Americans love this idea of “freedom”, even when it comes at enormous cost with no apparent benefit: the freedom to own guns, the freedom to have no health insurance, the freedom to transmit pandemics to each other.
I guess many of us who have idolized the US for decades or our lifes as a haven of freedom and so on have had to concede that the idea of freedom people like Silvaire promote is simply not freedom at all but balant egoism. I have to admit this came as a huge frustration to me, as I have thought to have a pretty good grasp how the US ticks, several years of sysoping a Republican forum were quite a learning experience.
What many “freedom fighter spreaders” in the US fail to grasp is that this is NOT about THEIR personal freedom to get sick if they so wish. It is about PROTECTING EACH OTHER. It is the only way that this horrible thing can be stopped and people are incapable of doing it. And, fairly said, not only in the US but the most balant ignorance and tantrum like defiance comes from there.
Well, if you must, go on but then kindly keep your borders shut both ways. We will have to withness how a once great nation plummets into national disaster just because its citizens have lost any sense of community and mutual respect for which I used to respect them and actually love the very idea of America. What is going on there now is a hateful and divisive battle which, if not stopped, will tear this nation apart. Covid is only a symptom of his but one which has shown to the outside world brutally what some people take freedom for.
Unfortunately America is not alone with this. Not by far. We are now seeing protestors without any protection in the streets of the Balkans trying o topple their governments, we are seeing balant disregard for health measures and general discord also in Europe, with a growing amount of rabid nationalists and some outright fascist movements big timeon the rise. Covid has only muted them for the time being. I would not be surprised if more power grabs are attempted in the course of “defending democracy”.
Freedom is one of the most abused words in history and in its name as many unspeakable crimes have been comitted as by violent dictatorships or religious fanatics. Looking at the goings on in the US for example, it is beyond me how the former oposing parties who call each others openly enemies now will ever reunite. Maybe that is what certain proponents saw in the current administration and why they tried so hard to “help” it get elected, America was never easier to defeat as it is now due to the internal power struggle and total disregard for the other parties opinions.
The total denial of Covid and the need for containment and the totally helpless and clueless “leadership” exhibited by DT and his administration in this matter is most probably going down in history as the point where Americas demise as a super power and the leader of the free world started, even though I think it has been a process long in the making. Yet that instability is very dangerous indeed.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The total denial of Covid
This is just very clearly not true at all. There is a huge amount of nonsense put around (on both sides) but there does appear to be far more lies put forwards from the left side of the spectrum.
Quoting myself so as not to have to repeat myself…
Silvaire wrote:
Somebody wanting to restrict the freedom of others and kill the economy that supports us all so they can make less effort to remain individually safer is the flip side to the ‘we’re all in this together’ argument.
I’d like it if those who want a risk free society would volunteer to replace the salaries of those who are prohibited from working out of their personal savings, while those of us who continue to work in ‘critical industries’ and pay income taxes get credit for our existing contribution. I paid $2148 income tax on wages on the third of July and will do so again on the 17th and again on the 31st. Maybe something out of individual savings to match that level of contribution would be good.
Repressing individual freedom to manage individual risk means repressing the freedom to contribute. A productive economy is more important to the well being of all people than any other factor in society. You cannot get completely obsessed with one threat and lose perspective, if you want to create the best outcome for all concerned.
Silvaire, but would you agree it is about degrees?
Hypothetically, if the virus was 10 x as deadly, so a mortality rate of lets say 10%, and across the age range, would you take a different view?
In others words is there a point at which the individual and collective risk warrant greater sufferance by all?
No I don’t think its “about degrees”, its about the proper role of government – which does not include dictating uniform behavior in relation to a natural threat of any size. If you can run really fast should you stay out of the way of hungry bears in exactly the same way as if you were a midget? 
Stay home a lot if you need to, collect unemployment insurance etc if you must (that’s what its for), but don’t support government in dictating that all others do exactly as you do in their own lives – especially when they are paying for your option to stay home to manage your risk.
Having mentioned the state of Idaho earlier, out of curiosity I looked at their website on this subject and I think personally its pretty good. Not repressive and economy killing nonsense, but encouraging to people in terms of their behavior in the community while also encouraging to business owners and patrons in keeping the place going.
Silvaire wrote:
Repressing individual freedom to manage individual risk means repressing the freedom to contribute.
That’s the decisive error in your thoughts though: It is precisely not about individual freedom and individual , risk! This is a “pan-demic”, wherein the Greek prefix “pan” basically means “affects everyone”. So your “individual” behaviour notably affects “other people’s risk” directly, which is precisely where individual freedoms end: where they affect others.
Silvaire wrote:A productive economy is more important to the well being of all people than any other factor in society.
Very debatable. In our constitution at least, the right to live, the freedom from bodily harm and human dignity come first.
Silvaire wrote:
No I don’t think its “about degrees”
Seeing the world in absolutes is a dangerous thing because the world is not simple. Throughout history that kind of thinking has led to atrocities being perpetrated by individuals, groups, and governments of all political directions.
I’m (and I’ve never been) the strongest guy on the block. Therefore I appreciate that society takes care that we don’t live in a world, where a stronger dude (or one with more weapons) can simply chose to take from my belongings whatever he likes.
As I’m not the biggest egocentric on the block either (hope so) I fully appreciate the fact that the society does the very same for people, who have not the strongest immune system on the block.
If protecting the weaker ones from harm infused by stronger ones is not amongst the roles of a society (and hence a government that is the executive force of a society), I don’t understand why we should need that society thing at all. Doesn’t matter if this harm comes from physical force, diseases or other sources.
Why stop by considering a disease with 10% mortality? Ebola outbreaks have had much higher mortality rates than that – up to 90%. From my perspective the question is whether the restriction of individual liberties is proportional to the threat. The idea that no restriction could ever be justified, however minor, seems quite alien to me. What I feel we ought to be doing is to be searching for the least restrictive measures that are effective in managing disease.
This isn’t a new issue. In the UK, we have moved away from incarcerating people with chronic typhoid, but still restrict them from working in cafes or restaurants. I’m sure if you left hospital saying that you knew you had Ebola but would prefer to die at Glastonbury festival, something would be done. Even in the US, people with transmissible diseases can be incarcerated. The difference now is that we are restricting whole populations rather than a few individuals but I’m not sure that I see any great difference other than that when we are all restricted, we are all forced to consider the ethics of the measures.
Is the outbreak in the Southern States really of no significance? We are all agreed that numbers of positive tests are difficult to interpret. Mortality figures are more concrete but tell us about transmission several weeks previously. This leaves hospitalisation figures, which are more immediate. I am reading about lots of full hospitals in Texas, with military medics being flown in to help out and ICUs already well over baseline capacity. As pointed out, the UK and Italy and New York have already been there. However, relaxing the lockdown whilst in that situation seems novel.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Seeing the world in absolutes is a dangerous thing because the world is not simple.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”
- Obi-Wan Kenobi
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
