But how many of them are going to flip over once the next crisis occurs?
This year has demonstrated quite well I think that old saying "If you trade freedom for safety, you get neither"
But I guess I sort of despise my phone to begin with. For years I had a dumb phone, but they started turning off the towers. So now I have a smartphone but I never look at it and forget to take it with me most of the time when I leave the house.
I'd happily downgrade back to a dumb phone if they made any in the old candy bar style. As it is, my desire to have a dumb phone is weaker than my desire not to have a flip phone.
> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
Parallel:
"Spying one everyone's communication is different because it is not just someone's own freedoms, but everyone else's right to be protected from terrorists."
The balancing test is which freedoms for what degree of protection. We collectively make that determination through a system of government.
Alternatively you could proceed from a realpolitik perspective of what has been possible for the US gov historically and in the present. The government does many things and without exception these actions are construed as being for the public good. Despite this, we have witnessed countless abuses of authority.
Simply observing that an action is possible for government or that a precedent exists for a particular government action, is not the same as rationalizing it as just. Of course there's still room for moderation and pragmatism. It would be impossible to exist in the real world without some measure of pragmatism, but we should also strive for our ideals.
I never thought that terrorism was an existential threat that necessitated the Patriot Act or the GWOT, but one could imagine a scenario in which it was. What makes a worldwide epidemic so comparatively unique, is that it's quantifiable, and imagining alternative scenarios involves a smooth probability distribution. Those against lockdowns: would you change your mind if the fatality rate or R-number was 10% higher? Those for: same question, 10% lower? 50%? 1000%?
Indeed, those making (specious) comparisons of COVID to flu season, have instead prompted me to wonder if we should have seasonal mask mandates to reduce flu deaths also. I'm a pretty fervent civil libertarian, with a healthy distrust of the state, but it's not clear where that line should be drawn.
For civil libertarians it is very clear where the line is...
It is certainly not criminalizing every person that wants to make a living in a business deemed by a despot governor to be "non-essential" while similar businesses that happen to be political allies or have higher priced lawyers are allow to remain open (for example Walmart could still sell Lamps, chairs, tables, etc, but Acme Furniture Store was forced close (True story from PA). Or Amazon was still allowed to ship online orders, but Jane Doe's Knickknacks was not allowed to even sell online during the pandemic....(true story from NJ))
For Civil Libertarians livelihood can not be separated from Life, and Life with out freedom is not life at all. Simply taking in oxygen and exhaling CO2 is not "life". Life is living, interacting, being productive, enjoying the fruits of our labor, etc.
Life is not about existing, people that believe that are some of the saddest people on earth.
> Life is not about existing
Existing is necessary but not sufficient for life. And while there's a strong argument for allowing the individual to risk or even choose death (seat belt laws, assisted suicide), the real crux of the matter is when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others. The moral evil of reducing freedom through the state's monopoly on force (such as a mask mandate) must be weighed against the moral evil of reducing freedom through harm (such as infection with a fatal illness). Whatever plausible scenario you can imagine that goes too far in one direction, you would be correct; and yet I can balance it with a plausible scenario that goes too far in the other direction. There is no rule or principle that frees us from the necessity of thoughtful discernment and debate.
According to the CDC, there's a 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. This includes people who are already unhealthy.
The total number of deaths in Sweden hasn't increased, despite their lack of lockdowns.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
We both seem to agree that lockdowns represent a departure from our ideals of individual liberties. If I am reading you correctly, you're asking for a more gradient interpretation of these.
We can agree to disagree here and move on to questioning the efficacy of the lockdowns themselves. If you're suggesting that the ends justify the means, fine. But if the means aren't especially effective at reducing deaths that argument falls apart.
Excuse my cynicism, but it isn't hard to imagine the 'ends' as yet another assault on personal freedoms and the agency of individuals. Here the concept of the ends justifying the means fits perfectly. Unfortunately, this perspective isn't out of place with the trend of a growing security state.
The fact that a wrong answer can be fatal makes it all the more important to avoid what Daniel Schmachtenberger refers to as "limbic highjacking", or more colloquially, "being triggered" (which includes both fear of death, and fear of losing autonomy).
> ends justifying the means... the trend of a growing security state
It's also worth remembering that these are not mutually exclusive: that circumstances exist where the ends do justify the means, yet are also used as a cynical power grab with additional negative externalities. Again, the only way to know the difference is dispassionate discernment (what Julia Galef refers to as "scout mindset" rather than "soldier mindset" [0]).
Norway [locked down]: 6.17 deaths/100K people
Sweden [no lockdown]: 65.61 deaths/100K people
[1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality as of November 28, 2020 at 03:00 AM EST.
However like with all government actions there is always subjective enforcement, and over reaction to the point that is no longer about inconvenience of a mask, but out right prohibition on activity including the ability of one to provide for their family via voluntary exchange with others that want to provide for their families.
I have had many debates with people that simply want the government to "pay people to stay home" all the while these people do not understand interdependent economics and how that is not possible in modern society. Such a measure when in fact collapse society not just at an economic level
So again you are claiming this is just "reasonable government measure" to wear masks, but the reality on the ground is far far far far different where governments are ordering businesses to close completely, and imposing other far more draconian measures on public.
if we are going to debate government response to COVID it must be about the governments ACTUAL, and ACTIVE response not simply about the non-controversial measures that have become controversial and politically precisely because of the over action and other draconian measures put into place by that very same government
Your final argument "when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others" is also a false one and a dangerous one. The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness, yet everyone else has assumed some level of risk on themselves that they may be exposed to sickness, but is COVID or the Flu, or the common cold every time they interact with others. They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others, just as Person A has that option. If both parties have voluntarily agreed to the interaction, then both parties have consented to that by assessing their own personal risk.
For me, I have stopped in person shopping, stopped attending social and family events, etc. My risk assessments preclude me from participation in those things, however I have no either right to force other people to live under my personal risk assessment, thus if others choose a different path and want to take that person risk well that is on them
This is all with out getting into the fact that the CDC data says there 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. So the "mortal risk" you have used to ethically justify the government intervention is debatable as well, as if that is the bar for extreme government intervention then we no longer have any civil liberties at all and must impose complete Authoritarianism upon all
First: are citizens over 49 chopped liver?
Second: there are roughly 129 million Americans between 20-49 [0]; taking the 99.97% number at face value, napkin math indicates 39,000 potential deaths. This is roughly equivalent to yearly car crash deaths, which is the basis for a massive state safety apparatus, restricting both commerce and liberty (freedom to drive 120mph). Plenty of room to debate efficacy and tradeoffs in road safety policy; but it's arguably reasonable to justify non-zero state intervention in both cases.
Third: there are considerations beyond mortality rate; many survivors are expected to have ongoing health conditions and/or shortened lifespans due to lung damage.
Let the record show, I think lockdowns in some regions have gone too far, while the laissez-faire approaches in other regions haven't gone far enough. Framing the question as "Lockdowns: Y/N?" is exactly the kind of simplistic narrative thinking that I'm claiming is unproductive (and ultimately downstream of political tribalism). For instance, permitting tightly-packed indoor concerts with no mitigations seems foolhardy; but allowing haircuts with masks and temperature checks has no nowhere near the same risk profile, mathematically. We have to balance a variety of concerns, include economic factors, preferably using thought-technologies like QALYs [1] and micromorts [2].
> They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others
This is a fantasy. While individuals have some ability to mitigate personal risk, absent a massive proactive intervention (MREs, medicine, and other essential supplies delivered by an E2E-tested supply chain, plus temporary UBI and/or rent freezes), very few people have the means to completely cut themselves off from all outside contact for more than a few days. Anything that increases risk to grocery stockers therefore increases risk to everyone, no matter the precautions individuals take. "If you have an immune disorder, you should have already prepped 18 months of resources in a bunker" doesn't pass a humanitarian sniff test.
[0] Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
Meeting a single store employee outside while wearing a mask has a near zero transmission risk, this does not require one to be a 18 month pepper to take advantage of
As to the debate over Traffic safety, I am sure it will not come as a shock that I oppose government mandated Seat Belt laws as well as many other items. I want a very very small government to the point of almost non-existence
So...not "my body, my choice" then?
The consequence of the virus on leaving your house is similar to you walking around with a Russian roulette pistol that randomly fires at others who are sufficiently close to you (with the probability determined by a myriad of factors including if you have covid).
In that case, you are a clear harm to others and a bring that can deprive them of their rights.
It is why we will likely need to force people to get vaccinated, despite their objections, as their choices don't simply affect themselves.
"Your body, your choice" is valid for things where there isn't some massive externality on others from your choices. Abortion has no impact on other beings with rights (as we do not assigned rights to a fetus). If you decided to irradiate yourself like the firefighters in Chernobyl and then in the few days you had remaining to live try to be around people you disliked, it would be totally reasonable to force you to be confined to a medical space where you couldn't kill others. However, a communicable disease is even worse. I would be fine with people who understood the risks of radiation making the choice to be around you because they would be basically only choosing to take that radiation/cancer risk on themselves (their body, their choice). But with a communicable disease, they can catch the disease and spread it to others who don't consent. That is where the "my body, my choice" is no longer valid.
The first amendment provides a right to assemble. There is no right to be protected from COVID.
It seems relatively straightforward.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No emergency, situation, or "externality" will ever supersede this body of text as it is currently written. That is not a bug. That's a feature. A feature namely to prevent people like you from grabbing power and constricting rights when challenges inevitably arise.
Thanks for your appeal to authority, but such logical fallacies are not an answer to my points. And constitutional originalism is a terrible philosophy.
We have learned so much since our founding fathers wrote that document, but I'll quote the author of the bill of rights for just how ludicrous it is:
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
The concept of externalities is A fundamental part of an understanding of rights in modern philosophy and the social sciences. A direct response to it as opposed to a quoted dismissal would be appreciated.
Additionally, the supreme court has held in many cases that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not allowed. Libel is not allowed. In both cases because of the harms to others and the lack of any positive value of said speech.
You quoted a text pretending like you are standing on some solid ground of an absolute and inviolable philosophy yet even the conservative supreme court chef justice recognizes limits of these rights as shown through Justice Roberts siding with limiting the rights of religious organizations to gather during the pandemic so long as those rights are not limited more than the rights of comparable secular organizations.
Aside from the fact that in law we do, if for example you were to commit a felony and in the act of that felony a pregnant women died, you would be charged with both the murder of the women and the unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is a very real one that defyes your logic here
The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness.
However like person A "everyone else" also voluntary left their home thus assuming the risk. Thus there is no externalities in this equation at all. If person A got sick then they assumed that risk like everyone else.
For example I did not attend any holiday gatherings, nor have I been physically into a store since like April, all shopping is down online, and delivered or curbside pickup. I assessed the risks to myself and deemed curbside is my personal acceptable risk vector. For others they are fine with continuing to shop in the stores, everyone in that store has assumed that risk.
Likewise Family Gatherings where outside my comfort zone, however everyone that did have family gathers has assumed the risk for for them.
Having a right doesn't mean you must exercise it; that would be an obligation. Some rights can be exercised selfishly.
You may have a right to party so hard that you need an ambulance ride to the emergency room to save your life, and then you can't pay for it so our taxes bail you out. But it's personally dangerous as well as selfish toward your community.
Likewise you may have a right to large mask-less indoor gatherings during a pandemic, and we'll spend lives and treasure to help you when you get sick. But you could also just exercise some personal restraint for a few more months instead of risking your and our health as well as prolonging the economic damage. The government issuing lockdowns or curfews to help with the pandemic is just codifying what we should already be doing.
Contrast that with the PATRIOT Act and other surveillance overreach. If, after 9/11, the U.S. were on the brink of destruction, infiltrated at all levels of society by mustache-twirling Arab-looking extremists, then racial profiling and invasive surveillance of its own citizens might seem necessary. But it was clear then, as it is now, that those weren't the reality. So enacting those programs was wasteful government overreach at best, more likely intentional erosion of civil liberties.
In the pandemic case, it benefits you and everyone and the government for you not to use right of assembly for a few months. In the 9/11 case, it benefits only the government for you to have diminished privacy forever. See the difference?
The problem of course, is that there were people who actually believed this, and while I think the sentiment has died down, I still believe some of the paranoia survives.