Hacker News Reader

> How does the old saying go? "Those who are willing to trade a little bit of their freedom for security -- deserve neither" ?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

Interestingly, he was addressing the Pennsylvania legislature regarding a proposal from the Penn family: they were willing to hire mercenaries to protect the colonial frontier in exchange for a binding agreement that the legislature recognized their immunity to taxation. Franklin was arguing that was a foolish deal to take; on the Penn side, they could rescind it at any time, while if the colony just taxed the Penns, they could hire their own mercenaries.

The "liberty" he is referring to is the colonial governnent's freedom to exercise its power to levy tax and deal with existential threats to its people as it saw fit, as per its constitutional authority. In modern times, we could translate this saying to, for example, a government using tax money to pay people to stay home so they can avoid spreading a deadly disease.

>"in exchange for a binding agreement that the legislature recognized their immunity to taxation."

This must have been some time before the Civil War, when income taxes were briefly enacted (and subsequently rescinded after the war) to pay for the war, or some time before World War I, when income taxes were again enacted (oestensibly to pay for the war), and subsequently "stuck around" this second time.

Perhaps the taxation you mean was that of import tariffs, enacted oestensibly to pay for the Revolutionary War:

"Responding to an urgent need for revenue following the American Revolutionary War, the First United States Congress passed, and President George Washington signed on July 4, the Tariff of 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imports. Four weeks later, on July 31, the fifth act of Congress established the United States Customs Service and its ports of entry."

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...)

To me (as an amateur historian, and "not a very good one" at that!), it's amazing how much you find historical taxation -- connected to War.

Incidentally, that history of commonality / "co-incidence" is shared by England/Great Britain -- and many other nations in their history as well.

I believe that in the Roman Empire this same pattern emerges (as it also might have occured with the medieval church fighting the Crusades -- the so called "Holy War", except that "taxes" were called "tithes" back then) -- but I'd have to research those incidences further...

Also, you might find the following interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalyps...

>"as per its constitutional authority..."

...which occurs as consequence of, and is subordinate to, the consent of the governed -- which can be revoked by any given individual constituent, at any given time, for any given reason, or for no reason:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

If you really want to understand American Government and what it was set up to protect against -- then you must truly understand all of the historical ills of every preceeding historical government of every other nation on the face of the earth into antiquity (including, but not limited to: monarchies, tyrannies, mob rule, communist movements, etc.)

Say it with me: CONSENT. OF. THE. GOVERNED.

The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;)

That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence. That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent. A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few. The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting.

The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind.

and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract (especially regarding how America treats black Americans), the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?

>"The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;)"

Fair enough!

>"That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence."

There are consequences for everything in life (some good, some bad, some neutral -- depends on the individual viewpoint), that is true!

But, I did not say that, nor did I imply that by what I said, although, I suppose one set of inferences could arrive at that conclusion -- but other sets of inferences would not. Elucidate the logic by which you believe I implied it; I will in turn elucidate you if I believe that your reasoning is sound, and I agree (by implication) or not (by faulty connecting logic).

>"That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent."

Well, let's start with the fundamentals... if a single individual revokes their consent -- does government stop functioning? No it does not!

Beyond this, what we are discussing here is the nature of the social contract. Which is an absolutely fascinating subject matter! I could discuss this for days, weeks on end even! In order to understand this, we'd need to discuss what a contract is, in Law (and also the historical understanding that gives rise to the modern-day concept of contracts), what lawyers do with contracts, and what such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes have to say on the matter. So I invite you to have a private email discussion with me on the matter, if you so choose! (peter.d.sherman@gmail.com).

>"A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few."

Look, I think you're a nice guy, I think you're very smart and well informed, and I'm sure you as a person have many virtues that if I knew you, I would be your friend, and I would praise them.

But what you have said in this part of your response is complete and utter horseshit.

Don't worry, I don't blame you for this. I blame our educational system, that in this day and age, doesn't exactly turn out Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- or Greek philosopher kings for that matter. If the education is defective, then so is the reasoning.

What you mean to say here is "People who interfere with the rights of others -- put themselves at risk of having their rights interfered with".

You can substitute "right" (which is a legal term by the way, but I use it in the context of its popular, not legal understanding) with "liberties", "freedoms", "abilities to have, do, and be" -- or whatever human ability you want.

You see, there's no "Law" in that sentence. (Fun fact: A Law, or what you are calling "Laws" -- only come into play when a) Two or more parties get entangled (aka, "have a beef" / have a disagreement with one another) and b) These two or more parties cannot work things out on their own, and thus require courts, judges and lawyers -- to do so.)

You show me anything that you think is "Law" -- and I will show you a series of Circumstances under which that so called "Law" does not or can not apply.

A Law against Murder?

You think that one's absolute?

OK, so what about U.S. Soldiers stationed in foreign countries when they shoot enemy soldiers?

That's not Murder -- that's "Protecting Freedom" you say?

Well, I'll let you have that argument!

But if that is your argument -- then you've also argued, equal-and-oppositely(!), that because a Law against Murder should not be applied to U.S. Soldiers -- that the Law is based on Circumstances, that Circumstances are more important than, and senior to, the Law!

So which is it? Is it:

a) Circumstance should have nothing to do with Law, Laws are absolute, and thus U.S. Soldiers in foreign countries, if they kill enemy soldiers are guilty of Murder, or

b) The Law is subordinate to (and relative to) Circumstances, that is, the Circumstances surrounding a specific act or acts; thus the Law in itself, is not absolute, and less authoritative than Circumstances.

Pick one and only one; You cannot have both of these at the same time, because that results in logical fallacy, that results in contradiction.

Then tell me what your answer is, and THEN can we discuss Law, and subsequently what individual obligations are to it or aren't.

>"The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting."

And yet, we are a country founded on the principles of wanting to get away from the previous government, the King of England...

Also... the Constitution contains the idea of Freedom of Association -- the freedom to associate with anyone, anytime, for any reason. Well, that's like a cup that is half-full. You see, the other half of that cup is that Freedom Of Association -- also implies Freedom to Dissociate, that is, the Freedom to disengage from any previous associations -- since if you have Freedom Of Association, by default (by implication), you must equal-and-oppositely have the Freedom To Dissociate. They are opposite sides of the same coin.

>"The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind."

What you have said here is highly abstract.

Give a concrete example of this happening please.

>"and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract"

Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract, and explain to me exactly how.

>"(especially regarding how America treats black Americans)"

How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"?

>, the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed.

Most Americans are not highly educated in Law, which, if they could get it, would add a huge dimension to their understanding of today's Government, Courts, Legal Processes, Rights, etc., etc.

>Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?"

Underneath our present-day democracy, there is in fact a Republic.

Most people, short of some highly educated Lawyers (not all Lawyers, again, the fault of the educational system) -- do not truly understand this or its implications.

The pieces are all there; but they've been fragmented; fractured; and scattered to the winds -- but they are all there in various books, in various documents, in various quotes, in various understandings -- they are all there.

My question to you is a philosophical one -- what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? (Also, how, over time, can a group or organization violate one or more of their founding principles?). What happens then? Well, we have Ancient Rome as an example... but most people, most historians understand Ancient Rome as a series of events, they don't understand it (and this is the extra dimension) as a series of psychologies; this psychological dimension to things would add a great deal of understanding; but we'd never understand it if we all we were concerned about was dates, places, leaders, wars, treaties and other events.

Anyway, if you'd like to have a long philsophical discussion about any of these points, you can email me:

peter.d.sherman@gmail.com

A long philosophical discussion sounds fascinating, but I lack the time.

It is, also, unfortunately (most unfortunately, for I, too, enjoy the work of Locke, and Hume, and Hobbes), a bit irrelevant. Because as you've observed, nost people don't interest themselves in law, and don't read the various books, the various documents, etc., that bring it to a consistent philosophy.

The governing philosophy in America today is one of the elected over, mostly, the ignorant. Any practical approach we take to understanding how things work in reality must factor that in.

To address a few concrete points:

-) We have a country where circumstances matter and alter our interpretation of law. That's why we have courts. There is some flexibility and some mitigation (especially around punishment), though the law acts as guidelines. But under almost no circumstances does the law flex as far as "I withdrew my consent to be governed, therefore I cannot be justly coerced by this court or this government." I'm thinking of 'sovereign citizens' specifically, and they in general wind up in prison (unless they use force to make it inconvenient to apply counter-force, which is rare and risky, since one cannot guarantee the various arms of the US government will stay their hands at application of force).

-) We are a country that was founded in breaking the existing law, this is true. When I said "The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement..." the fact that the Revolutionary War succeeded is what I meant by 'at least as powerful as.' Contrast the Civil War, where the South attempted a similar feat and failed (and Reconstruction after, where the North over-extended by attempting to enforce federal law and, arguably, also failed).

-) Freedom to dissociate

... is generous but limited. One cannot practically escape a murder charge by fleeing to the nearest mountain-top. One cannot avoid shared responsibilities like runoff abatement by declaring oneself a sovereign country within the US territory. And we have very specific carve-outs for protected classes of individuals where if we associate with anyone for a purpose (such as employer-employee relationship), we are banned from basing that association on certain qualities, such as gender or skin color.

-) Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract

Well, there was Richard Nixon, who stepped down before being impeached for using his Presidency to bug his political opponents. A judge in Pennsylvania was sentenced to a couple decades in jail for a bribery scandal (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686...) which led to the overturning of dozens of convictions because the process was corrupt. But the unrest right now is related to police authority and support for said authority. Depending on how you slice it, the blame spreads around here; to my mind, some blame is on police for acting as they do in the moment, and a lot is on training and policy for telling police their actions are correct (in contrast to the person-on-the-street response; video evidence has made it hard for people to viscerally turn away and assume police are "just doing their jobs" when they see how policing is done and they contrast it with other countries).

-) How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"?

This is not something I will invest the time to explain to you here, but I suggest, if you are American, you seek out answers on this topic. There are open riots and civil protests on this topic right now; it's a good idea to be educated on what that fighting is about.

-) what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles?

It depends on the nature of the violation. But to my mind, we're currently on America 3.0. So major changes can be made and major founding principles compromised without the destruction of the society. Societies can change.

Beta version was the Articles of the Confederacy. They didn't pan out because, fundamentally, they didn't address the practical issue of how to pay for a continent-sized federated government.

Version 1 was the US Constitution, as initially written: main document, 10 amendments out of the starting gate. A hell of a piece of work, but riddled with contradictions and compromises (including, most glaringly, the treatment of enslaved people as 3/5ths a person for the purposes of naked horse-trading over the power of Northern v. Southern states).

Version 2 was after the Civil War. The contradiction that glued two culturally-and-morally-disparate halves of the country together broke down. One half the states tried to declare themselves out of the social contract, and they were "informed" via most brutal force that it doesn't work that way. The country passed laws to make formerly-enslaved black Americans full citizens (but those laws were not universally enforced, and part of the reason we can speak of "black Americans" vs. "Americans" is the law did and the enforcement of the law still does treat them differently). Still, America 2.0 had 3 stark changes from America 1.0: No slavery, full citizenship of black American former slaves, and a clarification that the federal government has authority to use force over the states to ensure the civil rights of all Americans.

America 3 came after the Great Depression and expanded the federal authority over civil rights to the economy. Whereas the authority to regulate interstate trade was understood in the original Constitution, the New Deal established federal authority to regulate intrastate trade as well, because economies have nation-spanning impact. Thus if the government sets a price floor for milk, Kansas can't just ignore it in all sales from Kansas dairy farmers to Kansas consumers. It's less talked about than the changes at the Civil War, but the re-interpretation of federal authority that let the Fed unify the country to pull out of the Great Depression persists to today, in the authority of everything from the ATF to the EPA.

All this to say, a nation that violates its founding principles isn't doomed. America has violated its recognition of the right to own slaves and the right of intrastate fully-free trade and been stronger for these changes.

>"A long philosophical discussion sounds fascinating, but I lack the time."

That is a shame, because I honestly think we could both learn things from one another by challenging each other's viewpoints...

Look, I'll be the first to praise you, because you have challenged my viewpoints!

Now, I don't agree with everything you say -- but that's what makes for lively and interesting conversation! If we agreed completely on all points, that wouldn't be an interesting conversation, now would it?

>"It is, also, unfortunately (most unfortunately, for I, too, enjoy the work of Locke, and Hume, and Hobbes), a bit irrelevant. Because as you've observed, nost people don't interest themselves in law, and don't read the various books, the various documents, etc., that bring it to a consistent philosophy."

On this point, we agree completely!

>"The governing philosophy in America today is one of the elected over, mostly, the ignorant. Any practical approach we take to understanding how things work in reality must factor that in."

We're also completely agreed on this point; although I will add this: Government doesn't teach what a court is or how one works, i.e., it doesn't give people a "users manual" or "operator training" (no civics classes in public schools anymore), and yet, police, in their duty, when arresting people, bring people to the courts.

If there are apparent problems with the police these days, it is my own belief that the problems are not with the Police -- but rather with the lack of law/legal/process/civics education surrounding courts -- what they are, how they function, etc., etc.

(Fun side story: I remember a test in a 9th grade math class, where a buddy of mine had the audacity to write "when the hell did we learn this?" on the test, on one of the harder problems! <g>. Needless to say, the teacher was not amused! <g>)

Well, psychologically, psychologically then, what's the psychological effect -- when someone who is uneducated or undereducted -- is forced to show up at court by police arresting them?

To understand this, let's use "Jumanji" (the original Robin Williams movie) as an example.

Jumanji -- is a very strange, hostile and extremely dangerous place for those who haven't lived there; for those that don't understand its rules. Make a move to try learn something, do the wrong thing, and punishment is swift and painful!

Well, you see, you live in an America today which is split.

One the one hand, you have Lawyers, educated in Law School school, with prestigious Law School degrees -- who understand (and know how to use!) courts and the legal system! To them (because it works for them, because they know how to use it) it's a beautiful thing, a "thing of great beauty", unquestionable and inviolate.

On the other, you have people who are not educated in, nor understand any part of that system.

To them, should they get there, what seems like a thing of great beauty, unquestionable and inviolate to Lawyers and others knowledgable in Law -- seems to them like "Jumanji World".

If you wanted to understand this perspective further, you would want to read the works of Franz Kafka -- which is where we get the word "Kafkaesque" from.

But anyway, who put these people into Jumanji-world? The most obvious observable thing is that the police brought them there forcefully!

So you see, what happens psychologically then in an uneducated/undereducated in (courts/law/civics/legal processes/etc.) mind -- is that they blame the most obvious thing, they blame the police!

Now, Police are not exactly innocent in all cases -- but 99.9% of them are basically good hardworking people.

But I've outlined the underlying psychology of WHY all of the protests, etc. It's not a single instance of police misconduct that created them. The George Floyd incident -- was only the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back" (you need a lot more incidents prior to that -- this is only the most recent crack in the dyke where now so much water is leaking that it may be impossible to fix it...)

>"-) We have a country where circumstances matter and alter our interpretation of law. That's why we have courts."

Now that is music to my ears! We agree completely on this point! The fact that we have courts -- is actually PROOF (self-evident) that Law is subject to Circumstance! (Because why else would we have them?) If the Law is not subject to Circumstance, then you wouldn't need a group of people with different roles to decide the Law, a single person could do it, and you know what we call that single person? We call that person a Tyrant! (because this has happened over and over again in history!).

Also, Juries are self-evident proof that the Law is subject to Circumstance -- because, again, why else would you need them if it wasn't? If it wasn't, a single person or machine could make the determination.

Remember Judge Dredd? ("I am the Law!")? That's what can happen when a single individual is allowed to interpret the Law.

>"There is some flexibility and some mitigation (especially around punishment), though the law acts as guidelines. But under almost no circumstances does the law flex as far as "I withdrew my consent to be governed, therefore I cannot be justly coerced by this court or this government.""

First of all, calm down! <g> The government (as implemented by Judges(Magistrates), Prosecutors, Lawyers and the legal system) and has all sorts of tricks at its disposal that it uses to make sure that the above doesn't happen!

(That's of course, if you take the government perspective! <g>)

From my (non-government!) perspective, I quote to you Plato:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly -- while bad people will find a way around the laws."

But let's revisit this sentence again:

>"But under almost no circumstances does the law flex as far as "I withdrew my consent to be governed, therefore I cannot be justly coerced by this court or this government.""

Here we disagree just a little bit...

You used the words justly coerced.

If you are using the word "coercion" in any context in Law, then I suggest that this is proof that you were (unknowingly, not your fault) not given the proper education as to what Law really is.

In order to understand what I'm going to tell you, I want you to think back in time, back in history.

You see, a long time ago, there wasn't a government as we know it today -- to enforce legal decisions with the force of government.

But Law still existed back then.

So then, how did the Law exist back then -- without the ability to enforce legal decisions with the force of government?

?

You see, if two people, back then, had a beef (disagreement, issue, contention, "cause of action", difficulty, or just plain "beef" as I like to call it) with one another, a beef that they could not resolve by themselves, what would they do?

They would find a man that both of them trusted, usually a wise man, a chief or village elder.

(That wise man, chief or village elder, is where we get the first Judge from, incidentally...)

But they would go to this wise man, and ask for this wise man's help -- in resolving the situation for them; in problem solving; in working out the issues.

That, incidentally, is the true purpose of a true court, to "make both parties whole" (to disentagle them, etc.)

But you see, at this time, there could be no contract, because there could be no enforcement of that contract (contracts are only as good as the ability to enforce them is, otherwise, people could just say, "I didn't agree to that", and walk away, as previously pointed out).

But the Law still existed -- and in its most pure form back then!

What is Law, in its most pure form, then?

Law, in its most pure form -- is the power to persuade.

You see, if you can't make people budge by enforcement, your only other option is to persuade them.

Persuasion.

All of the early legal texts, documents and doctrines -- all point to this understanding, in one way or another.

You see, a long time ago, wise individuals who could do this, that is, Judges (from a long time ago), were prized and sought-after, but their decisions were not backed by the threat of force!

They were backed by logic, understanding, and persuasion!

They made people do things -- that they otherwise wouldn't do! (As any good persuasion would!).

So what happened if something didn't work out?

Well, you went back to the Judge (with your neighbor, or whoever you had the beef with) and you tried again!

And, that system worked!

It how early, pre-printing press, pre-big-government, pre-Internet societies made peace amongst its members!

So if you really want to understand Law -- then you want to understand that early history, and you want to understand it exceedingly, exceedingly well!

I will reply to the rest of your comments in my next response...

Just a quick addendum -- there's a ton more than this; what I've posted is the proverbial tip of the iceberg...

I previously posted that I would write an additional post to address all of your points, but I think that on HN, for this article, for the orginal subject posted on, it goes too much off topic.

But that being said -- I would address all of your points if you emailed me: peter.d.sherman@gmail.com

Bravo! Bravo!

> In preparation for responding to your response, I spent a good amount of time reading many of your other comments/responses on HN. As best I can ascertain from that reading, you are highly, highly intelligent.

Greetings. Don't know how you've got to that erroneous conclusion, but I'll go with it :-)

> 328.2 million in the US have serious issues / death or eventual death -- DUE TO OLD AGE. That is, we are not biologically immortal.

Sure. How is that relevant though? We're talking about premature deaths here due to an illness.

The fact that we're not immortal doesn't stop us looking left and right before crossing the street -- or taking all kinds of other precautions (both at the individual, and at the community/government level).

To rephrase: we might not be immortal, but few are that cavalier about dying or eager to die sooner rather than later.

> If the average life expectancy for someone living in the U.S. is 78.93 years (in 2020) -- does this mean that other nations whose life expectancies are less than 78.93 years -- are guilty of killing their citizens early, because they don't follow the "best practices" of the U.S., that is, they don't do exactly what the U.S. does in its governance?

Well, I'm sure about those being the "best", since there exist nations with higher life expectancies.

I'd also say that:

(a) it should be a kind of goal for nations to have their citizens live more and better lives. Isn't better living conditions (from business cooperation and economy, to health, social life, safety, justice, etc.) a basic motivation behind having human communities in the first place (and subsequently things like nations)? I'm pretty sure e.g. Sierra Leone (life expectancy around 54) would want to do much better...

(b) it is however not a be-all-end-all goal, other goals (including preferred way of life, freedom, etc., can always have priority).

> Also, would it be justified then, for those nations to control and micromanage, basically take away all of their citizens' freedoms -- in the name of increasing the average life expectancy of their citizens?

No.

That said, a once-in-100-years pandemic with the potential to kill millions is hardly cause for concern about "micromanaging".

And, I'd like to point out, nobody proposed to "take away all of their citizens' freedoms" (in any democratic country faced with covid), as far as I know. Not even most. Just some, and just for the period necessary to handle the crisis.

> How does the old saying go? "Those who are willing to trade a little bit of their freedom for security -- deserve neither" ?

Well, that's how an old saying goes. But for me it's not some ultimate god-given wisdom about the matters of freedom and safety, just a rough guideline.

On the other hand, those who aren't willing to trade a little bit of freedom for security, might find out they're invaded, enslaved, sick, dead, living in an anarchy (the bad kind, where the more powerful do what they please and there's chaos in the streets, not the friendly "no government" one), and so on, depending on the respective danger they wouldn't trade some freedom to handle.

In other words: freedom doesn't come for free. It requires some sacrifice, and it's bounded by conditions (including safety concerns). Plus, of course, it should not risk/hurt the freedom of others.

Of course someone could say: "I don't care for all that, I want absolute freedom". But others, assuming that person lives in a society, aren't necessarily to agree to that.

1/2

> If you're going to give me a number like 2,5 million people in the US with serious issues / death, then please first understand how a statistic like that might be generated

But I did give all the numbers of how it was generated. I didn't say this is a predicted toll of the current covid. What my point was, was: one should not downplay a disease because there are e.g. "50% without symptoms". And I gave a hypothetical example where even 90% without symptoms could still mean millions of deaths from those that do get symptoms (please re-read my wording in the original comment, if you will).

> That number, once you finally refine it, through those filters, is going to be small, very small, much less than what the flu kills

So, let's focus on covid now (and not my prior hypothetical example, meant to point that "percentage of symptomatic patients is not the be-all-end-all criterium).

First, I'm not sure in the covid case the number is "going to be small, very small, much less than what the flu kills".

Why would that be? We already know that covid is several times deadlier than the flu. Why would this increased morbidity only apply to people with major prior conditions and not to everybody (including them, of course)?

That is, if covid is 5x more lethal than the flu, then it kills 5x more old/unhealthy people than the flu, but also 5x more young/"no major prior problem" people than the flu.

Of course it could still have a much heavier toll on the older/unhealthy. E.g. 90% older/co-morbid people dead and 10% younger/healthier people dead (which very much could be the case). But I have not heard anything to imply that the increased leathality is constrained to the old/unhealthy.

In other words: if the flu kills X young/healthy people every year, I'd expect the "more lethal covid" to kill N*X young/healthy people, where N > 2 or more.

But here's another philosophical point: I don't think it's OK for the unhealthy/older people to die prematurely, just because "they'd die sooner than most anyway". Even 1-5 years of extra life is welcome.

> That is, if someone has a known risk factor, a known comorbidity, then they can (and probably should) opt to self-quarantine.

That's not always the case in the modern city life, where you need to go to work and all kind of other responsibilities (lest they be homeless/foodless soon). Without some monetary aid, mandates regarding remote work (where possible), etc, that would be a problem.

E.g. where remote work is not possible and there's not a mask mandate, a person with a known comorbidity might need to work at some retail position or similar, and face people without masks that might give them the virus.

> when the general population is in no way responsible for those individuals' compromised health conditions in the first place.

I don't like to think of society as a bunch of individuals where nobody gives a duck (sic) about the others. I'd like a more caring society, where whether one is "responsible for those individuals' compromised health conditions" or not doesn't much matter, they still need to respect them.

> That tells me that you are not from the U.S. I wanted to be sure that this was the case; that's why I read most of your comments until I was certain; if you want proof, I can show you multiple examples of where your past HN comments, in one way or another, show this to be true.

Well, it's not some big secret, I've wrote this explicitly several times in past comments. E.g.:

"As a European (...)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18979477

"I'm not an American (...)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871893

> If you don't live in the U.S. -- then why do you care so much about what happens in the U.S.?

For several different reasons.

First, this is a US-based message board, and most discussions center around the US perspective anyway. So when answering to an American, I'd point them with examples about the US. Other times when the topic is about EU/Europe I chime in with my suggestions to fellow Europeans...

Second, the US is the world's top dog (or has been for a good while), and US pop/tech culture is something most of my generation is well familiar with. So there's that. I'm probably more informed talking about US bands, for example, than about my local music scene. Or most kinds of US pop culture, or even businesses (I know more about Apple and Google than I do about any of my meagre country's web firms).

Third, I've visited the US dozens of times, have several friends and relatives there, and so on. I'd like to come soon, covid-permitting. So I have some fondness and interest.

> It's not like I go around writing messages to people that post messages about CoronaVirus in other countries and say stuff like, "Oh no, you're wrong, 20 trillion Elbonians will die!".

Don't American themselves do the same all the time? Have opinions about what other countries should or shouldn't do? To the point that their government often meddles with other countries or even invades them to put them right, so to speak (and/or get some oil/resources/trade advantages/local influence/etc).

> Why do you care so much?

Well, why the weasel words "so much"? I care to some degree to express an opinion. Don't know about that being "so much". Do you assume I care "so much" for everything I comment on HN? Which is quite a lot on lots of topics that strike my fancy? It's not like I'm some devoted activist on covid advocacy. In fact, since you've read some of my past comments, I hardly write about that.

> I post with my real name on HN; I'm quite sure there is no living person with the first name "Cold" and the last name "Tea", although, I have been surprised in the past with names that I thought were real that weren't, and vice-versa.

That's so racist an assumption of you, that's a sacred ancient name of my people, along with Coldbrew and Hotcocoa.

Well, alright, I guess my name is not coldtea. It's not a throwaway account though, I'm here discussing for over 10+ years.

I don't like to give my real name on most online forums, because these days all kinds of opinions are controversial, especially mine, which don't go with any particular (right/left/centrist) orthodoxy. I also don't particularly care for cancel-culture and those people histrionics, people putting too fine a comb to whatever somebody said (seriously or in jest or whatever) several years ago, etc., so that's another reason.

If you really want to know who I am (not any particularly famous unfortunately), and wont give it away publicly, we can exchange some private messages/emails :-)

> Hopefully I have not offended you in any way; if I have, you have my sincere apologies.

Not at all. As an Aspie I quite enjoyed the conversation being too detailed :-)

2/2

Let's have a private email discussion -- you can email me at:

peter.d.sherman@gmail.com

You can feel free to use an anonymous email account different from your own, to protect your identity.

I will not knowingly disclose your identity to anyone, however, you should understand that in this day and age, even gmail, which claims to be "secure" -- probably is not all that secure, so forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

That is, I can't guarantee that systems on my end (browser, computer, internet router, etc.) are secure (we see many hacks and data leaks these days, so you never really know where any given data is going to wind up), so if you'd like to talk, then please feel free to use a throwaway email account.

Next, you'll probably need to get through my spam filter.

Probably a simple message with something technology related in it (no URLs or such) would be the best way to do that.

Or, optionally, you could generate a temporary email address, and I could contact you.

Either way, I think we'd have an interesting discussion.

I'd point out that I'm not opposed to what you're saying; perhaps you can (with the correct discussion) "sell me" on various points (and perhaps conversely I can give you some additional viewpoints to consider).

You wrote: >"I'd like a more caring society,", and we definitely agree on that point!

So if you're up for it, feel free to contact me via email (keeping in mind that if you didn't get a response your email probably hit my spam filter -- maybe post a message here to this message chain to say "hey, I sent you an email with <XYZ> in the contents" (so I can search for it), and then we can continue this discussion via email!

-Peter