6 ms·

I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. To counterquote: "Your right to swing your arm leaves of

I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. To counterquote: "Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins." Attributed to many famous people over the years, this originally comes from John B. Finch, a 19th century chair of the Prohibition National Committee. While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's important.

derefr 6y ago
Freedom vs. authoritarianism isn't quite the thing being pointed at here, but there is a concept that the GP's post is getting at: freedom vs. paternalism. The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you — i.e. render you incapable of doing — things it doesn't want you to do; while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you for doing things, hoping you'll stop yourself from doing those things by considering the potential consequences. In a non-paternalistic state, you do kind of have the right to strike people in the nose... once. Those other people just have the right to seek justice for you having done that, and the government has a right to put you in jail for having done that — whereupon you'll have your right to strike people in the nose taken away, by being led around in manacles. But once you've served your time and return to the outside world, you'll again have the right to strike people in the nose. Once. A paternalistic state, meanwhile, looks like e.g. having people diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital (despite never having yet actually attacked anyone) unless/until they agree to take drugs to "control" the disorder. Literally trying to ensure that such people never strike someone in the nose in the first place. Americans don't actually fear authoritarianism (e.g. harsh punishments, for many different offenses); they mostly fear paternalism.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  The Civil Rights Act literally prevents people from discriminating based on race amongst other criteria. ADA literally prevents people from living the disabled to fend for themselves. Curious what segment of Americans fear paternalism.
  - ChefboyOG 6y ago
    The segment who opposed the Civil Rights Act, including the senators who filibustered it for nearly 60 days to force a compromised version and the business owners who openly defied it for years in protest, seems like a good place to start.
- robocat 6y ago
  > The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you, while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you Paternalistic: I truely hate PC shit, but that seems like a terribly misogynistic word, I guess someone needs to discipline our forebears. And my own cultural stereotypes are that mothers have rules, and punishment is something a father does (in complete opposition to that definition?!). > non-paternalistic Now I wonder how often we think of a man as maternalistic, however not being maternalistic is mostly pretty bad: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/maternalistic.html https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/maternalis...
- ska 6y ago
  > they mostly fear paternalism. This doesn't entirely ring true either. Lots of people are all for it as long as it is restricting behavior they themselves don't like, or enforcing ones' they do.
Aerroon 6y ago
I think the quote isn't referring to somebody having a direct impact on you, but rather that you have to put up with their immoral behavior (in your view). In a free society a religious fundamentalist has to tolerate atheists. Drunk driving and public drunkenness laws are mostly practical. They are a restriction on people's freedom before they've harmed other. The laws are preventative in nature and exist to preempt harm that reckless behavior could cause. They're not good for modeling the principles of a free society on, because you'd quickly arrive at a paternalistic surveillance state. The laws are a compromise between safety and freedom.
pdonis 6y ago
> I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. You're not forced to suffer the consequences. You have the freedom to adopt countermeasures. You can drive defensively and stay alert when behind the wheel as a countermeasure against other drivers possibly being drunk. You can wear a mask (properly), social distance, avoid crowds, etc., as a countermeasure against other people possibly having an infectious disease. That's how it's supposed to work in a free society. > While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's important. The reason why the laws you refer to work reasonably well in America is that they are only enforced when someone has already made a mistake. We don't have roadblocks everywhere with cops forcibly administering breathalyzers to all drivers to make sure none of them are drunk. We don't have cops going around cities forcibly administering breathalyzers to everyone walking on the streets to make sure none of them are drunk. We only enforce those laws when someone has already done something like cause an accident, or drive erratically enough to get a cop's attention, or behave in public in a way that is obviously due to drunkenness. And that very method of enforcement means that you, the individual citizen, cannot depend on it to protect you individually. In other words, those laws are not shielding you, individually, from the consequences of other people's bad decisions. You still have to adopt your own countermeasures when you drive, because you can't assume that every other driver is sober. And, again, that's the way it's supposed to work in a free society.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > You're not forced to suffer the consequences. I'm having trouble reading this in any way where it isn't obviously false. Unless there's a secret source of hazmat suits I haven't heard about, other people's poor behavior in a pandemic creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who follow the guidelines.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    You can't see someone catch COVID-19. You can't see someone infected with COVID-19. You can see someone drink a beer. You can see someone acting as though they were drunk. You can't have a free society without assuming a high degree of risk, period. That's part of the deal. You want a large amount of freedom, you have to accept a large amount of risk. People who can't cope with that need to realize America is not the place for them. I will actively work against people who want to reduce freedoms in America - of all kinds. Freedom is hard, requires work, and sometimes sucks. That's part of the deal.
fjabre 6y ago
Your analogies fall short when talking about a microscopic virus. It's funny how many people underestimate this virus in terms of its ability to mutate and spread. And it's laughable that people think this can be contained with 'contact tracing' and 'monitoring' the movements of private citizens. It is a force of nature. Contact tracing simply gives the illusion of control while giving governments and excuse to spy. How easily free citizens give up basic fundamental rights in the name of Fear.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  And yet, China, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam have managed to stop the virus. Weird how that works.
  - fjabre 6y ago
    Ah so they have cured themselves of the virus have they? South Korea is 4 times smaller than California. And its population many times more homogeneous than any of the 50 states. New Zealand is an island nation with half the population of New Jersey Thailand has had several recent outbreaks and hotspots. Also that you believe Chinas/Vietnam/Thailands reporting is making a lot of assumptions. Governments in SE Asia have a very strong hold on what gets reported. You absolutely cannot trust the numbers they are reporting. To do so is irresponsible at best. Weird how you compare apples to oranges and expect it to be a fair comparison. Fear is a great motivator for giving up individual freedoms. That much is clear. How easily we give up our fundamental rights in the name of security and fear.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      I'd love to be in a situation with some recent outbreaks and hotspots instead of it being the entire country. Or even if New Jersey was free. Or even one city. The only reason it's apples-to-oranges is this continued belief that America is somehow special. This has caused all countermeasures to be ineffectual, half-assed, and incomplete.

derefr 6y ago

Freedom vs. authoritarianism isn't quite the thing being pointed at here, but there is a concept that the GP's post is getting at: freedom vs. paternalism. The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you — i.e. render you incapable of doing — things it doesn't want you to do; while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you for doing things, hoping you'll stop yourself from doing those things by considering the potential consequences. In a non-paternalistic state, you do kind of have the right to strike people in the nose... once. Those other people just have the right to seek justice for you having done that, and the government has a right to put you in jail for having done that — whereupon you'll have your right to strike people in the nose taken away, by being led around in manacles. But once you've served your time and return to the outside world, you'll again have the right to strike people in the nose. Once. A paternalistic state, meanwhile, looks like e.g. having people diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital (despite never having yet actually attacked anyone) unless/until they agree to take drugs to "control" the disorder. Literally trying to ensure that such people never strike someone in the nose in the first place. Americans don't actually fear authoritarianism (e.g. harsh punishments, for many different offenses); they mostly fear paternalism.

imbnwa 6y ago
The Civil Rights Act literally prevents people from discriminating based on race amongst other criteria. ADA literally prevents people from living the disabled to fend for themselves. Curious what segment of Americans fear paternalism.
- ChefboyOG 6y ago
  The segment who opposed the Civil Rights Act, including the senators who filibustered it for nearly 60 days to force a compromised version and the business owners who openly defied it for years in protest, seems like a good place to start.
robocat 6y ago
> The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you, while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you Paternalistic: I truely hate PC shit, but that seems like a terribly misogynistic word, I guess someone needs to discipline our forebears. And my own cultural stereotypes are that mothers have rules, and punishment is something a father does (in complete opposition to that definition?!). > non-paternalistic Now I wonder how often we think of a man as maternalistic, however not being maternalistic is mostly pretty bad: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/maternalistic.html https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/maternalis...
ska 6y ago
> they mostly fear paternalism. This doesn't entirely ring true either. Lots of people are all for it as long as it is restricting behavior they themselves don't like, or enforcing ones' they do.

Aerroon 6y ago

I think the quote isn't referring to somebody having a direct impact on you, but rather that you have to put up with their immoral behavior (in your view). In a free society a religious fundamentalist has to tolerate atheists. Drunk driving and public drunkenness laws are mostly practical. They are a restriction on people's freedom before they've harmed other. The laws are preventative in nature and exist to preempt harm that reckless behavior could cause. They're not good for modeling the principles of a free society on, because you'd quickly arrive at a paternalistic surveillance state. The laws are a compromise between safety and freedom.

pdonis 6y ago

> I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. You're not forced to suffer the consequences. You have the freedom to adopt countermeasures. You can drive defensively and stay alert when behind the wheel as a countermeasure against other drivers possibly being drunk. You can wear a mask (properly), social distance, avoid crowds, etc., as a countermeasure against other people possibly having an infectious disease. That's how it's supposed to work in a free society. > While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's important. The reason why the laws you refer to work reasonably well in America is that they are only enforced when someone has already made a mistake. We don't have roadblocks everywhere with cops forcibly administering breathalyzers to all drivers to make sure none of them are drunk. We don't have cops going around cities forcibly administering breathalyzers to everyone walking on the streets to make sure none of them are drunk. We only enforce those laws when someone has already done something like cause an accident, or drive erratically enough to get a cop's attention, or behave in public in a way that is obviously due to drunkenness. And that very method of enforcement means that you, the individual citizen, cannot depend on it to protect you individually. In other words, those laws are not shielding you, individually, from the consequences of other people's bad decisions. You still have to adopt your own countermeasures when you drive, because you can't assume that every other driver is sober. And, again, that's the way it's supposed to work in a free society.

jancsika 6y ago
> You're not forced to suffer the consequences. I'm having trouble reading this in any way where it isn't obviously false. Unless there's a secret source of hazmat suits I haven't heard about, other people's poor behavior in a pandemic creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who follow the guidelines.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  You can't see someone catch COVID-19. You can't see someone infected with COVID-19. You can see someone drink a beer. You can see someone acting as though they were drunk. You can't have a free society without assuming a high degree of risk, period. That's part of the deal. You want a large amount of freedom, you have to accept a large amount of risk. People who can't cope with that need to realize America is not the place for them. I will actively work against people who want to reduce freedoms in America - of all kinds. Freedom is hard, requires work, and sometimes sucks. That's part of the deal.

fjabre 6y ago

Your analogies fall short when talking about a microscopic virus. It's funny how many people underestimate this virus in terms of its ability to mutate and spread. And it's laughable that people think this can be contained with 'contact tracing' and 'monitoring' the movements of private citizens. It is a force of nature. Contact tracing simply gives the illusion of control while giving governments and excuse to spy. How easily free citizens give up basic fundamental rights in the name of Fear.

freeone3000 6y ago
And yet, China, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam have managed to stop the virus. Weird how that works.
- fjabre 6y ago
  Ah so they have cured themselves of the virus have they? South Korea is 4 times smaller than California. And its population many times more homogeneous than any of the 50 states. New Zealand is an island nation with half the population of New Jersey Thailand has had several recent outbreaks and hotspots. Also that you believe Chinas/Vietnam/Thailands reporting is making a lot of assumptions. Governments in SE Asia have a very strong hold on what gets reported. You absolutely cannot trust the numbers they are reporting. To do so is irresponsible at best. Weird how you compare apples to oranges and expect it to be a fair comparison. Fear is a great motivator for giving up individual freedoms. That much is clear. How easily we give up our fundamental rights in the name of security and fear.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    I'd love to be in a situation with some recent outbreaks and hotspots instead of it being the entire country. Or even if New Jersey was free. Or even one city. The only reason it's apples-to-oranges is this continued belief that America is somehow special. This has caused all countermeasures to be ineffectual, half-assed, and incomplete.