3 ms·

Seeing how seatbelt laws and restaurant safety permits were used to justify COVID lockdowns shows why anti-libertarian ideology should not be given even an inch

Seeing how seatbelt laws and restaurant safety permits were used to justify COVID lockdowns shows why anti-libertarian ideology should not be given even an inch. Anti-libertarians will use that inch to take more and more of people's human rights, since in principle, there's no difference in mandating you use a seatbelt, and mandating that you stay in your home for three months.

mint2 4y ago
Libertarians have beliefs like > “in principle, there's no difference in mandating you use a seatbelt, and mandating that you stay in your home for three months.” That is why there isn’t much anti-libertarian ideology unless it is redefined to be “anyone not buying all libertarian views” but instead what there actually are is a lack of people taking libertarian principles seriously because those are apparently things like seat belts equals arbitrary home confinement and also seem to be against seat belts and collective pandemic responses.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  You have the same belief that you are now lampooning libertarians over. That is what your initial comment implied: >>Don’t wear seatbelts either huh? The implication here is that someone who on principle, opposes mandated health care, may as well oppose seatbelt laws. In fact I saw many proponents of mandates prohibiting private citizens from providing a wide range of services to unvaccinated people, cite society's acceptance of restaurant sanitary permits, to justify these mandates. So this belief - that there is no principled difference between any restriction on private interaction - appears to be widely held among anti-libertarians. >>That is why there isn’t much anti-libertarian ideology Anti-libertarian ideology is the belief that we as a society have a right to impose our will on peaceful people, and in doing so deny them the right to their person, property and liberty, for the greater good. To give a mundane example, it means restaurants having to meet mandatory minimum health standards, even if there are patrons who are willing to dine at restaurants which don't meet those standards. Once that principle is accepted, then anything can be accepted, even locking 150,000 elderly people in their room for over a year, for their own safety: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/long-term-care-covid-confinement-1.5969825 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/long-term-care-covid-... Or taxing people of 50 percent of their income.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Health insurance and seatbelts are comparable concepts, that is what the seat belt comment was about. Seat belts and 3 months of Shanghai style quarantines are way different. The other points raised are like asking someone if they like hot sauce and when they say yes, spraying bear spray in their eyes and their kids eyes and their dogs eyes because “it’s the same conceptually” in an absurdist way since both are spicy. Hence back to the earlier point, people aren’t anti-libertarian but rather find much of what is espoused in the name of libertarianism is too absurd to take seriously.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      >>Health insurance and seatbelts are comparable concepts, that is what the seat belt comment was about. A mandate to have health insurance is orders of magnitude more impactful on the unwilling than a mandate to wear a seatbelt. But because of some commonality in the principle behind both mandates, you believe a person must accept the latter if they accept the former, to be morally consistent. >>Hence back to the earlier point, people aren’t anti-libertarian but rather find much of what is espoused in the name of libertarianism is too absurd to take seriously. What I encountered when denouncing mandates that turned unvaccinated people into second class citizens is people using our society's acceptance of sanitary permits for restaurants as justification for such mandates. It is a rejection, on principle, of the right to one's own person, property and liberty. For that reason, I conclude anti-libertarianism animates laws that violate the right to private property, bodily autonomy, and personal freedom, whether that be mandatory minimum restaurant safety standards, the Income Tax Act, vaccine mandates or lockdowns. >>Seat belts and 3 months of Shanghai style quarantines are way different. Of course they're way different. But the former opens the door to the latter, because there is no hard principle to prevent the latter when you accept the principle that justifies the former. That is how Canada ended up confining 150,000 elderly people in their room for over a year. There was no principled reason not to confine innocent people for the greater good, so once the cost-benefit analysis determined it was the correct policy, the restriction was imposed. You only oppose "3 months of Shanghai style quarantines" because you view the restrictions as being disproportionate to the public benefit they produce. Not because you oppose restrictions limiting personal autonomy on principle.

mint2 4y ago

Libertarians have beliefs like > “in principle, there's no difference in mandating you use a seatbelt, and mandating that you stay in your home for three months.” That is why there isn’t much anti-libertarian ideology unless it is redefined to be “anyone not buying all libertarian views” but instead what there actually are is a lack of people taking libertarian principles seriously because those are apparently things like seat belts equals arbitrary home confinement and also seem to be against seat belts and collective pandemic responses.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
You have the same belief that you are now lampooning libertarians over. That is what your initial comment implied: >>Don’t wear seatbelts either huh? The implication here is that someone who on principle, opposes mandated health care, may as well oppose seatbelt laws. In fact I saw many proponents of mandates prohibiting private citizens from providing a wide range of services to unvaccinated people, cite society's acceptance of restaurant sanitary permits, to justify these mandates. So this belief - that there is no principled difference between any restriction on private interaction - appears to be widely held among anti-libertarians. >>That is why there isn’t much anti-libertarian ideology Anti-libertarian ideology is the belief that we as a society have a right to impose our will on peaceful people, and in doing so deny them the right to their person, property and liberty, for the greater good. To give a mundane example, it means restaurants having to meet mandatory minimum health standards, even if there are patrons who are willing to dine at restaurants which don't meet those standards. Once that principle is accepted, then anything can be accepted, even locking 150,000 elderly people in their room for over a year, for their own safety: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/long-term-care-covid-confinement-1.5969825 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/long-term-care-covid-... Or taxing people of 50 percent of their income.
- mint2 4y ago
  Health insurance and seatbelts are comparable concepts, that is what the seat belt comment was about. Seat belts and 3 months of Shanghai style quarantines are way different. The other points raised are like asking someone if they like hot sauce and when they say yes, spraying bear spray in their eyes and their kids eyes and their dogs eyes because “it’s the same conceptually” in an absurdist way since both are spicy. Hence back to the earlier point, people aren’t anti-libertarian but rather find much of what is espoused in the name of libertarianism is too absurd to take seriously.
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    >>Health insurance and seatbelts are comparable concepts, that is what the seat belt comment was about. A mandate to have health insurance is orders of magnitude more impactful on the unwilling than a mandate to wear a seatbelt. But because of some commonality in the principle behind both mandates, you believe a person must accept the latter if they accept the former, to be morally consistent. >>Hence back to the earlier point, people aren’t anti-libertarian but rather find much of what is espoused in the name of libertarianism is too absurd to take seriously. What I encountered when denouncing mandates that turned unvaccinated people into second class citizens is people using our society's acceptance of sanitary permits for restaurants as justification for such mandates. It is a rejection, on principle, of the right to one's own person, property and liberty. For that reason, I conclude anti-libertarianism animates laws that violate the right to private property, bodily autonomy, and personal freedom, whether that be mandatory minimum restaurant safety standards, the Income Tax Act, vaccine mandates or lockdowns. >>Seat belts and 3 months of Shanghai style quarantines are way different. Of course they're way different. But the former opens the door to the latter, because there is no hard principle to prevent the latter when you accept the principle that justifies the former. That is how Canada ended up confining 150,000 elderly people in their room for over a year. There was no principled reason not to confine innocent people for the greater good, so once the cost-benefit analysis determined it was the correct policy, the restriction was imposed. You only oppose "3 months of Shanghai style quarantines" because you view the restrictions as being disproportionate to the public benefit they produce. Not because you oppose restrictions limiting personal autonomy on principle.