn't much worse. We're also very lucky Trump is not a great policy maker and surrounds himself with sycophants and loyalists rather than ruthless movers and shakers. But he laid down the template and I have no doubt would-be dictators and evil people in both parties are salivating at the prospect of replicating his methods but with much more competence. That is extremely dangerous and something we should all be very afraid of. And I really mean the threat is coming from both directions. Republicans have certainly proven they have no principles, but imagine a populist Democrat cut from the Trump cloth with a dash of competent leadership who decides term-limits are for suckers? I remember in the 90s when Republicans were all about winning people over with their ideas and actually championed making it easier to vote because if you have good ideas and policies why would you be afraid? You should be able to win hearts and minds. Who knew we'd end up here? One of the many reasons I left the party.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I believe the “we are at war with COVID” mentality is what Vietnam went with, so yes I think it could have worked here too!

prawn 6y ago

I think that's an eternal discussion, and relates directly to COVID via things like lockdowns. The politicisation of masks though just strikes me as incredible. Wear a mask, sanitise, etc and freely continue some semblance of your regular life while catering for the well-being of all around you - surely that's a reasonable balance?