Protest Update

An update below from Marc Joffe on a Covid-19 protest, which it looks like some folks are actively organizing. There have also apparently been some protests in other states (maybe I'll post something separately on that). Regarding protesting against the Covid-19 restrictions, I share Marc's view that the government abridgments of civil liberties in response to the Covid-19 situation deserve to be opposed, and am personally interested in taking part in a protest.

  I would also like to see the LPSF as a group at least speak out if not protest as a group on the issue, although I'm mindful of seeking consensus on what official action or position we take. As clear as the preferable libertarian stance seems to me in political terms, nevertheless how to respond to an epidemic is not a super-clear-cut libertarian issue in terms of how the Non-Aggression Principle applies.

  An interesting point is raised in this short video that Doug Ross passed along from James Corbett of CorbettReport.com, asking whether forcing people to stay home is justified because you are guilty of murder if you happen to become part of a sequence of viral transmissions that results in someone's death which you could have avoided doing by following a government quarantine order: https://twitter.com/starchildsf/status/1251045021580619776.
  
  Marc also shared below some thoughts in response to Michael Edelstein, who had echoed his comments about being agile and doing away with bureaucracy, not taking time on things like discussing bylaws and internal elections, and asked him to give us some suggestions. In response to that, I wrote a reply which ended up considerably longer and deeper than planned, but which I hope you will find worth the time to read.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

* * *

(Limiting to SFLP members)

Michael

That may be above my paygrade since I did cancel my membership immediately after the meeting.

I burned out from the LP in the 1980s and have only engaged again briefly.. Normally the experience is a letdown. The one exception was the Iraq War protest when SFLP members like you, Francoise, Phil and Marcy were incredibly supportive.

To some extent, the LP has to be the way it is because it is a creature of the state. It has to have bylaws, elected officers, etc. It may not be fixable.

The proper form of organization is the subscription model. One individual or a small group of individuals (who normally agree with one another) run an activist group in a non-democratic way. People can join and participate at whatever level suits them. If they don’t like the policies of the organization, they are always free to exit and create another. The leader or leadership group is the publisher; everyone else is the subscriber. Subscribers don’t get a vote and they don’t get to argue about how the organization operates or what priorities it chooses, but they are always free to unsubscribe.

Although this approach does not directly follow from the NAP, it is implicit in the libertarian literature on political economy. We observe that democracies are inefficient in part because they waste a lot of time and energy on debate. We like small businesses that rapidly adopt to changing market conditions. We should use these insights and preferences to govern our activism.

Marc

Marc,

  I regret not having you as a member, and naturally hope you will reconsider. You have been part of our local pro-freedom community here for years, and seem to me like part of the clan. While whatever conservative or other group(s) whose correspondence you've forwarded may indeed be pleasing you by planning to protest the Covid-19 lockdown, compared with your frustration at the LPSF at not doing the same, will they be pro-freedom on the next issue that comes along, or the one after that? Surely there's something to be said for standing in solidarity with (and tossing a few bucks toward) the only pro-freedom group in the Bay Area I'm aware of that has an organization in most if not all the region's counties.

  I'm copying this to the LPSF-Activists list as I proposed doing, to bring the rest of our local group in on this conversation, especially as your response to Michael Edelstein makes an interesting and somewhat provocative suggestion about the LPSF's structure/operations. I don't believe we're necessarily required to have bylaws and elected officers as a local party chapter – indeed for years we paid minimal attention to our local bylaws. As do you if I understand you correctly, I would like to see us operate as more of a "do-ocracy" so that we can get more accomplished with quicker turn-around for stuff like this, as I hope we all want. At the same time, I don't want such a change to come at the cost of democracy or debate. It seems to me that allowing local activists' and members' votes and voices to be heard is important for many reasons, among them making people feel their involvement is valued so that they will feel good about being involved.

  In that vein, I'm kind of surprised to see you arguing here against a democratic approach to party governance, as it was my understanding that you briefly joined as an LPSF member last Saturday in order to have a vote at the meeting, and then asked for a refund and to resign your membership after it was made clear that a Libertarian Party of California rule disallowing this due to your residing in another California county is held valid under our bylaws (a rule and provision I personally believe we would do well to change).

  The impression I'm getting from your post below, that you believe we'd be better off as an organization if someone in the LPSF (or a small group of us) were making decisions in which you didn't have a vote, or even the ability to argue about how the group operates or what priorities it chooses, seems at odds with your own recent actions as described above. Don't you think a more autocratic approach would tend to deter people's support as it apparently did yours? I'm not saying we should welcome everyone to vote in our organization regardless of what they believe (the Libertarian Party currently limits voting membership to signers of the non-aggression pledge), but I don't want people who share the party's philosophy and goals as much as I believe you do to be alienated from participation.

  It seems to me that the challenge is to come up with and adhere to a model or approach that (not necessarily in this order!) (a) enables us to get things done efficiently, (b) is capable of attracting participation/support beyond a small number of people, and (c) is sustainably libertarian in outlook and positions, i.e. consistently takes pro-freedom stances across a broad range of issues and is fair and balanced enough in this to appeal to people with both progressive and conservative leanings on different issues. Do you agree with these organizational goals?

  Small businesses do tend to adopt rapidly to changing market conditions, and their employees and customers also typically have more of a vote and a voice in their operations and priorities than is true in big businesses which tend to be slower to react to changing market conditions. The typical big business employee has less of a say in the group of which they are a part. There's a saying, "To err is human, but to really foul things up it takes a computer." I would propose that, To err is human, but to really do harm on a large scale usually requires an institution.

  On the other hand, by working cooperatively with others in an organized manner, it is of course often possible to get more, sometimes much more, done than one could alone. I think you said you personally didn't want to go out and protest Covid-19 if it was only five or ten people. I can relate, although I think my threshold for participating in a public protest against the government lockdown orders would only be two people. Naturally I would prefer more! So I'm not against people working together in organizations, especially organizations formed for a temporary and limited purpose like a group of activists planning a protest. However I am against, or at least consider very problematic, some of the qualities often associated with institutions, such as bureaucracy, hierarchy of power, and a distinct, impersonal nature. A question that strikes me as particularly interesting – I may not be asking precisely the right question, but something along these lines – is this:

At what point does an organization become less simply a group people cooperating as individuals, and more an institution with its own independent existence, such that the nature and tendencies of this thing to which we have given birth becomes important and potentially dangerous?

  And how can we avoid institutionalization? If there is a line to be crossed, does having officers and/or bylaws put the LPSF across that line? I don't think so. Yet I think that sort of thing tends to move an organization in that direction. I guess I'm proposing that there's a sweet spot where people coming together in pure voluntary cooperation as an organized group can harness the most aggregate power possible from that cooperation before the harm or risk of harm starts to outweigh the gain. What if the State (government) is just a type of institution, a type which tends to be particularly powerful and malignant, but with a more fundamental underlying problem being the institution qua institution?

  But how do you Marc, or others here, feel about the idea that institutionalization is generally best avoided? That is my perspective, not necessarily mainstream libertarian thinking. Curious to hear folks' thoughts...

  In the meantime, in the spirit of doing, I'd like to see whether anyone would like to get together with me and do some #EndTheLockdown or other Covid-19 related sidewalk chalking! I've got chalk and my schedule is pretty open.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
(415) 625-FREE

P.S. – Melanie Morgan (conservative former KSF radio host) and Melanie Swanson are the same person?

Starchild,

It’s my view applying the NAP to spreading a contagious disease is as clear-cut as applying the NAP to initiating physical force.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction

  An update below from Marc Joffe on a Covid-19 protest, which it looks like some folks are actively organizing. There have also apparently been some protests in other states (maybe I'll post something separately on that). Regarding protesting against the Covid-19 restrictions, I share Marc's view that the government abridgments of civil liberties in response to the Covid-19 situation deserve to be opposed, and am personally interested in taking part in a protest.

  I would also like to see the LPSF as a group at least speak out if not protest as a group on the issue, although I'm mindful of seeking consensus on what official action or position we take. As clear as the preferable libertarian stance seems to me in political terms, nevertheless how to respond to an epidemic is not a super-clear-cut libertarian issue in terms of how the Non-Aggression Principle applies.

  An interesting point is raised in this short video that Doug Ross passed along from James Corbett of CorbettReport.com <http://corbettreport.com/>, asking whether forcing people to stay home is justified because you are guilty of murder if you happen to become part of a sequence of viral transmissions that results in someone's death which you could have avoided doing by following a government quarantine order: https://twitter.com/starchildsf/status/1251045021580619776.
  
  Marc also shared below some thoughts in response to Michael Edelstein, who had echoed his comments about being agile and doing away with bureaucracy, not taking time on things like discussing bylaws and internal elections, and asked him to give us some suggestions. In response to that, I wrote a reply which ended up considerably longer and deeper than planned, but which I hope you will find worth the time to read.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

* * *

(Limiting to SFLP members)

Michael

That may be above my paygrade since I did cancel my membership immediately after the meeting.

I burned out from the LP in the 1980s and have only engaged again briefly.. Normally the experience is a letdown. The one exception was the Iraq War protest when SFLP members like you, Francoise, Phil and Marcy were incredibly supportive.

To some extent, the LP has to be the way it is because it is a creature of the state. It has to have bylaws, elected officers, etc. It may not be fixable.

The proper form of organization is the subscription model. One individual or a small group of individuals (who normally agree with one another) run an activist group in a non-democratic way. People can join and participate at whatever level suits them. If they don’t like the policies of the organization, they are always free to exit and create another. The leader or leadership group is the publisher; everyone else is the subscriber. Subscribers don’t get a vote and they don’t get to argue about how the organization operates or what priorities it chooses, but they are always free to unsubscribe.

Although this approach does not directly follow from the NAP, it is implicit in the libertarian literature on political economy. We observe that democracies are inefficient in part because they waste a lot of time and energy on debate. We like small businesses that rapidly adopt to changing market conditions. We should use these insights and preferences to govern our activism.

Marc

Marc,

  I regret not having you as a member, and naturally hope you will reconsider. You have been part of our local pro-freedom community here for years, and seem to me like part of the clan. While whatever conservative or other group(s) whose correspondence you've forwarded may indeed be pleasing you by planning to protest the Covid-19 lockdown, compared with your frustration at the LPSF at not doing the same, will they be pro-freedom on the next issue that comes along, or the one after that? Surely there's something to be said for standing in solidarity with (and tossing a few bucks toward) the only pro-freedom group in the Bay Area I'm aware of that has an organization in most if not all the region's counties.

  I'm copying this to the LPSF-Activists list as I proposed doing, to bring the rest of our local group in on this conversation, especially as your response to Michael Edelstein makes an interesting and somewhat provocative suggestion about the LPSF's structure/operations. I don't believe we're necessarily required to have bylaws and elected officers as a local party chapter – indeed for years we paid minimal attention to our local bylaws. As do you if I understand you correctly, I would like to see us operate as more of a "do-ocracy" so that we can get more accomplished with quicker turn-around for stuff like this, as I hope we all want. At the same time, I don't want such a change to come at the cost of democracy or debate. It seems to me that allowing local activists' and members' votes and voices to be heard is important for many reasons, among them making people feel their involvement is valued so that they will feel good about being involved.

  In that vein, I'm kind of surprised to see you arguing here against a democratic approach to party governance, as it was my understanding that you briefly joined as an LPSF member last Saturday in order to have a vote at the meeting, and then asked for a refund and to resign your membership after it was made clear that a Libertarian Party of California rule disallowing this due to your residing in another California county is held valid under our bylaws (a rule and provision I personally believe we would do well to change).

  The impression I'm getting from your post below, that you believe we'd be better off as an organization if someone in the LPSF (or a small group of us) were making decisions in which you didn't have a vote, or even the ability to argue about how the group operates or what priorities it chooses, seems at odds with your own recent actions as described above. Don't you think a more autocratic approach would tend to deter people's support as it apparently did yours? I'm not saying we should welcome everyone to vote in our organization regardless of what they believe (the Libertarian Party currently limits voting membership to signers of the non-aggression pledge), but I don't want people who share the party's philosophy and goals as much as I believe you do to be alienated from participation.

  It seems to me that the challenge is to come up with and adhere to a model or approach that (not necessarily in this order!) (a) enables us to get things done efficiently, (b) is capable of attracting participation/support beyond a small number of people, and (c) is sustainably libertarian in outlook and positions, i.e. consistently takes pro-freedom stances across a broad range of issues and is fair and balanced enough in this to appeal to people with both progressive and conservative leanings on different issues. Do you agree with these organizational goals?

  Small businesses do tend to adopt rapidly to changing market conditions, and their employees and customers also typically have more of a vote and a voice in their operations and priorities than is true in big businesses which tend to be slower to react to changing market conditions. The typical big business employee has less of a say in the group of which they are a part. There's a saying, "To err is human, but to really foul things up it takes a computer." I would propose that, To err is human, but to really do harm on a large scale usually requires an institution.

  On the other hand, by working cooperatively with others in an organized manner, it is of course often possible to get more, sometimes much more, done than one could alone. I think you said you personally didn't want to go out and protest Covid-19 if it was only five or ten people. I can relate, although I think my threshold for participating in a public protest against the government lockdown orders would only be two people. Naturally I would prefer more! So I'm not against people working together in organizations, especially organizations formed for a temporary and limited purpose like a group of activists planning a protest. However I am against, or at least consider very problematic, some of the qualities often associated with institutions, such as bureaucracy, hierarchy of power, and a distinct, impersonal nature. A question that strikes me as particularly interesting – I may not be asking precisely the right question, but something along these lines – is this:

At what point does an organization become less simply a group people cooperating as individuals, and more an institution with its own independent existence, such that the nature and tendencies of this thing to which we have given birth becomes important and potentially dangerous?

  And how can we avoid institutionalization? If there is a line to be crossed, does having officers and/or bylaws put the LPSF across that line? I don't think so. Yet I think that sort of thing tends to move an organization in that direction. I guess I'm proposing that there's a sweet spot where people coming together in pure voluntary cooperation as an organized group can harness the most aggregate power possible from that cooperation before the harm or risk of harm starts to outweigh the gain. What if the State (government) is just a type of institution, a type which tends to be particularly powerful and malignant, but with a more fundamental underlying problem being the institution qua institution?

  But how do you Marc, or others here, feel about the idea that institutionalization is generally best avoided? That is my perspective, not necessarily mainstream libertarian thinking. Curious to hear folks' thoughts...

  In the meantime, in the spirit of doing, I'd like to see whether anyone would like to get together with me and do some #EndTheLockdown or other Covid-19 related sidewalk chalking! I've got chalk and my schedule is pretty open.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
(415) 625-FREE

P.S. – Melanie Morgan (conservative former KSF radio host) and Melanie Swanson are the same person?

I'm responding to this email on the LPSF-Discuss@yahoogroups.com list rather than here, because at this point the thread (or at least this part of it) is not about activism, but has become more general discussion.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

It is, Michael? If you unknowingly catch the virus and transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and that person dies, did you commit aggression against them because you should have stayed home and avoided contact with others in order to reduce the likelihood of your catching and spreading the virus?

  Is this true of all infectious diseases, regardless of their mortality rates, or is there some threshhold? Should everyone who has a common cold be expected to stay home in order to avoid committing aggression, since someone out there who already has serious health problems might catch that cold from you and die as a result of their pre-existing conditions? What if you only might have a cold, and you don't even know for sure? Should we all wear face masks in public all the time, year-in-year-out, to reduce the risk of our spreading germs by randomly sneezing when around other people? Clearly not, I assume we can agree, but where do you draw the line and why?

  I'm not seeing how applying the Non-Aggression Principle here is a clear-cut matter.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

If you transmit a disease to someone and they die as in your hypothetical, you violated the NAP. If you transmit a disease to someone and they’re not harmed you did not.

I’m happy to answer further questions one at a time. I prefer to avoid long discussions by text. Feel free to call 24/7.

  It is, Michael? If you unknowingly catch the virus and transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and they transmit it to someone else, and that person dies, did you commit aggression against them because you should have stayed home and avoided contact with others in order to reduce the likelihood of your catching and spreading the virus?

  Is this true of all infectious diseases, regardless of their mortality rates, or is there some threshhold? Should everyone who has a common cold be expected to stay home in order to avoid committing aggression, since someone out there who already has serious health problems might catch that cold from you and die as a result of their pre-existing conditions? What if you only might have a cold, and you don't even know for sure? Should we all wear face masks in public all the time, year-in-year-out, to reduce the risk of our spreading germs by randomly sneezing when around other people? Clearly not, I assume we can agree, but where do you draw the line and why?

  I'm not seeing how applying the Non-Aggression Principle here is a clear-cut matter.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

I’d prefer to make a short statement by text. If one has a deficient immune system by nature, or allows their immune system to be vulnerable through personal decisions, or if one puts themselves in a position of catching a disease by not quarantining their own weak immune systems, then catching an infectious disease from another individual and possibly dying would not be a violation of NAP by the infecting party. Personal responsibility is a critical factor.

Mike

Hi all,

It's been interesting reading your opinions. Here's mine!

A lot of us are concerned about the government's management of lockdowns. They are most likely inefficient, illegal, and politically influenced.

Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to the prevalence and severity of the disease. Our partial reliance on official government counts further obfuscates the real threat posed by COVID-19.

That being said, a month ago, there were 110 deaths reported in the US due to COVID-19, and now there are 37,175 reported deaths. There are horrific reports of military trucks carrying away bodies from Italian streets, corpses piled in American retirement facilities, and satellite images of mass graves in Iran.

People are scared. *Nobody* has enough information to be sure that hCoV-19 is relatively harmless.

I cannot imagine anything that would be more damaging to liberty than a public protest. Doing so is insensitive and arrogant at best, and homicidal at worst.

* We aren't unified: many libertarians believe that spreading COVID-19 is in violation of NAP

* We aren't unified: many libertarians against government shelter-in-place orders support sheltering in place

* Is it civil disobedience or obedience? Trump is supporting protests by telling people (only in States with Democratic governors...) to "liberate." Most people in SF would just perceive us as being Trump-supporting sheep.

* It is heartless when we have an opportunity to show compassion. People, especially our seniors, are afraid to go outside. You could call your neighbors and ask if they need anything. Or you could get yourself on the news for violating social distancing and make seniors fear that their isolation will be extended indefinitely.

* The public sentiment online is that libertarians:
* are unrealistic. We need government because people are idiotic and irresponsible.
* libertarians are arrogant and selfish, and
* libertarians are just contrarians (see attached pic)

We can either prove these people right, or we can prove them wrong.

There are many examples showing that the government's response to COVID-19 has been ineffective and ruthless, including:

* The CDC originally told universities and private labs not to develop testing capacity.

* The White House overruled a CDC recommendation against elderly people taking commercial flights.

* The CDC told people masks were ineffective, in spite of available scientific evidence.

* FDA has interfered with the availability of hand sanitizer and ventilators.

* The Government has spent over a decade to buy ventilators and failed.

* Anti-price-gouging laws in CA prevent the sale of essential goods at a price 10% more than is typical, and therefore masks can only be imported / sold at a financial loss.

* Government's inevitable failure at managing the crisis has inevitably resulted in a massive expansion of power, including a $2T bailout, which is already being mismanaged, and a declaration that protests and religion are non-essential, but marijuana dispensaries are essential.

Furthermore, this crisis has revealed the fundamental promise of libertarianism:

* Testing capacity has been quickly developed by universities and private companies, once regulations were eased. Companies have volunteered their equipment and employees to help.

* Many companies encouraged social distancing (WFH, cancelling conferences, sneeze guards at coffee shops) long before it was officially mandated.

* Independent organizations have been aggregating epidemiological statistics and projections, albeit most of them depend, in part, on competency of local health departments.

* Conventional news and social media have provided a diversity of perspectives, which on average seem to have been more trustworthy and informative than official briefings.

* Philanthropists have provided medical tents, distributed ventilators, and are funding vaccine development.

* Dozens of regulations have been rolled back that have had the intention and effect of easing everyday life and accelerating medical progress

There are many ways to do activism that focus on the issues where (1) most libertarians agree, and (2) everyone else would not find abhorrent. Here are some ideas:

* Import / sell masks at 11% over the typical cost and then fight the repercussions in court. (IMO, it would have been great to protest via wearing a mask, back when that was not recommended.)

* Educate people on the Government's inevitable failures, and free-market alternatives

* Volunteer (or work) to help do research or participate in a study.

* Show that government isn't needed by acting responsibly!!

Life and Liberty,

Jeffrey Yunes

IMG_2629.JPG

KCBS radio this morning happened to say that San Francisco has the best record in the nation (among large cities) for keeping the virus down. Various people I know have mentioned they have civic pride because they feel the governments of the bay area have done a good job.

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

I think many people would reduce Mike D.'s position ad absurdum:

"If Alice drives her car into Bob, was it Bob's fault for going outside with a fragile human body?"

However, I mostly agree with Mike, in favor of conservative definitions of what is unethical behavior / violence.

It's for reasons like this that I think NAP has limitations. I prefer simply, "violence is a really bad way to solve problems" instead. In this case, the answer to that hypothetical is "maybe."

Alice's fault) If Alice has a business dispute with Bob and tried to resolve it via hitting him with her car, then it would be unethical.
Not Alice's fault) If Alice simply made a mistake and/or Bob crossed a street without looking, then it is tragic, but not unethical.

Michael,
  
  This is technically two questions, but please feel free to address them one at a time. Here's a hypothetical. You are traveling in a part of the world beset by frequent acts of terrorism and unbeknownst to you, someone places a bomb in your tote bag, which you unwittingly carry into a supermarket where it blows up and kills some people. Have you committed aggression? Is unwittingly acquiring and transmitting a disease different from unwittingly acquiring and transmitting a bomb?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Typical San Franciscans patting themselves on the back. Don’t sprain anything. It doesn’t hurt to have one of the healthiest and most affluent populations in the US. That’s in spite of the government. Thank the Silicon Valley.

My friend is an ICU surgeon at SF General says the ICU is no more full now than it ever was. They planned on 200% growth due to the virus. It didn’t happen. And now Stanford comes out with a statistic saying they estimate 80K additional people in Santa Clara county alone contracted the virus without even hardly knowing about it.

But a lot of people sure did lose their jobs and possibly their businesses. A friend of mine had an irritation in her eye and called her eye doctor. He refused to see her in person but agreed to an “on-line” consultation. He diagnosed conjunctivitis and prescribed an anti-biotic. But it was herpes, and now she’s permanently blind in that eye.

Another couple with 2 kids decided he would quit his job and she would put him through aviation school. He quits his job, the school is closed due to virus, she loses her job due to virus and loses her insurance, and then has a stroke. The hospital sends her a $55K bill and graciously allows them to pay in $5K payments. They are both unemployed with 2 kids.

Would someone please explain “flattening the curve” to these people. Who is keeping a ledger on the incredible damage done by this fraud of a government induced panic? Here’s an interesting article.

https://fee.org/articles/do-states-owe-businesses-just-compensation/

Will States Owe Businesses Just Compensation for Forced Closures When the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over?

Makes sense to me….

Mike

[Image]

Here's my protest

20200418_100414.jpg

And now Stanford comes out with a statistic saying they estimate 80K additional people in Santa Clara county alone contracted the virus without even hardly knowing about it.

I have some access to a group of Berkeley senior faculty working on COVID-19 testing and research. They shared this paper a few days ago, with two comments:

1) "They claim a specificity of 99.5% -- and are making bold claims based on it - but this seems implausibly high."
2) "Agree. So many unresolved issues in this preprint, beyond the actual test kit used. To quote, if specificity <97.9%, lower bound of estimate drops to zero. (!)"

As you know, this is not peer reviewed, but a preprint. I think it still might have merit, and there have been a bunch of other reports suggesting a high-ish prevalence. I'm planning on reading it today.

Jeff

I know I am going to get pilloried for this, but I do agree with Jeff Yunes.. I seems to me to be callously indifferent to those who die from a infectious disease to insist that everybody always has a total right to do whatever they want.

Yes, I agree that governmentally enforced lockdowns violate people’s right to liberty, but how is that any worse than refusing to do something that might save some lives.

Yes, I am well aware that government powers once assumed a difficult to roll back, but then allowing a disease to spread thru a population creates a demand for more government.

Yes, I am very much aware that government makes a mess of nearly everything it gets involved in. But then, the only people who never do anything wrong are people who never do anything. Hindsight is always better than foresight.

Les Mangus

F108468B24DC4901B2E6E93312F63A7C.png

Michael:

How can you be so sure wearing face masks is stupid?

Are you saying that it is ineffectual or that it is a violation of someone’s right to liberty?

Les

image002.png

F108468B24DC4901B2E6E93312F63A7C.png

20200418_100414.jpg

Making it a law is stupid.

Mike

20200418_100414.jpg

image002.png

Maybe it needs clarification….any suggestions?

Mike

20200418_100414.jpg

image002.png

[Image]

Hat tip to Les for a clarificatio.

20200418_100414.jpg

image002.png

20200418_124507.jpg

Thank you for the clarification.

I can only say that for my part I would (and do) wear a face mask, if I thought there was even a infinitely small chance that it would be effective in preventing someone from contracting a disease. To refuse to do on the grounds that it violates my personal liberty or any other grounds seems to me to be callous indifference to other people’s rights and lives. And I think that a Libertarian insistence on the primacy of personal liberty is going to strike most people as callousness and selfishness.

But I guess “de gustibus non est disputandum”. Basic tastes are beyond dispute.

Les

image002.png

image003.jpg

F108468B24DC4901B2E6E93312F63A7C.png

image002.png

20200418_124507.jpg

In the end, it will be herd immunity that comes from our own natural systems that beats this. So not a big fan of the “precautionary principle”. We just have to get it and get over it. And early anti-body test evidence is that there may be 50-85 times the number of people who have already gotten it than have been reported. So the Lockdown is actually preventing society from becoming immune. No wonder we see the establishment wanting it to continue until a vaccine is developed. Without the lockdown, we’ll probably all have natural immunity by the time the vaccine is developed.

And there are many doctors saying there is no proof that the lockdowns are working anyways. Here’s one.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/17/theres-no-direct-evidence-that-the-lockdowns-are-working/

Whenever everyone is on one-side of opinions, boats or trades….something is usually amiss.

Mike

20200418_124507.jpg

image002.png

image003.jpg