5 ms·

It's a special kind of authoritarian who believes that everyone except them are incapable of making an informed assessment of the risks and exercising their fre

It's a special kind of authoritarian who believes that everyone except them are incapable of making an informed assessment of the risks and exercising their freedom to participate or not in the activity. Many of history's greatest human rights abusers committed their crimes in the firm belief it was for the greater good.

nicoburns 6y ago
> Many of history's greatest human rights abusers committed their crimes in the firm belief it was for the greater good. That's true. But it doesn't follow that authoritarian collective action is never for the greatest good. It's no coincidence that almost all of the world's democratic government governments have enforced lockdowns and other restrictions.
sneak 6y ago
"exercising their freedom to participate or not in the activity" ignores the externalities of their bad decisions. Your freedom to swing your fist, et c. Now the hospitals are full and I can't drive anywhere because there are no ICU beds should an idiot crash into me. Some freedom. You don't have freedom to pollute the air that I use to breathe, and you don't have the freedom to get and spread a deadly virus (which, really, is a subset of polluting the air that others use to breathe).
- xorencrypted 6y ago
  > Your freedom to swing your fist, etc This is a freedom that changes during a boxing match for the obvious reason that both parties consent. I'm sure the people attending this class are aware that viruses are a thing and that there's an ongoing pandemic
- matt_o 6y ago
  You picked a small fragment of the OP's argument and turned it into a strawman. For example, you dropped the whole "making an informed assessment of the risks" part, which is pretty important to the whole message. You bring up "your freedom to swing your fist, etc." - how does this apply to lockdown measures that were proven to be ineffective, such as cleaning surfaces[0]? We've poured a lot of money and people's time into cleaning surfaces even while knowing early on that this is a very minor source of transmission. These resources could have been invested in proven measures, such as getting more people more N95 masks. The way I understand OP's argument is that it's against how heavy-handed and inflexible these lockdown measures have been, limiting individuals effectiveness in dealing with the pandemic. Turning surface cleaning into security theater is one example. Another is the initial official messaging that people should not wear masks because they are not proven to be effective against COVID[1]. These restrictions made it harder to respond to the pandemic in an effective way. People wearing masks early in the pandemic or those choosing not to drown themselves in disinfectant did not, in fact, "pollute the air you breathe." If we are to face similar disasters in the future, we have to be honest about these things so we can act better next time. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's repetitive, tedious, and unusually nasty. Definitely not what we're going for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nicoburns 6y ago

> Many of history's greatest human rights abusers committed their crimes in the firm belief it was for the greater good. That's true. But it doesn't follow that authoritarian collective action is never for the greatest good. It's no coincidence that almost all of the world's democratic government governments have enforced lockdowns and other restrictions.

sneak 6y ago

"exercising their freedom to participate or not in the activity" ignores the externalities of their bad decisions. Your freedom to swing your fist, et c. Now the hospitals are full and I can't drive anywhere because there are no ICU beds should an idiot crash into me. Some freedom. You don't have freedom to pollute the air that I use to breathe, and you don't have the freedom to get and spread a deadly virus (which, really, is a subset of polluting the air that others use to breathe).

xorencrypted 6y ago
> Your freedom to swing your fist, etc This is a freedom that changes during a boxing match for the obvious reason that both parties consent. I'm sure the people attending this class are aware that viruses are a thing and that there's an ongoing pandemic
matt_o 6y ago
You picked a small fragment of the OP's argument and turned it into a strawman. For example, you dropped the whole "making an informed assessment of the risks" part, which is pretty important to the whole message. You bring up "your freedom to swing your fist, etc." - how does this apply to lockdown measures that were proven to be ineffective, such as cleaning surfaces[0]? We've poured a lot of money and people's time into cleaning surfaces even while knowing early on that this is a very minor source of transmission. These resources could have been invested in proven measures, such as getting more people more N95 masks. The way I understand OP's argument is that it's against how heavy-handed and inflexible these lockdown measures have been, limiting individuals effectiveness in dealing with the pandemic. Turning surface cleaning into security theater is one example. Another is the initial official messaging that people should not wear masks because they are not proven to be effective against COVID[1]. These restrictions made it harder to respond to the pandemic in an effective way. People wearing masks early in the pandemic or those choosing not to drown themselves in disinfectant did not, in fact, "pollute the air you breathe." If we are to face similar disasters in the future, we have to be honest about these things so we can act better next time. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's repetitive, tedious, and unusually nasty. Definitely not what we're going for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html