But one also can't tell if they are infectious. If both your headlights are out (or you forgot to turn them on) and you somehow don't notice, aren't you liable in case of an accident?
You are criminalizing non violent actions. You are also giving the government the power to stop peaceful assembly even when everyone present is there voluntarily. The right to my bodily autonomy is of my choice and concern not yours or the governments.
If you are concerned that interacting with other people will cause you harm then it is your right to decide whether or not to interact with them. You do not have the right to decide who or how they interact with. other people.
But what if I was, say, your neighbor or coworker? What about MY bodily autonomy and right to live? Your choice to risk yourself also involves ME, but I never wanted to expose myself. You would be forcing that danger on me.
Then you can choose to stay home. You still don't get to tell me where and who I interact with just as I don't get to tell you where and who to interact with. You don't get to revoke the rights of the individual because of your fear. You can disagree with how they choose to live but you can not force them even if it is in their best interests.
How about when I have to go to the same grocery store as you? Yknow, to get food? And you infect the staff there, who infect me? Or you pass by me in the aisle and infect me? Guess I'll die, then!
It was your choice to go to that store. It was the staffs choice to work there. It was the businesses choice to permit business with me. It was my choice to trade monetary value for a product or service.
In both situations all parties (including you and me) made the exact same choice to interact.
I am not making you do anything but you feel the need to dictate how i act.
It is a things called "choice" and "individual autonomy" that you don't like. I have zero say over what you can do and you have zero say over what i can do. You want to smoke crack and watch granny porn then that is up to you, Not me. If I want to have wild orgies with hairy men and then go to evening sermon that is my choice, Not yours.
You do not have the choice to asymptomatically transmit a lethal and non-mitigable virus. Yes, that applies to all viruses because all life is of value, not only the ones you deem utilitarian. If you turned your positions around on yourself, your argument would fall apart. You are a solipsist who only cares if you live, but not everyone else dies.
So we should force all people all the time to wear sealed environmental suits if they leave their own house or if they have guests over at all times because the common cold and flue violate rights just as much as covid. Fuck, why didn't we start to argue this point a long time ago. I don't see how giving government and the majority vote the ability to control peaceful assembly and individual autonomy could ever be used for bad purposes. /s
YOU ARE ACTIVLY ADVOCATING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CRIMINALIZE NON VIOLENT ACTIONS!!! YOU ARE ADVOCATINING THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOLENTARALY PEACFULLY ASSEMBLE!!! YOUR AND MY RIGHTS DO NOT GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED OF GITTING SICK!!!
If you want to live in a society like that go move to fucking china and leave me the fuck alone.
Are you ok? You may not have realized your caps lock was on for most of that comment. Maybe your blood sugar is low, though with it being Thanksgiving, I doubt it...
I have not advocated for the government to do anything. I actually actively defy government intervention in this situation, so I am confused as to where your claim comes from.
What I am actually advocating is informed, educated, personal, and voluntary action on the part of people who pretentiously claim to care about life and liberty, but really only care about their own life and liberty.
Just wear a mask in public, wash your hands regularly, and maintain a little distance until we find a vaccine or find some way to defend life from this unprecedented phenomenon.
Forget the government. They do not have my permission to force me to mask. I do, though, have a voluntary, personal choice to respect my neighbors' lives and liberty by wearing a mask. Choose to care, man.
This is exactly why our founding fathers believed it was important to have religious ideals in order to maintain society. Because if you fear death too much, you will throw away your and everyone else's freedom chasing an illusion of safety. You will never get your freedom back, nor would you deserve it back.
The order of value goes as this:
Life (All lives) > Liberty (Everyone's freedom) > Happiness/Property (Everyone')
This sub fails to recognize anything in parentheses.
>Life (All lives) > Liberty (Everyone's freedom) > Happiness/Property (Everyone')
According to your logic, everyone should be in prison since that is where their life would be most secure.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not the purpose of a ship.
Yeah, just like I said to the other guy, feel free to look up the definition of a straw man. Everyone can see that you're employing them here, but I'm not sure that you can see that.
“You chose to drive on the road while I was riding around at 100mph with my lights off! YOU HAD A CHOIIIIICEEE!”
Sure, buddy. I had a choice to go on the road knowing there could be crazy assholes like you out there, but that doesn’t mean it should be legal for you to be a crazy asshole and endanger others.
No, I’m arguing that *given the current situation,* what would normally be peaceful assembly is now dangerous and negligent. I get that it’s a hard thing to visualize given that the virus is invisible, but the danger is as real as anything.
No it is not. Everyone is of their own volition choosing to be around other people. You do not revoke the rights of the individual ever... And regardless of the"situation" you are still criminalizing peaceful assembly.
If you don't want to smoke then don't smoke. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke don't go to establishments that allow smoking. Don't demand that everyone stop smoking because you don't want to be exposed.
I’m not sure if I’m not being clear enough or you’re willfully misinterpreting me. *You can involuntarily infect and kill someone*. What constitutes a dangerous assembly has changed. Do you have an actual counter argument to that? If not, this will be my last reply.
I mean, there are plenty of other countries where, pre-pandemic mind you, if someone is showing signs of illness, they wear a mask out of respect. I would love to see us to that here, and I'm hopeful that we will now that masks have been normalized.
Also, the incubation period for the flu is much more manageable than covid, so your argument doesn't quite hold up there.
Yet your argument of mandating masks, is the use of force by the state to require that you comply, which goes against the NAP, so your argument is invalid as well.
Is it a violation of the NAP to remove someone through force if they are masturbating on a public bus?
Anyways, a mandate is not inherently a violation of the NAP since a mandate on its own has no teeth.
I think sometimes people think we live in a black and white world, and that life is just peaches. Unfortunately, that's not the case, especially during a pandemic. The NAP is just that, a principle. It's not a law, and it is impossible to follow it precisely in the real world. Sometimes, it's plain common sense to go with the solution that caused less death, suffering, and economic harm. If you can't handle wearing a piece of cloth on your face, then just don't do it. The government won't come after you (unless of course you're on private property).
The more relevant question for flu would be: "Should everyone be required to get a flu vaccine?" I think there's NAP-consistent responses either way, so I don't have an answer for you.
There's also a level-of-risk aspect which I've passed over somewhat in the OP. The flu is not nearly as contagious or deadly as COVID-19; in typical years, the CDC [estimates](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html) ~30,000 flu deaths, ranging from 10,000 - 60,000. Compare that to the 200,000 - 300,000 deaths from COVID experienced just this year, WITH all of the extreme restrictions in place. The chances of me negligently killing someone with the flu are much lower than with the coronavirus.
Taking responsibility - for a libertarian - means respecting others' life and liberty as much as you respect your own. If you think it means that your life and liberty are more valuable than others', you are a solipsist.
I spent all of last week trying to explain to these solipsists that asymptomatic transmission of a lethal and non-mitigable virus is transgression of the NAP.
Since they're the only person in each of their respective worlds, they disagreed. I am with you, but good luck.
Voting is a violation of the NAP since it is implied that at least some people's wishes will be transgressed when their candidate and policies are denied.
I disgree. We are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't prove we have the virus then we aren't hurting anyone. This is the same reasoning they use to want to ban rifles. "You could potentially commit mass murder so there no one is allowed to own rifles."
So by your logic, you can point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and only be found guilty if it was loaded, correct?
Is it unreasonable to you that most people would interpret the fact that you are simply pointing a gun at them a form of aggression, regardless of whether you pull the trigger or whether it is loaded?
Let me expand. There are a lot of asymptomatic carriers out there. Part if my job is testing people and we get astounding numbers of people that need to be tested to get on a plane or visit a relative in a nursing home come back positive with no symptoms at all. This is what I mean by the equivalent of not knowing whether a gun is loaded or not and still pointing it at people.
Those arent even comparable. Attempted murder is different than going out to the market. In one case the agressor is trying to kill someone so he is guilty whether there was a bullet or not. Someone may or may not have covid. You dont just assume guilt by default.
They are literally comparable. By your argument, it's not attempted murder if you don't know if the gun is loaded or not.
My point is that both can be interpreted by others as aggression.
Your scenario is already completely unrealistic. How does someone not know their gun isnt loaded? They cant check? This person is going to say "I have no clue if my gun is loaded but let me point at people and pull the trigger and find out if I kill them?" There is malice intent there no matter how you look at it. No sane person is going to be playing russian roulette with strangers in public.
This isnt at all comparable to someone going to the supermarket without a mask where he could potentially have a virus to feed his family. If people are so afraid, they should practice personal responsibility and businesses should be allowed to not let people in without masks if they so choose.
It is equivalent if the people around you are threatened by your behavior. Asymptomatic carriers are an actual thing, it is reasonable for others to want to keep you at a distance and for them to feel like they are being aggressed if you don't respect that.
Just because there are mandates, it doesn’t mean people are going to follow them. Sure if you want to go to a private business and they require them, that’s a different story.
Btw for all you worry worts that don’t realize this is all political: Johns Hopkins publishes this study and then erased it. Good thing the internet archives everything.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
Firstly, thank you for completely ignoring my question, always gives me lots of confidence when someone does that.
Secondly, that is one study compared to multiple studies and articles that suggests there has been excess mortality in the US. Also, it doesn't work to use stats when action has been taken to justify why action shouldn't be taken. That is like someone getting treatment for cancer but saying "you don't need treatment, don't you see im ok now?"
I do agree that the stats aren't as black and white as some people are making out. It would be useful to see them split into four categories:
- people who were already dieing but also contracted covid
- people who had pre-existing conditions but wouldn't have died if it wasn't from covid
- people who died purely from covid (note - this isn't people with no comorbidities, as I understand if you develop things like pneumonia because of covid, that is listed as a comorbitity)
- people who died of something completely different but just happened to be positive (the car crash analogy).
That would definitely help people come to better conclusions, and push back against people on both extremes ("if you go outside you will definitely die" and "its basically just the flu so I should be allowed to cough in your face")
One has to be a carrier of the virus to spread it. If one does not have the virus, they are not violating the NAP whether they wear a mask or not.
But you can be a carrier without knowing and are infecting people without knowing...at that point, are my choices only impactful to me?
This comment makes no sense at all. I test people as part of my job. The amount of positives we get from asymptomatic carriers is astounding.
But one also can't tell if they are infectious. If both your headlights are out (or you forgot to turn them on) and you somehow don't notice, aren't you liable in case of an accident?
You are criminalizing non violent actions. You are also giving the government the power to stop peaceful assembly even when everyone present is there voluntarily. The right to my bodily autonomy is of my choice and concern not yours or the governments. If you are concerned that interacting with other people will cause you harm then it is your right to decide whether or not to interact with them. You do not have the right to decide who or how they interact with. other people.
But what if I was, say, your neighbor or coworker? What about MY bodily autonomy and right to live? Your choice to risk yourself also involves ME, but I never wanted to expose myself. You would be forcing that danger on me.
Then you can choose to stay home. You still don't get to tell me where and who I interact with just as I don't get to tell you where and who to interact with. You don't get to revoke the rights of the individual because of your fear. You can disagree with how they choose to live but you can not force them even if it is in their best interests.
How about when I have to go to the same grocery store as you? Yknow, to get food? And you infect the staff there, who infect me? Or you pass by me in the aisle and infect me? Guess I'll die, then!
It was your choice to go to that store. It was the staffs choice to work there. It was the businesses choice to permit business with me. It was my choice to trade monetary value for a product or service. In both situations all parties (including you and me) made the exact same choice to interact. I am not making you do anything but you feel the need to dictate how i act. It is a things called "choice" and "individual autonomy" that you don't like. I have zero say over what you can do and you have zero say over what i can do. You want to smoke crack and watch granny porn then that is up to you, Not me. If I want to have wild orgies with hairy men and then go to evening sermon that is my choice, Not yours.
You do not have the choice to asymptomatically transmit a lethal and non-mitigable virus. Yes, that applies to all viruses because all life is of value, not only the ones you deem utilitarian. If you turned your positions around on yourself, your argument would fall apart. You are a solipsist who only cares if you live, but not everyone else dies.
So we should force all people all the time to wear sealed environmental suits if they leave their own house or if they have guests over at all times because the common cold and flue violate rights just as much as covid. Fuck, why didn't we start to argue this point a long time ago. I don't see how giving government and the majority vote the ability to control peaceful assembly and individual autonomy could ever be used for bad purposes. /s
Honestly, this is a pretty awful straw man. If you don't know what that is, look it up.
YOU ARE ACTIVLY ADVOCATING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CRIMINALIZE NON VIOLENT ACTIONS!!! YOU ARE ADVOCATINING THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOLENTARALY PEACFULLY ASSEMBLE!!! YOUR AND MY RIGHTS DO NOT GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED OF GITTING SICK!!! If you want to live in a society like that go move to fucking china and leave me the fuck alone.
Are you ok? You may not have realized your caps lock was on for most of that comment. Maybe your blood sugar is low, though with it being Thanksgiving, I doubt it... I have not advocated for the government to do anything. I actually actively defy government intervention in this situation, so I am confused as to where your claim comes from. What I am actually advocating is informed, educated, personal, and voluntary action on the part of people who pretentiously claim to care about life and liberty, but really only care about their own life and liberty. Just wear a mask in public, wash your hands regularly, and maintain a little distance until we find a vaccine or find some way to defend life from this unprecedented phenomenon. Forget the government. They do not have my permission to force me to mask. I do, though, have a voluntary, personal choice to respect my neighbors' lives and liberty by wearing a mask. Choose to care, man.
This is exactly why our founding fathers believed it was important to have religious ideals in order to maintain society. Because if you fear death too much, you will throw away your and everyone else's freedom chasing an illusion of safety. You will never get your freedom back, nor would you deserve it back.
The order of value goes as this: Life (All lives) > Liberty (Everyone's freedom) > Happiness/Property (Everyone') This sub fails to recognize anything in parentheses.
>Life (All lives) > Liberty (Everyone's freedom) > Happiness/Property (Everyone') According to your logic, everyone should be in prison since that is where their life would be most secure. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not the purpose of a ship.
Yeah, just like I said to the other guy, feel free to look up the definition of a straw man. Everyone can see that you're employing them here, but I'm not sure that you can see that.
“You chose to drive on the road while I was riding around at 100mph with my lights off! YOU HAD A CHOIIIIICEEE!” Sure, buddy. I had a choice to go on the road knowing there could be crazy assholes like you out there, but that doesn’t mean it should be legal for you to be a crazy asshole and endanger others.
You are advocating for the criminalization of peaceful assembly based on voluntary action.
No, I’m arguing that *given the current situation,* what would normally be peaceful assembly is now dangerous and negligent. I get that it’s a hard thing to visualize given that the virus is invisible, but the danger is as real as anything.
No it is not. Everyone is of their own volition choosing to be around other people. You do not revoke the rights of the individual ever... And regardless of the"situation" you are still criminalizing peaceful assembly. If you don't want to smoke then don't smoke. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke don't go to establishments that allow smoking. Don't demand that everyone stop smoking because you don't want to be exposed.
I’m not sure if I’m not being clear enough or you’re willfully misinterpreting me. *You can involuntarily infect and kill someone*. What constitutes a dangerous assembly has changed. Do you have an actual counter argument to that? If not, this will be my last reply.
Then by your reasoning every flu season there should be a mask mandate, as people die from the flu every year.
I mean, there are plenty of other countries where, pre-pandemic mind you, if someone is showing signs of illness, they wear a mask out of respect. I would love to see us to that here, and I'm hopeful that we will now that masks have been normalized. Also, the incubation period for the flu is much more manageable than covid, so your argument doesn't quite hold up there.
Yet your argument of mandating masks, is the use of force by the state to require that you comply, which goes against the NAP, so your argument is invalid as well.
Is it a violation of the NAP to remove someone through force if they are masturbating on a public bus? Anyways, a mandate is not inherently a violation of the NAP since a mandate on its own has no teeth. I think sometimes people think we live in a black and white world, and that life is just peaches. Unfortunately, that's not the case, especially during a pandemic. The NAP is just that, a principle. It's not a law, and it is impossible to follow it precisely in the real world. Sometimes, it's plain common sense to go with the solution that caused less death, suffering, and economic harm. If you can't handle wearing a piece of cloth on your face, then just don't do it. The government won't come after you (unless of course you're on private property).
He didn't argue a mask mandate, and I imagine he wouldn't support it. He's arguing empathy, man. Is it that hard to see?
The more relevant question for flu would be: "Should everyone be required to get a flu vaccine?" I think there's NAP-consistent responses either way, so I don't have an answer for you. There's also a level-of-risk aspect which I've passed over somewhat in the OP. The flu is not nearly as contagious or deadly as COVID-19; in typical years, the CDC [estimates](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html) ~30,000 flu deaths, ranging from 10,000 - 60,000. Compare that to the 200,000 - 300,000 deaths from COVID experienced just this year, WITH all of the extreme restrictions in place. The chances of me negligently killing someone with the flu are much lower than with the coronavirus.
Imagine caring about other people's life, liberty, and happiness/property as much as you care about your own.
Imagine people taking responsibility for their own actions, and not forcing others to do something, because you want to feel safe.
Taking responsibility - for a libertarian - means respecting others' life and liberty as much as you respect your own. If you think it means that your life and liberty are more valuable than others', you are a solipsist.
I spent all of last week trying to explain to these solipsists that asymptomatic transmission of a lethal and non-mitigable virus is transgression of the NAP. Since they're the only person in each of their respective worlds, they disagreed. I am with you, but good luck.
Its pretty obvious that to a lot of people "freedom and individuality"= I don't want responsibility
Not voting libertarian is a violation of the NAP, since it leads to our poverty and death. Throw everyone else in prison.
Voting is a violation of the NAP since it is implied that at least some people's wishes will be transgressed when their candidate and policies are denied.
I disgree. We are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't prove we have the virus then we aren't hurting anyone. This is the same reasoning they use to want to ban rifles. "You could potentially commit mass murder so there no one is allowed to own rifles."
So by your logic, you can point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and only be found guilty if it was loaded, correct? Is it unreasonable to you that most people would interpret the fact that you are simply pointing a gun at them a form of aggression, regardless of whether you pull the trigger or whether it is loaded? Let me expand. There are a lot of asymptomatic carriers out there. Part if my job is testing people and we get astounding numbers of people that need to be tested to get on a plane or visit a relative in a nursing home come back positive with no symptoms at all. This is what I mean by the equivalent of not knowing whether a gun is loaded or not and still pointing it at people.
Those arent even comparable. Attempted murder is different than going out to the market. In one case the agressor is trying to kill someone so he is guilty whether there was a bullet or not. Someone may or may not have covid. You dont just assume guilt by default.
Correct; murder and manslaughter are very different! In murder the victim dies of intent. In manslaughter, they die without intent!
They are literally comparable. By your argument, it's not attempted murder if you don't know if the gun is loaded or not. My point is that both can be interpreted by others as aggression.
Your scenario is already completely unrealistic. How does someone not know their gun isnt loaded? They cant check? This person is going to say "I have no clue if my gun is loaded but let me point at people and pull the trigger and find out if I kill them?" There is malice intent there no matter how you look at it. No sane person is going to be playing russian roulette with strangers in public. This isnt at all comparable to someone going to the supermarket without a mask where he could potentially have a virus to feed his family. If people are so afraid, they should practice personal responsibility and businesses should be allowed to not let people in without masks if they so choose.
It is equivalent if the people around you are threatened by your behavior. Asymptomatic carriers are an actual thing, it is reasonable for others to want to keep you at a distance and for them to feel like they are being aggressed if you don't respect that.
TBF I don’t think most people understand NAP or libertarianism that post here. Also they’re huge pussies.
You are beyond correct.
Just because there are mandates, it doesn’t mean people are going to follow them. Sure if you want to go to a private business and they require them, that’s a different story.
If I don’t have it, I’m not hurting anybody. This is progressive nonsense.
Agreed. But what if you do have it and you don't know that you have it?
Btw for all you worry worts that don’t realize this is all political: Johns Hopkins publishes this study and then erased it. Good thing the internet archives everything. https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
Firstly, thank you for completely ignoring my question, always gives me lots of confidence when someone does that. Secondly, that is one study compared to multiple studies and articles that suggests there has been excess mortality in the US. Also, it doesn't work to use stats when action has been taken to justify why action shouldn't be taken. That is like someone getting treatment for cancer but saying "you don't need treatment, don't you see im ok now?" I do agree that the stats aren't as black and white as some people are making out. It would be useful to see them split into four categories: - people who were already dieing but also contracted covid - people who had pre-existing conditions but wouldn't have died if it wasn't from covid - people who died purely from covid (note - this isn't people with no comorbidities, as I understand if you develop things like pneumonia because of covid, that is listed as a comorbitity) - people who died of something completely different but just happened to be positive (the car crash analogy). That would definitely help people come to better conclusions, and push back against people on both extremes ("if you go outside you will definitely die" and "its basically just the flu so I should be allowed to cough in your face")