> No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too.
Yes, I agree, your own life is important too.
If you're not familiar with "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", it refers to when your exercise of your personal freedom deprives another person of their personal freedom.
> The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable
And yet here you are, advocating depriving people of their freedom to live.
In the present case, your right to freely wander around, asymptomatically spreading COVID-19 contributes to depriving others of their freedom, by killing and disabling them.
The cold harsh reality of the biological world right now is that some freedoms exercised by a person are causally depriving other persons of those same freedoms.
You might not like that, but it appears to be the state of biological nature right now.
To assert that the freedoms enshrined by the constitution are "not negotiable" involves irony, denial and paradox: Because in exercising those freedoms, you yourself are taking them away from other people.
That's my argument and moral basis, anyway. The point is to persuade you to comply voluntarily due to compassion, whereby you ideally make the choice to do so out of consideration for the welfare of others in a situation where your actions affect others.
I've been stuck at home for a while now, so as to not kill another person staying with me. It's not like I enjoy being stuck at home.
I'll be mighty unhappy, and unimpressed by constitutional arguments, if they get killed or disabled because other people make an informed decision that their inalienable right to spread COVID-19 outweighs my person's inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.
You do not have to persuade me to comply voluntarily. I already did.
I left NY for business 2 weeks ago. About 10 days ago, I started having faint symptoms. I was ready to go home. So I decided to start wearing a mask, and instead to drive straight to the secondary residence in the countryside as it is isolated. Due to the presence of elder relatives, I stayed in a nearby hotel room for 7 days - not even going out while I could have.
I had no laws forcing me to do that. But freedom does not mean people have no respect for other people's lives.
It may produce the same result, but there is a difference between forcing someone and letting them do the right thing by providing them truthful information. And freedom works both ways: that's also why I believe even sick people should not be forced to stay home just to protect me.
This is how in the US we often achieve better results than in other countries: more freedom!
The rise of authoritarianism for one small health crisis worries me just as much as it did on 9/11 for one minor attack. We reacted totally out of proportion, and let our feeling go in the way of reason. We permanently lost some freedoms, and ransacked the middle east (and we are still involved there almost 20 years later)
People die, it's a sad fact of life, and not a valuable reason to outweigh anyone inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.
Yes, I agree, your own life is important too.
If you're not familiar with "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", it refers to when your exercise of your personal freedom deprives another person of their personal freedom.
> The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable
And yet here you are, advocating depriving people of their freedom to live.
In the present case, your right to freely wander around, asymptomatically spreading COVID-19 contributes to depriving others of their freedom, by killing and disabling them.
The cold harsh reality of the biological world right now is that some freedoms exercised by a person are causally depriving other persons of those same freedoms.
You might not like that, but it appears to be the state of biological nature right now.
To assert that the freedoms enshrined by the constitution are "not negotiable" involves irony, denial and paradox: Because in exercising those freedoms, you yourself are taking them away from other people.
That's my argument and moral basis, anyway. The point is to persuade you to comply voluntarily due to compassion, whereby you ideally make the choice to do so out of consideration for the welfare of others in a situation where your actions affect others.
I've been stuck at home for a while now, so as to not kill another person staying with me. It's not like I enjoy being stuck at home.
I'll be mighty unhappy, and unimpressed by constitutional arguments, if they get killed or disabled because other people make an informed decision that their inalienable right to spread COVID-19 outweighs my person's inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.