Mini-Me
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 6,514
Has even one person in this thread supported the continued lockdown?
Continued? Maybe not, but you have consistently maintained that government has the legitimate power of prior restraint to statistically mitigate unintentional aggression. I'd be less critical if you (or several others) had consistently qualified that authority with hard limitations on the kind of enumerated powers the government may exercise to balance one kind of aggression with another, but I haven't seen you do so. Instead, you just argue the moral premise ever harder, deriding your opponents' understanding of libertarianism, without acknowledging any hard limits to government power to avoid abject tyranny (such as what we're seeing) if your pragmatic value judgments happen to be wrong.
So, in case I'm misunderstanding, let me ask you directly: What hard limits should apply to the use of governmental power to prevent Mary from accidentally infecting Bob? Barring an extinction-level event, is complete societal lockdown ever justifiable?
For instance, when you say this:
What I am hearing, is that if we lack the ability to prove the source of aggression in every case, people can have no liberty-based objection to the government exercising arbitrary power in order to ensure "no guilty man goes free." This is the exact opposite of the "innocent until proven guilty" premise that underlies a free and civilized society. Libertarianism cannot stand, and grows corrupted, without its roots.This isn't a freedom issue at all.
Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.
If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.
Last edited: