4 ms·
> Hobbes identified this trap, and found an ingenious way out of it: redirect the fear to a third party. If I am less afraid of my neighbor than what the govern
by A_non_e-moose 5y ago
> Hobbes identified this trap, and found an ingenious way out of it: redirect the fear to a third party. If I am less afraid of my neighbor than what the government will do to me if I kill my neighbor, then I won't kill my neighbor. And if the government is vastly stronger than individuals, it will fear neither my neighbor nor I, so doesn't need to constantly terrorize everyone going about their daily lives.
There are certain fundamental freedoms in a democracy, such as individuality, choice and movement. Democracies, of course, are weak to challenge those, as that is the point of a democracy to protect such fundamental freedoms.
However, this pandemic has made it so that some of those fundamental freedoms are now perceived as a serious threat. The virus spreads individually and thus to control the virus individuals must be controlled, by themselves or by the government.
Are we seeing constant terror in our daily lives because governments now fear the individual, their choices and their movements?
Is this why we see a reduction in democratic values? So governments can regain power to control the pandemic and thus inevitably also control individuals?
States of emergency were such temporary mechanisms used and still in use in some cases.
- labster 5y agoNo, we’re seeing a rise of mask-holes who choose to inflict violence on their neighbors by failing to wear masks. And that because of the freedom not to wear masks, they can inflict harm on, even kill their neighbors because they claim we all have a right to freedom of face. The refrigerated containers full of bodies are a sign of a free and healthy democracy. Well, not that kind of healthy. It’s not that governments are trying to control the people, it’s that half the population broke the fucking social contract because they didn’t want to be inconvenienced. And if half the people can’t manage one silly temporary rule to protect others, how can I ever trust them?
- mrfusion 5y ago99.4-99.6% survival rate (1), good sir. Anyone at high risk is free to take extra precautions. No one is “inflicting violence” by living normally. (1) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...
- simtel20 5y agoSo globally if the entire population is infected, the death of 31.6 to 47.4 million people doesn't strike you as violence, e.g. a great destructive force or energy by what you say. That is pitifully selfish if you have actually considered the loss of life involved and feel that way. It is ignorant and unworthy of other people's consideration if you have not. You do not have the power or right to accept the risk of other people's mass death to enforce your own notion of "normal". If you cannot understand that, you need someone capable of empathy to be your moral compass in place of your broken inability to do so.
- noelwelsh 5y agoAn IFR of 0.5% is still millions of people. Case fatality rate is comparable to the Spanish flu: * https://pmj.bmj.com/content/97/1147/273 https://pmj.bmj.com/content/97/1147/273 * https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... As I understand it, reducing both inhalation and exhalation of the virus (i.e. everyone wearing masks) is more much more effective than reducing either one alone. The classic formulation of rights under liberalism is "your rights end where mine begins". This makes it fairly clear that individuals don't have the right to transmit diseases to others.