A question for anyone protesting the temporary COVID-19 restrictions on the grounds of individual liberty
A question for anyone protesting the temporary COVID-19 restrictions on the grounds of individual liberty:
Do you disagree with the basic philosophy of the harm principle?
From Wikipedia
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty , where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." [1]
An equivalent was earlier stated in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 as, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
From the U.S. Libertarian Party platform , section 1.7
Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.
Given the following:
- The coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is highly infectious and undeniably deadly.
- In eight weeks time it has become the number one cause of death in the United States.
- It can spread asymptomatically, meaning that people can infect others before they even know they have it themselves.
- As of now there is no vaccine.
- As of now there is no effective, study-backed treatment for the seriously ill.
- As of now there is insufficient testing capacity to map new infections nationwide.
- As of now the virus is still spreading everywhere.
How can temporary restrictions on personal movement or proximity to others be considered tyrannical?
Under the circumstances, how can they be considered anything but necessary and just?
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
I'm unaware of any philosopher who wrote about liberty ever making the claim that the right to liberty should be considered absolute and unlimited. I am, however, aware of the principle that someone's freedom to swing their fist ends where someone else's nose begins.
If people can "place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm" by asymptomatically spreading the virus, then on what moral, ethical, or philosophical grounds are these temporary restrictions being challenged?
What right does anyone have to get other people killed while we are currently blind to the actual distribution of this virus?
I don't think we are that blind to the spread of the virus. As far as I know about the subject, the virus is not floating around freely in the atmosphere. Medical science tells us that we can be infected only if we come in contact with virus particles contained in certain body fluids, and that there is a limited distance these particles travel or persist in the air. I only wear a mask if I go to the store or in the common areas in my apartment building. I don't wear it when I go walking in the open space parks, and I wash this homemade mask every day and let it dry overnight. I am almost compulsive about hand washing.
We simply can't wait until a vaccine is hopefully developed before people will have to get on with their lives, and that means going back to work...even if some persons not displaying symptoms accidently infects some others. That is the reality of the situation, but the seasonal flu kills thousands every year, and we have never shut down the country for that illness, so we need to use some common sense preventative measures such as distancing to get through this. I am old and retired and don't have to worry about income, but the lives of over 20 million people have been severely impacted by this disease, and that includes the most vulnerable and disadvantaged among us. That is why the protests are going on and will continue to increase. There will have to be a sensible trade off between safety and risk.
Of course we are. The recent outbreaks in meat processing plants were surprises, and we didn't know the extent of the spread in each case until everyone there was tested. At the moment we don't know who has it and who doesn't, almost everywhere else. We don't know who should be quarantined and who shouldn't. I think less then 2% of the population has been tested.
The body fluids thing was ebola.
This virus can persist in exhaled air for up to three hours. If you walk into a confined space with little or no air exchange, like an elevator or small office, and if there was an infected person in there up to three hours earlier, then you have a chance of breathing in viral particles.
I've read that medical professionals think it can spread simply by people having casual conversations with each other in supermarket aisles. They don't think you actually have to be coughed or sneezed on anymore.
It's that infectious.
A lot of people still are at work. We never had a total lockdown.
What we need now is regular, repeated testing for people who are working now, and for anyone else going back to work. If we had some serious contact tracing to go along with it, then new outbreaks could be shut down almost immediately.
Oh, man. This flu stuff again. Look at this graph from a week ago, before it overtook heart disease as the number one killer.
That's what's happening even WITH shutdowns and social distancing. Without them, we'd have biological disaster zones all over the place.
I agree that we need to keep the essentials going. But we are not ready to return to anything like normal.
Instead of protesting public safety measures, maybe people should be demanding more adequate relief measures, so everyone can eat well enough, and not have homes or businesses foreclosed on while we're going through this. Some are receiving it, but others aren't. Let's just fix that for now, at least until we can bring widespread regular testing and contact tracing online.
Reopening everything too quickly or too blindly will only create another massive wave of outbreaks, and then what? Even if they're open, a lot of businesses still won't be able to operate if customers are too scared to frequent them.
The problem is, too many people don't even seem to understand the risk, no matter how much data is shown to them.
[deleted]
And that was a reply to comment 1 ... how?
What was the point of copy/pasting all of that? You didn't even bother to edit out the ad links.
You're [Deleted] just posting random shit.
How in the world can pointing out that someone is posting random shit like a bot be worthy of deletion?
Look at that post. It's just copy/paste spam. If anything, it should be deleted.
While we're butchering things, how about the thinly-veiled death wishing of another member in the first sentence of 1.3?
Dig,
You are allowed to flag for off topic and spam and it will be removed. The other comment has been moderated.
I agree with the concept.
I don’t agree with how some would interpret the concept. The social distancing rules in Michigan are a good example.
Its legal to go out and buy booze but you can’t go out to buy paint
its legal to use a kayak but not to use a motor boat.
Etc, etc ..... classic examples of a messed up interpretation of what you are talking about.
I think that some of those restrictions are probably too extreme. Here, even during lockdown, because we were able to go into a supermarket or big box store like METRO (similar to COSTCO) or Walmart (once we passed the temperature test on the way in, wore a mask and practised social distancing) there was no restriction on whatever product was there.
Individual liberty? Really? Cameras on the light poles, cameras everywhere and then of course there are them darn cell phones.
The MAGA folk are not protesting for their liberty. Instead, they are proving that Putin's propaganda campaign to divide and confuse Americans has a measure of success.
Nice, you worked Putin in there.
Classic!
He's like a throwback to the 1950's.
Red scare everywhere!
[Deleted]
I love it when they accuse Cold War warriors of being Russian sympathizers.
Hilarious to this still better dead than red Marine.
Let's not forget the Patriot Act. Boy, did liberties take a nose dive with that one!
I have to admit, that seemed like it made all the sense in the world at the time. Live and learn. The Fed rarely gets these things righteous even with the best of intentions.
Which I think is true for most of this one as well. The good intentions part.
But when exercising power over a civilized society causes harm, it is tyranny.
Prolonged shutdown of the economy, in the name of safety, will increase hunger, homelessness, and poverty, among many other ills. The effects of prolonged shutdown of the economy will persist well beyond the retreat of the pandemic.
The remedy may well cause more harm than the disease.
While I can not agree that the solution of social distancing and state sanctioned health lockdowns are more harmful than the COVID-19 virus savaging communities, I can symphatize and empathize with the business properties which are sating idle and in a myriad of cases will without a doubt mark the end of the professional paths of many storefronts which will be shuttered.
This virus demands an answer. Unessential employees must work. Our fundamental work-related sanity depends on arresting this COVID-19 virus sooner than later!
Who cares about businesses or storefronts? It's the jobs that matter, not the window displays.
Essential employees must work. Otherwise Nancy Pelosi will run out of ice cream.
Either essential employees can work safely - or - we are only sacrificing the lives of people to satisfy our ice cream cravings. And if essential employees can work safely then so can unessential employees.
Social distancing is create a caste culture. And, apparently, we are willing to sacrifice the essential caste.
Here's the important question that needs answered: why is our priority to protect workers that do unessential work? Are we that politically willing to sacrifice the essential to protect the unessential?
Why can't two factors be in play as once in your understanding. COVID-19 is exerting an overwhelming and intrusive force upon this nation and the world. We don't know where it is. We can't see it spreading. We can't just spray it away. We can't serenade it to sleep or to come out-come out where ever you are!
Our weapon against that is literally forming a well-defined line, you got it: Social distancing. Social distancing, a surprise to social scientists and medical professionals who are facially amazed that they are being believed enough by the freedom loving citizenry and the elites to take it to heart and perform!
Social distancing is saving lives. It is a temporary highly "invasive" activity brought on by a highly invasive invisible microbial virus.
Get rid of the virus and we can all get back to being our "normal" rather crusty relatively lovely selves! (LOL!)
We need businesses to flourish, business is the "juice" of our lives. It is how we ply our wares, ideas, interests, and okay - business is why we have cities. Moreover, buildings don't take care of themselves! We utilize them and we keep them looking (really good)! Unessential workers is a "odd-bird" terminology. I cringed when writing it @4.2! I'd imagine many citizens were surprised and appalled to discover just how diminishing their life's work and engagements are in the larger scheme of a tic-toc crisis like this.
What unessential workers are, all kidding aside, - are dedicated people who live the 'dream' or strive to do so. And, now the virus has taken the width, height, depth, and breadth of their best chances to produce something away. It can all turn to 'powder' and fall at their feet if they don't get back out there. I am praying for the medical professionals and the researchers to help us all out — people need to work. Because then, and only then, can the dreams continue in earnest! And finally, sooner or later, 'baby' is going to need something more than a new pair of shoes!
Given that suicides and drug overdoses etc rise with unemployment levels, (not to mention longer term deaths caused by increased stress, acoholism etc...) how loing should people in areas that are virus free sacrifice their economic future?
What if, and this will never happen, we rid the USA of the virus? Do we build a wall around the country, stop all international travel and shoot anyone who tries to enter the country?
The sad fact is that the virus will always be here until (and if) a vaccine can be created. We have to figure out a way where the country can co-exist with it without completely destroying our economy. We can't shelter in place until (if) a vaccine is found and distributed throughout the world. When an area's hospitals threaten to be overrun, we shelter in place. When the number of infections subside, we have to go outside again and work.
This isn't a simplisitic one size fits all the people at all the same time situations. Flexability and local decision making is the only way through this.
Exactly.
I question the premise that the protestors are demanding their freedoms. If fear of losing freedoms were truly the issue, then the streets should have been filled with protestors long before covid-19 and imo... most of my adult life.
I contend it is not about fear of losing freedoms, but fear of losing stores, homes, livelihoods, way of life, etc. Fear is irrational, but also real. It's security vs liberty and imo, the protestors are demanding future security but irrationally calling it a quest for liberty. As the lockdowns persist and the money starts to run out... I can anticipate that individuals will become less and less secure of their future and will undoubtedly join in demanding their liberty. A few decades too late, imo.
I live in California and although life as we know it has changed temporarily, I have been able to traffic back and forth to my regular haunts (like Home Depot, markets, and hunt for provisions untroubled). Safety of my person (and the occasional line) being my chiefest concern. I do not understand locales and mayors/government officials who I hear are being heavy-handed to not allow people to leave their personal surroundings?
Is that really the case or is it hype by the protestors (who are out in about anyway)?
Do they give it to you free, or do you pay? The latter being the obvious answer and indicates you have money now. But what does your financial situation look like in the, short term(<3 months) and long term(>6 months)? We live in a society where large numbers live hand to mouth and may not qualify for unemployment or at best... are still waiting on unemployment to kick in.
Most areas do allow for moving about looking for necessities, such as food and TP. Although there are some strange definitions of essential. In some states - clothing,sporting goods, jewelry, florists, cosmetic, shoes and electronic/appliance stores might not be considered essential and must use curbside pickup or delivery, but very large chain stores with grocery stores stay open... with many of those items available and of course Home Depot for appliances and electronics. The mom and pop stores providing the same services are generally considered non essential. Golf courses might be deemed essential, but public parks are shuttered. It varies from state to state and city to city.
Strange? In some areas with stay at home orders, motels and hotels are considered essential. To get a real flavor of how things work... in some states, pawn brokers and pay-day loan operations are considered essential. Why it is almost enough to send a person to the liquor store and into the streets!!
My opinion is many are very worried about their financial security and are using the "liberty" argument. Of course, there is always an element that will seek out times like this to further an agenda.
I feel for those people, because of them justifiably can make life work for them if left to their own devices—and they won't have to pillage, rob, steal, or kill doing so. But, don't push them. We wouldn't like them if they are pushed to their limits.
Moreover, there are million of people living the 'American Dream' just off-side the cliff of disaster! They would be fine and dandy, if there work could come back online before a personal ' crash '! Before their neighbors discover the truth about the real state of their affairs. I understand and emphatize with these people.
We need the businesses open as soon as feasible! Please God, let us get a handle of this virus!
Agenda - 'hogs galore.' Do you mean 'this guy'?
Radio and television host and Infowars founder Alex Jones patrolled Austin, Texas in an armored vehicle Saturday, [4/18/2020] using a megaphone to tell people that “America will reopen” and cal the Chinese coronavirus is a “globalist Chinese Communist bioweapon.”
Jones appeared at the “You Can’t Close America” rally in InfoWars’ signature armored vehicle, and later led thousands of Texans in a chant of “Texas, Texas, Texas!”
“Texas is awake, Texas knows the truth,” Jones called out via megaphone. “Texas knows that this is a Chicom globalist bioweapon that has shut down our economy. ”
Like a young rapper, do you imagine that is a loaner armor vehicle from this occasion? I mean Alex looks all 'well-proportioned' there for this stunt of his. Hey, are those 'extras' riding shotgun? All brought to you by the creative mind of Alex Jones!
Yep, guys like that. And it will be guys like that and their followers that will get on TV.
Oh the better angels do get on television, too. I see through to them in their costumes and robes (doctors, media anchors, polticians, governors, sports legends, and more). They just rely on ordinary people to see them for who they are as they hug the limelight just long enough to properly "shine" and then hand the light on to somebody else. (Smile.)
'Boosters' are in it for the pride; and, sound and fury!
So has anyone figured out the three reasons the infection and death numbers are so astronomical in the USA yet?