5 ms·

> UK-dwellers' sense of entitlement to 'freedoms' Seriously? We (the West, I'm not from the UK) are losing our freedom at an unimaginable speed even a few yea

> UK-dwellers' sense of entitlement to 'freedoms' Seriously? We (the West, I'm not from the UK) are losing our freedom at an unimaginable speed even a few years ago and you think freedom is negotiable? I find this appalling how easy we ease into a dictatorship everywhere in Europe.

LatteLazy 6y ago
It's interesting that no one seems to give a shit about real freedoms like free speech or democracy, detention without trial or access to lawyers. But when you close the pubs (or the artisnal pasta makers), suddenly we're on a dictatorship.
- detritus 6y ago
  Hence my enclosing Freedoms in single quotes. I tend to communicate quite drily - that's often hard to put across online.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I think you're exactly correct. It drives me nuts when people talk about freedom, they have no actual idea what freedom is or takes and their actions undermine it. Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences", but that's what people really want. Freedom is just a better sounding word than selfishness these days :( <Steps-down-from-soapbox>
    - carlmr 6y ago
      >Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences" Depends on your definition of freedom. The issue with this kind of freedom is that your freedom encroaches on other people's freedoms, so most societies agreed that we should have less freedom in favor of fairness. Exactly where the trade-off is to be made is subjective and cannot be derived from facts alone. We have a lot of freedoms that encroach on other people's freedoms, it's impossibly to make a clear cut on where fair ends and personal freedom begins. Allowing people the freedom to sell sugar will inevitably lead to more diabetes and earlier death. It tastes good and it's addictive. Sugar costs a lot of people some of their freedom to live and move. But if we didn't allow selling sugar we would take away the seller's freedom and the freedom to choose from the consumer.
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        Your sugar example is no good. Sugar doesn’t take people’s freedoms away. It has no agency and doesn’t enforce anything. Like any action, eating sugar may have consequences good or bad for the individual, but that has nothing to do with freedoms unless the government starts telling people they may not eat more than x grams per day or something like that.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        In the case of masks and lockdowns the "freedom" in question is more analogous to drunk driving. This is in the sense that exercising the freedom could cause the people around you some severe life-altering problems, and you're imposing that risk without their consent or knowledge.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        Without their knowledge or consent? You can’t tell whether people are wearing masks and make a decision about whether to be around them? I suspect that even a blind person could do so the moment somebody started talking. I’m sure there are still better comparisons than drunk driving. If you are under 55, the risk is about the same as dying from a car accident.
        nradov 6y ago
        That's always been the case. Thousands of people die every year from influenza spread by asymptomatic carriers. COVID-19 is more deadly, but that's just a difference in degree. Where do we draw the line?
    - dboreham 6y ago
      Cue Mel Gibson as William Wallace.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  This is so unjust: you don't know me but you basically reduce me to an angry guy that can't get drunk with his friends. ALL our freedoms are attacked: the social media censorship reached crazy levels lately, and let's not talk about democracy given the disgusting spectacle the US has shown this year (my country doesn't fare any better). When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship. As I said I'm not from the UK but as far as I know people in London had more freedom during the WWII aerial bombings.
  - detritus 6y ago
    During Rationing, you mean?
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Yes. During rationing.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship. On the other hand, people are actually dying of Covid. Given the choice I'd take financial ruin over death.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      Why does there have to be a dichotomy here? Another option would be to lock down but also to provide for people who will otherwise be ruined by the lockdown. That seems to be the most humane option. Make it illegal to evict people, provide them with a reasonable base income that allows them to lead a dignified life through the lockdown, and then shut everything down for a little while. Suggesting that the lockdown is synonymous with loss of livelihood is exactly the problem here. Surely the same elected officials that have the power to close everything down also have the power to authorize emergency payments to those impacted by the lockdown.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  In the Netherlands, although not in every city, in some COVID-19 is an excuse for banning demonstrations.
  - switch007 6y ago
    It was made law in the UK
- im3w1l 6y ago
  To many people democracy is just a means to an end. And the end goal is a simple life with simple pleasures.

LatteLazy 6y ago

It's interesting that no one seems to give a shit about real freedoms like free speech or democracy, detention without trial or access to lawyers. But when you close the pubs (or the artisnal pasta makers), suddenly we're on a dictatorship.

detritus 6y ago
Hence my enclosing Freedoms in single quotes. I tend to communicate quite drily - that's often hard to put across online.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I think you're exactly correct. It drives me nuts when people talk about freedom, they have no actual idea what freedom is or takes and their actions undermine it. Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences", but that's what people really want. Freedom is just a better sounding word than selfishness these days :( <Steps-down-from-soapbox>
  - carlmr 6y ago
    >Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences" Depends on your definition of freedom. The issue with this kind of freedom is that your freedom encroaches on other people's freedoms, so most societies agreed that we should have less freedom in favor of fairness. Exactly where the trade-off is to be made is subjective and cannot be derived from facts alone. We have a lot of freedoms that encroach on other people's freedoms, it's impossibly to make a clear cut on where fair ends and personal freedom begins. Allowing people the freedom to sell sugar will inevitably lead to more diabetes and earlier death. It tastes good and it's addictive. Sugar costs a lot of people some of their freedom to live and move. But if we didn't allow selling sugar we would take away the seller's freedom and the freedom to choose from the consumer.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Your sugar example is no good. Sugar doesn’t take people’s freedoms away. It has no agency and doesn’t enforce anything. Like any action, eating sugar may have consequences good or bad for the individual, but that has nothing to do with freedoms unless the government starts telling people they may not eat more than x grams per day or something like that.
      - jschwartzi 6y ago
        In the case of masks and lockdowns the "freedom" in question is more analogous to drunk driving. This is in the sense that exercising the freedom could cause the people around you some severe life-altering problems, and you're imposing that risk without their consent or knowledge.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        Without their knowledge or consent? You can’t tell whether people are wearing masks and make a decision about whether to be around them? I suspect that even a blind person could do so the moment somebody started talking. I’m sure there are still better comparisons than drunk driving. If you are under 55, the risk is about the same as dying from a car accident.
        nradov 6y ago
        That's always been the case. Thousands of people die every year from influenza spread by asymptomatic carriers. COVID-19 is more deadly, but that's just a difference in degree. Where do we draw the line?
  - dboreham 6y ago
    Cue Mel Gibson as William Wallace.
jmnicolas 6y ago
This is so unjust: you don't know me but you basically reduce me to an angry guy that can't get drunk with his friends. ALL our freedoms are attacked: the social media censorship reached crazy levels lately, and let's not talk about democracy given the disgusting spectacle the US has shown this year (my country doesn't fare any better). When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship. As I said I'm not from the UK but as far as I know people in London had more freedom during the WWII aerial bombings.
- detritus 6y ago
  During Rationing, you mean?
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Yes. During rationing.
- onion2k 6y ago
  When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship. On the other hand, people are actually dying of Covid. Given the choice I'd take financial ruin over death.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    Why does there have to be a dichotomy here? Another option would be to lock down but also to provide for people who will otherwise be ruined by the lockdown. That seems to be the most humane option. Make it illegal to evict people, provide them with a reasonable base income that allows them to lead a dignified life through the lockdown, and then shut everything down for a little while. Suggesting that the lockdown is synonymous with loss of livelihood is exactly the problem here. Surely the same elected officials that have the power to close everything down also have the power to authorize emergency payments to those impacted by the lockdown.
tinus_hn 6y ago
In the Netherlands, although not in every city, in some COVID-19 is an excuse for banning demonstrations.
- switch007 6y ago
  It was made law in the UK
im3w1l 6y ago
To many people democracy is just a means to an end. And the end goal is a simple life with simple pleasures.