3 ms·

Fair enough, I'm canadian and the same reason I haven't moved to Florida is because I'd rather stay and try to fight people like you than just give up and move

Fair enough, I'm canadian and the same reason I haven't moved to Florida is because I'd rather stay and try to fight people like you than just give up and move somewhere else. I think the difference is that all I want is to be left alone, while a you want is for the government to force people to do what you want (because anything else would somehow harm you and your fellow citizens), but that's a pretty classic struggle between libertarian and authoritarian. And I guess I should add that our constitution and history make liberty and minimal government power the default here, so all of the authoritarianism that's come with covid is an attack on what was once a free country. Which is why I think it's better if you leave if you don't like it.

munk-a 5y ago
I think there's a problem with assuming that basic libretarian thinking is about freedom though. I personally value my and others' freedom to not be murdered over the freedom to murder people. There are an awful lot of unjust laws that can color people's view on acting as a society - but there are also quite necessary forces in there to make sure that people have the ability to live good lives. My central philosophy in life is basically to strive to have a positive net impact on those around me - and it's why I find that old Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." so problematic - it comes from a good place (basically it can, IMO be read as a scathing indictment of America's response to 9/11) but it gets taken so far overboard so often. Everyone just wants to live, when we're threatened with an existential (for some of us) threat like a pandemic, we need to coordinate an appropriate group response to sanely respond to it. When the threat is minor we can delegate that to the individual and let folks do as they will - but when we're talking about a pandemic group action is required to overcome the issue. I'm fine seeing wide ranging debates on the political stage over national drug care and the like - but this pandemic is a very serious threat that has killed a lot of Canadians. I don't think it's fair to paint pretty reasonable quarantine restrictions as authoritarian when that word, to so many people, draws up the image of Stalin or Hitler.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > I personally value my and others' freedom to not be murdered over the freedom to murder people. I personally think that the rule should be "don't impose on others". The murder example you used is an imposition on another person. Telling someone that they can't impose on someone else is not an imposition, it is preventing an imposition. There can be problems if we allow the majority to impose whatever they want on the minority. It seems that many people seem are ok with that, as long as they are in the majority.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I mostly agree with that take. I just think the discussion is more complex when we're talking about a pandemic - acting personally in a reckless manner is imposing your risks on others. Base jumping off a bridge with no expectation of medical care is a personal risk - taking the subway without a mask on when you're feeling ill in the middle of a pandemic is a shared risk.
    - mikem170 5y ago
      I agree that the discussion about pandemic lockdowns is more complex. Good and honest people can look at the same data and disagree on how to handle something like this, even individuals who share the same age and health related covid risks. Some mitigation measures work better than others. Lockdowns have a negative impact, and this needs to be taken into account also. I think a lot has to do with quantifying the risk. We don't mandate masks during flu season. Covid has killed 10 times as many people per year in the U.S. than a bad flu season. Somewhere in between is where we as a society have drawn the line, at least on short notice for a scary new virus. And that line is in a state of flux, given better treatments, vaccines, less deadly variants, and lockdown fatigue, etc. It seems that the numbers matter when it comes to these issues, which is why we don't lock down or mandate masks every year for the flu and other diseases. If the numbers matter then it is a shame that the media didn't do a better job of informing people. It seems that the headlines were focused on worst case scenarios, anecdotes, and controversy at the expense of probabilities, perspective, and measurements. Personally I wish that we could have given N95 masks, which effectively protect the wearer, to everyone who felt vulnerable and was unable to isolate.
ttybird2 5y ago
"our constitution and history make liberty and minimal government power the default here, so all of the authoritarianism that's come with covid is an attack on what was once a free country" I usually see Canada being described the other way around, and to be honest if someone asked me for the most free countries Canada would not be the first in my list.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

munk-a 5y ago

I think there's a problem with assuming that basic libretarian thinking is about freedom though. I personally value my and others' freedom to not be murdered over the freedom to murder people. There are an awful lot of unjust laws that can color people's view on acting as a society - but there are also quite necessary forces in there to make sure that people have the ability to live good lives. My central philosophy in life is basically to strive to have a positive net impact on those around me - and it's why I find that old Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." so problematic - it comes from a good place (basically it can, IMO be read as a scathing indictment of America's response to 9/11) but it gets taken so far overboard so often. Everyone just wants to live, when we're threatened with an existential (for some of us) threat like a pandemic, we need to coordinate an appropriate group response to sanely respond to it. When the threat is minor we can delegate that to the individual and let folks do as they will - but when we're talking about a pandemic group action is required to overcome the issue. I'm fine seeing wide ranging debates on the political stage over national drug care and the like - but this pandemic is a very serious threat that has killed a lot of Canadians. I don't think it's fair to paint pretty reasonable quarantine restrictions as authoritarian when that word, to so many people, draws up the image of Stalin or Hitler.

mikem170 5y ago
> I personally value my and others' freedom to not be murdered over the freedom to murder people. I personally think that the rule should be "don't impose on others". The murder example you used is an imposition on another person. Telling someone that they can't impose on someone else is not an imposition, it is preventing an imposition. There can be problems if we allow the majority to impose whatever they want on the minority. It seems that many people seem are ok with that, as long as they are in the majority.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I mostly agree with that take. I just think the discussion is more complex when we're talking about a pandemic - acting personally in a reckless manner is imposing your risks on others. Base jumping off a bridge with no expectation of medical care is a personal risk - taking the subway without a mask on when you're feeling ill in the middle of a pandemic is a shared risk.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    I agree that the discussion about pandemic lockdowns is more complex. Good and honest people can look at the same data and disagree on how to handle something like this, even individuals who share the same age and health related covid risks. Some mitigation measures work better than others. Lockdowns have a negative impact, and this needs to be taken into account also. I think a lot has to do with quantifying the risk. We don't mandate masks during flu season. Covid has killed 10 times as many people per year in the U.S. than a bad flu season. Somewhere in between is where we as a society have drawn the line, at least on short notice for a scary new virus. And that line is in a state of flux, given better treatments, vaccines, less deadly variants, and lockdown fatigue, etc. It seems that the numbers matter when it comes to these issues, which is why we don't lock down or mandate masks every year for the flu and other diseases. If the numbers matter then it is a shame that the media didn't do a better job of informing people. It seems that the headlines were focused on worst case scenarios, anecdotes, and controversy at the expense of probabilities, perspective, and measurements. Personally I wish that we could have given N95 masks, which effectively protect the wearer, to everyone who felt vulnerable and was unable to isolate.

ttybird2 5y ago

"our constitution and history make liberty and minimal government power the default here, so all of the authoritarianism that's come with covid is an attack on what was once a free country" I usually see Canada being described the other way around, and to be honest if someone asked me for the most free countries Canada would not be the first in my list.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]