3 ms·

Link 2 is a 404 for me. Hilariously, Australians protest about their rights by trying their best to extend lockdowns further [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.

• logicchains 5y ago
  Why is it hilarious? The whole point of human rights is they they don't just disappear whenever there's an emergency, otherwise the next dictator who comes along will just declare an emergency and violate everyone's rights, as has happened countless times in history. It's sad not funny that people protesting their rights being violated just leads to their rights being violated even more.
  • stavros 5y ago
    So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? So things like banning indoor meetings should be allowed to continue, even when there is a pandemic? I didn't protest the lockdowns because it seems reasonable to me that you'd want to ban proximity to curtail the spread of a disease that spreads by proximity. That doesn't mean I won't protest a dictator just declaring an emergency and violating everyone's rights.
    • eightails 5y ago
      > So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons. In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
      • lethologica 5y ago
        The imprisonment of criminals is a governments way of fulfilling one of its primary duties, keeping its citizens safe. It’s not 100% accurate of course but I’d much rather take that than wondering if my neighbour will kill me. If you’re saying a government shouldn’t be locking people up so that an individuals rights aren’t violated, then you’re saying a government shouldn’t be looking after the wellbeing of its people. In which case, you’re essentially talking about anarchy.
        • stavros 5y ago
          But you're agreeing with the GP. Similarly, governments have a responsibility towards the citizens to protect them against COVID, even if that means some temporary lockdowns.
  • thisone22 5y ago
    Ok, this is a spectrum. How far along the spectrum does the emergency need to get to justify a lockdown? For example - The Black Plague which killed 30%~ of Europe. At what point would a lockdown be justified? - Germany just invaded my northern border. Again. Am I allowed to force my residents to turn their lights off to avoid bombing? Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. The question is 'what is bad enough' and this has no scientific answer. The answer is up to the government of the day, and the population who can decide whether to turf that government.
    • Pet_Ant 5y ago
      > Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. I feel like this is the point of contention. Many people truly don't consider things that can be taken away a right. Is the constitution a suicide pact a serious question that has been argued in the US Supreme Court (that phrased originated by a justice arguing that it wasn't... he was in the minority opinion). I will try to keep this neutral, but people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge"... what distinguishes between rights and priveledges?
• jaywalk 5y ago
  "Just do what you're told and you'll get your rights back when the dear leaders decide you've done enough. But they'll still reserve the right to take them away whenever they feel like it." How's that boot polish tasting?