Hacker News Reader

Comment by pugio | Hacker News Reader

You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns.

By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.

View on HN

>Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom

Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate.

To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.

I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them.

Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.

Even Libertarians understand that the situation is nuanced. For example, blackouts during wartime are the proper jurisdiction of governments. You can argue that pandemic lockdowns fall into the same category. (I’m not saying whether or not that argument is correct, but it can be made in good faith.)

But they don't. Lockdowns longer than the vaccination interval make absolutely zero sense if there exists a vaccine and the virus is endemic. Get used to the idea that you'll be getting COVID several times a year from here on out, and because you'll have antibodies, it'll be no big deal, much like with other coronaviruses today.

Importantly, there is NO PLAUSIBLE WAY to "stop COVID" by lockdowns or any other measures. Eventually you'll have to end the lockdowns, and it'll be waiting for you. COVID is the Taliban of diseases - it can't be defeated, but we can kinda sorta peacefully coexist.

In hindsight, that argument makes some sense, but back in early 2020 when we didn't know what we were fighting, there was no reason to believe it was endemic and there was no vaccine.

But we did know what we were fighting. It was clear right from the start COVID would become endemic, epidemiologists were literally saying so. It is true that there was no vaccine and nobody knew how to treat the moderate cases, but we've now had the vaccine for 9 months. In the US at least it's available to anyone who wants it (and forced upon those who don't, sometimes), and it's been that way for 4+ months.

And yet, in Australia you can be forcibly detained and quarantined (in a camp, no less), forced to disclose health information, authorities can also use whatever force necessary to enter your dwelling (this would be a perilous affair in the US in particular), and so on. That is as far from "freedom" as anything I've seen. And it's also utterly and completely pointless and counterproductive as well.

In Western Australia locking down hard and early has meant we have more freedoms in the long term (thus far).

So while we have less freedom initially, it seems to play better in the long term.

The question is, what do you do now? It's not going away. You'll all get it regardless.

You have some weird definition of freedom with which I am not familiar. To me, freedom would mean I could, at a minimum, go wherever I want to go, and meet whoever I want to meet, without government interference.

And if there are any epidemiological recommednations, _voluntary_ compliance would too mean freedom, but _only_ voluntary.

By your definition people in prisons are "free" too - most of them are locked up for a reason. And yet they can't go anywhere, and are most definitely non-free.

This seems like the classic 'what happens when your freedoms encroach upon my freedoms' discussion beginning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com