Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

Also just anecdotally, here in Ontario people seem to want to avoid catching and spreading the disease, more than to avoid clashing with the law (who can't really tell if you have a legitimate reason to be somewhere anyway); and the people who don't care about one don't care about the other either.

For the handful of people I see clearly flaunting the restrictions here, I feel like more often than not they have decent personal reasons for doing so, and I don't think it's my place to stick my nose in that.

A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society.

View on HN

>A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society.

This hypothetical "free person" is then also responsible for the results of their actions and for any oversights or vulnerabilities caused by their "free" status.

There are very good reasons we allow ourselves to be part of a society or country - people are always better equipped to survive in groups.

The problem with positioning one's self as a "free person" is that most people advocating this don't comprehend how they benefit from being part of a country or people. Because they don't understand or identify those benefits, they are entirely unwilling to accept the lack of them which is the case if they're entirely "free".

Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too - all the benefits of belonging to a modern civilization with no sacrifice of freedom, possessions, or possibilities.

They usually have an ego that allows them to believe they're special for being a person that recognizes the desire to be "free" when the truth is that other people do recognize that desire but also that it's not possible to be entirely free without giving up the benefits of belonging to a group.

Thus,they view themselves as exceptional because they understand that they should be free, when in truth they're exceptional because they're ignorant.

This sounds like an extremely high resolution description of a group/category of people that likely numbers in the millions. If you encountered someone doing the same but based on a different categorization, you'd likely see the obvious epistemic problems involved, but seeing the same in oneself is difficult, especially when criticizing your personal out-group. That's just one aspect.

> This hypothetical "free person" is then also responsible for the results of their actions and for any oversights or vulnerabilities caused by their "free" status.

Is this a two way street? Are the authoritarians and experts who decide policy on highly uncertain data, at best, going to be held responsible for the fallout of their actions? I see little historic precedent for this in the US, and plenty of counter-examples.

> There are very good reasons we allow ourselves to be part of a society or country - people are always better equipped to survive in groups.

Does the group have to consent to authoritarian rule? How about we try transparent & honest, evidence-based reasoning and negotiation first. Maybe people would be a little less resistant then.

> They usually have an ego that...

Be careful when discussing matters involving the ego, they can be very mischievous and deceptive, often leading one to believe things like they possess extraordinary abilities in perception, when the exact opposite is actually the case, just as one example.

> ...they don't understand or identify those benefits, they are entirely unwilling to accept the lack of them which is the case if they're entirely "free".

> ...they want to have their cake and eat it too...

> They usually have an ego that allows them...

Well just because you can think of a hypothetical selfish and entitled person who isn't willing to suffer for liberty, doesn't mean everyone who advocates for freedom is that person, and if anything it makes the case that these people should be brought to put their money where their mouth is.

> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society.

How do you balance that with another person's right to live? If you as a free person decide "F it, I don't want to stay cooped up despite my positive diagnosis." Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?

no, it's not fair, but that's the inherent risk of freedom. people might not do what's best for you, or even themselves. under this model, the government actually has to cultivate a position of trust/legitimacy rather than just compelling people to do (or not do) things.

it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time, whether or not there is a credible threat of punishment. we tend to notice bad behavior more in our day-to-day lives precisely because it is not the default. you never notice all the dog walkers that dutifully clean up after their pets, but you'll surely remember that one piece of dog shit you stepped in on the way to work. the news almost exclusively covers outliers.

in my state, we have mandatory shelter-in-place under threat of fines/imprisonment, but the police don't really have any way of knowing whether you are violating the order. people mostly follow it anyway, because they are convinced of the severity of the issue.

>it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time...

I think consideration here is extremely subjective. If what you say is even true, that most people are considerate, what defines considerate here? People think they should leave their shopping carts wherever since that's the job of the cart attendant. Are they considerate because without them, that person may not have a job since all the carts are just pushed back to the store?

of course it's subjective. it depends on local norms (many of are unwritten and/or implicit) which vary a lot from place to place. a lot of it just boils down to treating other people the way (you think) they want to be treated. do you think there are a lot of cart attendants that are grateful for people scattering carts all over the parking lot?

No, I can't imagine a single cart attendant would appreciate the extra work. What I am trying to say is: yes a good portion of people probably do follow the rules, despite the possibility of not having any negative consequences but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the rules. There are people who "just want a haircut despite my cough, what could possibly happen" and will infect people along the way. Sure, they were considerate because they considered staying home but that barber needs the money. Maybe they think it is considerate, but I have a feeling a lot of other people won't.

I don't necessarily think we should get rid of the rules either, but for a somewhat different reason. I do believe that free citizens who a.) trust their government officials and b.) can do so without severe economic stress will generally follow official recommendations without the threat of force. at least, enough of them will follow it that the outliers don't really matter.

unfortunately, we don't have a good system to support barbers, who would prefer not to risk catching/spreading the virus but need the money, or barbershop owners, who would prefer to stay closed but need to pay rent. so I do actually support the lockdown as a somewhat dirty hack to trigger benefits for these people.

I can fully agree with that sentiment.

The idea of living together in a society/city is believing that your neighbour does not wish you ill intent. The question your should ask yourself is if you got it, do you trust yourself to self-quarantine.

> Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?

Why is it that for all of history this hasn't been an issue for infectious diseases until now?

It has, in fact, been an issue, which is why epidemic laws have been drafted, in the past, to control that behaviour.

It's funny you have no clue that the state used to run Tuberculosis sanitariums. Hint the imates didn't have a choice. New York had a sanitarium where they sent people with infectious diseases unless they had a physician to vouch for their care. Public health authorities would quarantine families for scarlet fever. They'd put as a red notice on your door.

All perfectly legal.

Quarantine is where you restrict the movement of sick people.

Tyranny is where you restrict the movement of healthy people.

> All perfectly legal.

While the quarantine order in Wisconsin isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com