6 ms·

Not just "electronic" freedoms anymore. They're currently locked down with the lockdown enforced by their own military from what I have seen. Serves them right,

by m0zg 5y ago

Not just "electronic" freedoms anymore. They're currently locked down with the lockdown enforced by their own military from what I have seen. Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns.

pugio 5y ago
You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns. By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
  - pugio 5y ago
    I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate. To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them. Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - christophilus 5y ago
        Even Libertarians understand that the situation is nuanced. For example, blackouts during wartime are the proper jurisdiction of governments. You can argue that pandemic lockdowns fall into the same category. (I’m not saying whether or not that argument is correct, but it can be made in good faith.)
        m0zg 5y ago
        But they don't. Lockdowns longer than the vaccination interval make absolutely zero sense if there exists a vaccine and the virus is endemic. Get used to the idea that you'll be getting COVID several times a year from here on out, and because you'll have antibodies, it'll be no big deal, much like with other coronaviruses today. Importantly, there is NO PLAUSIBLE WAY to "stop COVID" by lockdowns or any other measures. Eventually you'll have to end the lockdowns, and it'll be waiting for you. COVID is the Taliban of diseases - it can't be defeated, but we can kinda sorta peacefully coexist.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        In hindsight, that argument makes some sense, but back in early 2020 when we didn't know what we were fighting, there was no reason to believe it was endemic and there was no vaccine.
        m0zg 5y ago
        But we did know what we were fighting. It was clear right from the start COVID would become endemic, epidemiologists were literally saying so. It is true that there was no vaccine and nobody knew how to treat the moderate cases, but we've now had the vaccine for 9 months. In the US at least it's available to anyone who wants it (and forced upon those who don't, sometimes), and it's been that way for 4+ months. And yet, in Australia you can be forcibly detained and quarantined (in a camp, no less), forced to disclose health information, authorities can also use whatever force necessary to enter your dwelling (this would be a perilous affair in the US in particular), and so on. That is as far from "freedom" as anything I've seen. And it's also utterly and completely pointless and counterproductive as well.
- m0zg 5y ago
  You have some weird definition of freedom with which I am not familiar. To me, freedom would mean I could, at a minimum, go wherever I want to go, and meet whoever I want to meet, without government interference. And if there are any epidemiological recommednations, _voluntary_ compliance would too mean freedom, but _only_ voluntary. By your definition people in prisons are "free" too - most of them are locked up for a reason. And yet they can't go anywhere, and are most definitely non-free.
  - mikeyjk 5y ago
    This seems like the classic 'what happens when your freedoms encroach upon my freedoms' discussion beginning
- standarduser2 5y ago
  What a hilarious statement. How will the left, as represented by HN, ever solve anything if you have such a ridiculously naive view of the world? "Oh wait, that is totally different, we are OK with THAT loss of freedom!". Oh and, the states are left-wing, so umm, they are all fine! We are just here pretending to fight for freedom because the federal government is right-wing (not really)! Everything you say is a lie and all of this comes down to left vs right instead of anything to do with freedom. You will take the chance to attack a right-wing whatever it is, but you won't have any consistent value system underlying it.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    This is apparently your first comment on HN. HN has a consistent value system called the guidelines. Your comment breaks many of them. Please read them and don't write like this on HN again. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
arcticbull 5y ago
> Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns. Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work?
- logicchains 5y ago
  >Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work? How exactly did that work in Afghanistan?
  - bigsisl 5y ago
    I dont think you can connect this argument with afghanistan, how do you see the connection there?
    - fragileone 5y ago
      The Afghanistan army gave up rather than fight the Taliban, despite having far superior firepower and manpower.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    True, but this is in the context of abject authoritarianism right? Under tyranny? The US in Afghanistan, for all its successes and failures was on a nation building adventure, hoping to win hearts and minds. It was following rules of engagement, not operating an outright slaughterhouse. In the context of abject authoritarianism, the government will just straight up execute you, or crush you with a tank like the PRC at Tiananmen Square. This feels like a romanticized Lone Ranger against Big Brother kind of thing. The Fantasy of the Good Guy with a Gun™. I don't think it plays out that way in real life.
    - m0zg 5y ago
      The worst the government can do in a country with 300M+ guns in circulation is "boil the frog", and hope to dear god the pot does not boil over at any point. It's not a fantasy. It's literally how the US was founded in the first place.
bigbluedots 5y ago
It's a good thing we don't all have guns like folks in the States. Not too many mass murders here. And if you think you're protected from your government, you're talking about guys with small arms vs other guys with tanks.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Why compare to the States specifically, though? There are several countries in Europe that have much more liberal gun laws than you guys do (although also much more stringent than American ones), and similarly don't have a problem with mass murders.

by m0zg 5y ago

pugio 5y ago

You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns. By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.

logicchains 5y ago
>Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
- pugio 5y ago
  I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate. To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them. Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - christophilus 5y ago
      Even Libertarians understand that the situation is nuanced. For example, blackouts during wartime are the proper jurisdiction of governments. You can argue that pandemic lockdowns fall into the same category. (I’m not saying whether or not that argument is correct, but it can be made in good faith.)
      - m0zg 5y ago
        But they don't. Lockdowns longer than the vaccination interval make absolutely zero sense if there exists a vaccine and the virus is endemic. Get used to the idea that you'll be getting COVID several times a year from here on out, and because you'll have antibodies, it'll be no big deal, much like with other coronaviruses today. Importantly, there is NO PLAUSIBLE WAY to "stop COVID" by lockdowns or any other measures. Eventually you'll have to end the lockdowns, and it'll be waiting for you. COVID is the Taliban of diseases - it can't be defeated, but we can kinda sorta peacefully coexist.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        In hindsight, that argument makes some sense, but back in early 2020 when we didn't know what we were fighting, there was no reason to believe it was endemic and there was no vaccine.
        m0zg 5y ago
        But we did know what we were fighting. It was clear right from the start COVID would become endemic, epidemiologists were literally saying so. It is true that there was no vaccine and nobody knew how to treat the moderate cases, but we've now had the vaccine for 9 months. In the US at least it's available to anyone who wants it (and forced upon those who don't, sometimes), and it's been that way for 4+ months. And yet, in Australia you can be forcibly detained and quarantined (in a camp, no less), forced to disclose health information, authorities can also use whatever force necessary to enter your dwelling (this would be a perilous affair in the US in particular), and so on. That is as far from "freedom" as anything I've seen. And it's also utterly and completely pointless and counterproductive as well.
m0zg 5y ago
You have some weird definition of freedom with which I am not familiar. To me, freedom would mean I could, at a minimum, go wherever I want to go, and meet whoever I want to meet, without government interference. And if there are any epidemiological recommednations, _voluntary_ compliance would too mean freedom, but _only_ voluntary. By your definition people in prisons are "free" too - most of them are locked up for a reason. And yet they can't go anywhere, and are most definitely non-free.
- mikeyjk 5y ago
  This seems like the classic 'what happens when your freedoms encroach upon my freedoms' discussion beginning
standarduser2 5y ago
What a hilarious statement. How will the left, as represented by HN, ever solve anything if you have such a ridiculously naive view of the world? "Oh wait, that is totally different, we are OK with THAT loss of freedom!". Oh and, the states are left-wing, so umm, they are all fine! We are just here pretending to fight for freedom because the federal government is right-wing (not really)! Everything you say is a lie and all of this comes down to left vs right instead of anything to do with freedom. You will take the chance to attack a right-wing whatever it is, but you won't have any consistent value system underlying it.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  This is apparently your first comment on HN. HN has a consistent value system called the guidelines. Your comment breaks many of them. Please read them and don't write like this on HN again. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

arcticbull 5y ago

> Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns. Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work?

logicchains 5y ago
>Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work? How exactly did that work in Afghanistan?
- bigsisl 5y ago
  I dont think you can connect this argument with afghanistan, how do you see the connection there?
  - fragileone 5y ago
    The Afghanistan army gave up rather than fight the Taliban, despite having far superior firepower and manpower.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  True, but this is in the context of abject authoritarianism right? Under tyranny? The US in Afghanistan, for all its successes and failures was on a nation building adventure, hoping to win hearts and minds. It was following rules of engagement, not operating an outright slaughterhouse. In the context of abject authoritarianism, the government will just straight up execute you, or crush you with a tank like the PRC at Tiananmen Square. This feels like a romanticized Lone Ranger against Big Brother kind of thing. The Fantasy of the Good Guy with a Gun™. I don't think it plays out that way in real life.
  - m0zg 5y ago
    The worst the government can do in a country with 300M+ guns in circulation is "boil the frog", and hope to dear god the pot does not boil over at any point. It's not a fantasy. It's literally how the US was founded in the first place.

bigbluedots 5y ago

It's a good thing we don't all have guns like folks in the States. Not too many mass murders here. And if you think you're protected from your government, you're talking about guys with small arms vs other guys with tanks.

int_19h 5y ago
Why compare to the States specifically, though? There are several countries in Europe that have much more liberal gun laws than you guys do (although also much more stringent than American ones), and similarly don't have a problem with mass murders.