The only really sad thing is that so many people believe others should be forced (through the use of the monopoly of force the state holds) to do whatever they believe is "right"
Stray respiratory droplets exhaled by people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will also kill people.
Presumably you're OK with rules that prevent people from firing guns in public. Why are you not OK with rules that are intended to reduce the risk of people unnecessarily spreading fatal infectious droplets in public?
Your right to shoot firearms ends at my body. Why should your right to spread a fatal disease extend into my lungs?
And, before you say that I should take some 'personal responsibility' to protect myself against infection, should that premise extend to wearing type IV body armor in public just so others can shoot guns in populated areas?
I'd argue that the socially accepted response to influenza in the west is an awful lot weaker than it should be, however. People who have flu should be self isolating and wearing masks if they must be in public.
From the perspective of individual freedoms the ban of guns is unacceptable under the pretense they might end up harming others by chance; if that's the case, the police and the military themselves shouldn't have guns. Besides, populations that live under strict gun control surprisingly have more people being harmed by guns than populations that don't have strict gun controls (case in point: criminals don't care about laws, by definition).
Also under the perspective of individual freedoms, the enforcement of masks is not justifiable. If you feel unsafe due to a potential virus outbreak, take your precautions but don't force others to do whatever they want to do. Otherwise, we'd fall into authoritarianism.
The police in the United Kingdom DONT HAVE GUNS, because the general populace dont have them and the number of per capita gun deaths is < 1/1000 what it is in the US [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
That being said, governments are already restricting "freedoms": you are not allowed to drive 100 mph in towns, police and emergency services theoretically are. Ref traffic lights, obligatory insurance for cars and so on. All of these traffic rules are in place for safety purposes. And all of them commonly accepted. Personally, I can live with some COVID-19 related restrictions for safety purposes until this thing is sorted out.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
> Why bother making murder illegal?
I think having consequences for murder is very different from restricting someone's freedom.
My freedom is not infringed on by the fact that murder is illegal. Why? Because I can still go out and murder someone (not that I would, lol - just making a point). Totally up to me. Feel like murdering someone today? I just go out and do it.
The "restricted freedom" version of outlawing murder would be if my hands were cuffed behind my back every time I left my house, just so I wouldn't be able to murder someone if I felt like it.
I hope I'm getting my message across (not a native speaker). My point is that, to me, there's an ocean of difference between forcing me to do something in order to prevent me from possibly doing X (no matter how likely / unlikely it is that I would do it), and having consequences in place for actually doing X. The former is a violation of my freedom; the latter is justice.
How about a slight rewrite:
"Also under the perspective of individual freedoms, the enforcement of restrictions on release of toxic or radioactive substances is not justifiable. If you feel unsafe due to a potential radiation release, take your precautions but don't force others to stop releasing radioactive substances into the environment. Otherwise, we'd fall into authoritarianism."
You understand that masks are meant to protect others, not the wearer?
"Besides, populations that live under strict gun control surprisingly have more people being harmed by guns than populations that don't have strict gun controls (case in point: criminals don't care about laws, by definition)."
People in Germany, France and many other countries would probably not agree with that.
Last time I checked the US was firmly at the top of the charts for homicides within developed countries.
Might I suggest that you take advantage of open course syllabi from a major college/university and do some undergraduate readings on the history and moral foundations of law?
There is far more to philosophy and jurisprudence than Ayn Rand.
Lysander Spooner, No Treason The Constitution of No Authority https://oll-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2194/Spooner_1...
Frédéric Bastiat, The Law https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44800
Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files...
There's a long tradition of the notion of collective responsibility in conservative thought. Even Hayek agreed with this.
Stuff like Spooner and Rothbard is very much fringe and likely would have no audience if not for heavy promotion by Koch-like entities.
Also, Hayek was not a collectivist. Maybe you should read The Road to Serfdom again, as he refers to "collective responsibility" in the localist sense of "collective", not in the sense of a government.
"There are 609,234 voters registered as Libertarian in the 31 states that report Libertarian registration statistics and Washington, D.C." [0]
"Koch-funded think tank offers schools course in libertarianism." [1]
"Koch foundation proposal to college: Teach our curriculum, get millions."[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_Stat...
[1] https://publicintegrity.org/politics/koch-funded-think-tank-...
[2] https://publicintegrity.org/politics/koch-foundation-proposa...