4 ms·

> We are no longer ever allowed to make personal risk management decisions. Your freedom borders with mine - you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn

> We are no longer ever allowed to make personal risk management decisions. Your freedom borders with mine - you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn't affect others without their consent. Ignoring COVID-19 precautionary measures isn't one of those things, and I am happy the joy-destroying authoritarian overlords took that choice from you.

umvi 6y ago
> you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn't affect others without their consent People don't exist in vacuums. Nearly every decision you make is going to affect society somehow. If you decide to eat fast food for every meal and become obese, that isn't happening in a vacuum. Sooner or later you will start putting strain on the healthcare system and if enough people do the same, the "joy-destroying overlords" are going to start taxing sugar and fat (or other agency-limiting measures) to save you from yourself. Is that the world you want to live in - where the government has to increasingly limit everyone's agency in order to save more lives?
- mbg721 6y ago
  Also see Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
T-hawk 6y ago
People can't do these things even WITH everyone's consent. What if I and 500 of my friends want to have a comics convention? With everyone fully aware and accepting of any risks? Nope, absolutely not allowed anywhere in the entire damn world. It's right there in the US Constitution. "No law abridging the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble." It does not say "except in case of arbitrarily-declared forever-lasting so-called emergency." If you want it to say that, amend it. If such an amendment wouldn't pass, that's because it damn well shouldn't. This is freedom-destroying authoritarianism, and the frightened sheep like you eat it up. This is where democracy breaks, if 51% of people want to lock down the other 49% forever, the other 49% are fucked forever. If you fear contagion and think you need to stay away from me, that is on YOU to restrict YOUR activities. You do not get to restrict mine.
- shytey 6y ago
  Are you saying you would like the people in charge to remove all restrictions? Do you agree that a higher number of people will die if they do this? Are you OK with that?
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    A higher number of people die of the flu and common cold every normal year because we don’t do lockdowns. Are you okay with that? Why or why not? If not, then you must admit that, _of course_, increasing longevity to the absolute maximum possible extent should not be the only goal of public policy. And then it becomes clear that we’re talking about degrees. How many deaths are worth how much misery, suffering, and lost time among healthy people? Reasonable people can answer that question in different ways, but clearly the answer isn’t “zero”.
  - T-hawk 6y ago
    Yes, yes, and yes. People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.
ryandrake 6y ago
How is this any different than drunk driving? Risk-taking activities that put both the risk-taker and others in mortal danger. States seem to be able to punish that kind of risk taking without complaints about "joy-destroying authoritarian overlords".
nradov 6y ago
That's just silly. By the same logic you could claim than no one should be allowed to drive cars, because an inattentive driver might kill you. If you're afraid then you're welcome to shelter in place alone for the rest of your life.

umvi 6y ago

> you should be allowed to do EVERYTHING which doesn't affect others without their consent People don't exist in vacuums. Nearly every decision you make is going to affect society somehow. If you decide to eat fast food for every meal and become obese, that isn't happening in a vacuum. Sooner or later you will start putting strain on the healthcare system and if enough people do the same, the "joy-destroying overlords" are going to start taxing sugar and fat (or other agency-limiting measures) to save you from yourself. Is that the world you want to live in - where the government has to increasingly limit everyone's agency in order to save more lives?

mbg721 6y ago
Also see Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

T-hawk 6y ago

People can't do these things even WITH everyone's consent. What if I and 500 of my friends want to have a comics convention? With everyone fully aware and accepting of any risks? Nope, absolutely not allowed anywhere in the entire damn world. It's right there in the US Constitution. "No law abridging the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble." It does not say "except in case of arbitrarily-declared forever-lasting so-called emergency." If you want it to say that, amend it. If such an amendment wouldn't pass, that's because it damn well shouldn't. This is freedom-destroying authoritarianism, and the frightened sheep like you eat it up. This is where democracy breaks, if 51% of people want to lock down the other 49% forever, the other 49% are fucked forever. If you fear contagion and think you need to stay away from me, that is on YOU to restrict YOUR activities. You do not get to restrict mine.

shytey 6y ago
Are you saying you would like the people in charge to remove all restrictions? Do you agree that a higher number of people will die if they do this? Are you OK with that?
- umanwizard 6y ago
  A higher number of people die of the flu and common cold every normal year because we don’t do lockdowns. Are you okay with that? Why or why not? If not, then you must admit that, _of course_, increasing longevity to the absolute maximum possible extent should not be the only goal of public policy. And then it becomes clear that we’re talking about degrees. How many deaths are worth how much misery, suffering, and lost time among healthy people? Reasonable people can answer that question in different ways, but clearly the answer isn’t “zero”.
- T-hawk 6y ago
  Yes, yes, and yes. People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.

ryandrake 6y ago

How is this any different than drunk driving? Risk-taking activities that put both the risk-taker and others in mortal danger. States seem to be able to punish that kind of risk taking without complaints about "joy-destroying authoritarian overlords".

nradov 6y ago

That's just silly. By the same logic you could claim than no one should be allowed to drive cars, because an inattentive driver might kill you. If you're afraid then you're welcome to shelter in place alone for the rest of your life.