2 ms·

The war on freedom.

by rwcarlsen 6y ago

The war on freedom.

jschwartzi 6y ago
Please explain. What do you mean by that?
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  I wish you would not feed the trolls.
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  I'll try hard to keep the discussion nuanced. Governments are basically institutions that we allow to restrict our freedoms for some benefits - safety, various common-good things, etc. We all have our preference for where we draw this line personally on the liberty/convenience <--> safety spectrum. A lot of people (including myself) feel like these lockdowns, pandemic mitigations, etc. have far crossed the acceptable line in this spectrum. In my opinion, I'm not fighting a virus any more. I'm fighting people trying to steamroll my rights and lifestyle. Others may feel differently - they may feel like for the sake of global/community safety, I should have fewer rights. I don't feel that way. This isn't binary. Nobody is right or wrong - we are all fighting for our line on the spectrum.
  - sterlind 6y ago
    Your rights end where mine begin. You don't have the right to infect me. You give up your right not to wear a mask when you go into a grocery store. But no matter how foolish you are, if you get sick, you still get to go to the ER, where you're contributing to the maxing out of capacity. And you can infect those on the street. In some perfect libertarian society, where I could tell that I got sick from you, I'd settle things by suing the pants off you. But that's not the real world. Your choices affect me, and society's restrictions are how we set that balance.
    - guscost 6y ago
      If you think your right to virus-free air trumps the rights of others, you’re in for a rude awakening. Funny how similar it sounds to the argument for “restricting carbon emissions”, another thing that people naturally exhale.
    - rwcarlsen 6y ago
      But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you not have the right to have me not have the right to infect you? The point is. How much do we want to limit _individual_ freedom in order to achieve community/global safety. This is not a black/white question with a right/wrong answer. As much as you want it to be a cut-and-dried issue - "you're rights end where mine begin", etc. - it is not. It is trivial to disassemble any argument along those lines. At the end of the day - it's all about freedom vs safety. It's fine if you don't draw your line in the same place. But trying to imply/suggest that your position is somehow objectively more right/true is ridiculous.
      - unityByFreedom 6y ago
        You're choosing to die on a hill of not wanting to wear a face covering for a short period of your life. IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.
        rwcarlsen 6y ago
        These specific changes won't be permanent - I agree. But the precedent they set for the future will be. And, in the mean time - these mitigations have and are having a huge personal impact on me, my wife, and my children - among others. Just because a lot of these things might not be a big deal to you, doesn't mean they're not a big deal to others. And I'm tired of people telling me that these things aren't a "big deal" to me. How the hell can they know how big of a deal they are to me? That's up to me to decide.

The war on freedom.

jschwartzi 6y ago

Please explain. What do you mean by that?

unityByFreedom 6y ago
I wish you would not feed the trolls.
rwcarlsen 6y ago
I'll try hard to keep the discussion nuanced. Governments are basically institutions that we allow to restrict our freedoms for some benefits - safety, various common-good things, etc. We all have our preference for where we draw this line personally on the liberty/convenience <--> safety spectrum. A lot of people (including myself) feel like these lockdowns, pandemic mitigations, etc. have far crossed the acceptable line in this spectrum. In my opinion, I'm not fighting a virus any more. I'm fighting people trying to steamroll my rights and lifestyle. Others may feel differently - they may feel like for the sake of global/community safety, I should have fewer rights. I don't feel that way. This isn't binary. Nobody is right or wrong - we are all fighting for our line on the spectrum.
- sterlind 6y ago
  Your rights end where mine begin. You don't have the right to infect me. You give up your right not to wear a mask when you go into a grocery store. But no matter how foolish you are, if you get sick, you still get to go to the ER, where you're contributing to the maxing out of capacity. And you can infect those on the street. In some perfect libertarian society, where I could tell that I got sick from you, I'd settle things by suing the pants off you. But that's not the real world. Your choices affect me, and society's restrictions are how we set that balance.
  - guscost 6y ago
    If you think your right to virus-free air trumps the rights of others, you’re in for a rude awakening. Funny how similar it sounds to the argument for “restricting carbon emissions”, another thing that people naturally exhale.
  - rwcarlsen 6y ago
    But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you not have the right to have me not have the right to infect you? The point is. How much do we want to limit _individual_ freedom in order to achieve community/global safety. This is not a black/white question with a right/wrong answer. As much as you want it to be a cut-and-dried issue - "you're rights end where mine begin", etc. - it is not. It is trivial to disassemble any argument along those lines. At the end of the day - it's all about freedom vs safety. It's fine if you don't draw your line in the same place. But trying to imply/suggest that your position is somehow objectively more right/true is ridiculous.
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      You're choosing to die on a hill of not wanting to wear a face covering for a short period of your life. IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.
      - rwcarlsen 6y ago
        These specific changes won't be permanent - I agree. But the precedent they set for the future will be. And, in the mean time - these mitigations have and are having a huge personal impact on me, my wife, and my children - among others. Just because a lot of these things might not be a big deal to you, doesn't mean they're not a big deal to others. And I'm tired of people telling me that these things aren't a "big deal" to me. How the hell can they know how big of a deal they are to me? That's up to me to decide.