[ruytlm]

As an Australian, and a Victorian, this article is inflammatory US-centric crap.

The Australian state of Victoria, which has had some of the harshest lockdowns, has a bill of rights, and has had for some 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Charter_of_Human_Rig...

Unlike the United States, Australia does not so universally place individual freedom on an unassailable pedestal, to be placed above all things at all times; instead, some of us actually have some concept of social duty and obligation, and an appreciation that our actions affect others around us.

Rights have corresponding duties; my freedoms come with a duty to protect others, and I am happy to do so. How controversial, to be willing to make personal sacrifice for the greater good of the nation and its people.

This article does raise some valid concerns about freedom in Australia - the raiding of press offices, and attempts at backdooring encryption. But while I find those an affront to freedom, I will gladly wear a mask and stay indoors so that other people won't suffer and die a horrible death from a miserable fuck of a virus.

Australians did not protest against lockdowns; selfish idiots who happen to be Australian did.

[edit: Also, we Victorians are now out of lockdown, because a quick, hard lockdown got the outbreak under control. The article seems to imply our freedoms are somehow restricted because we chose to NOT DIE by preventing the spread of the virus. Unbelievable.]

[fighterpilot]

I prefer to frame it as a trade-off between one's individual rights (freedom of movement) with another's individual rights (freedom to not get infected with a dangerous contagious disease). If we do it this way, we can bypass some people's inbuilt defensive reactions, as well as really get to the core of whether it makes sense to have lockdowns.

The flu is a rather deadly contagious disease (much less so than COVID) that we don't have lockdowns for. Where is the exact point in terms of disease-deadliness + lockdown-effectiveness where lockdowns are morally justified, versus where they aren't? Presumably it's some point between the flu's deadliness and COVID's deadliness. Where is that point? This is a public conversation that hasn't happened.

> Australians did not protest against lockdowns; selfish idiots who happen to be Australian did.

There's nothing inherently wrong with protesting against lockdowns. Australia is a democracy and not everyone is going to agree that lockdowns are justified policy. The problem was the way that people are protesting lockdowns - grouping up with no mask, which entails a massive negative externality. If they want to stand alone on a sidewalk with a sign and a mask, such protest should be fine by everyone in a healthy democracy. I think you probably accept this already, I just wanted to clarify.

[hilbert42]

"Where is that point? This is a public conversation that hasn't happened."

Very true, there hasn't been any debate despite the efforts of many who foresaw this crisis happening. Right, we've had many warnings that that day would arrive and it's arrived right on cue.

However, it's not surprising there's been no debate for several reasons. The first is that in the absence of an imminent threat, apathy and hedonism reign over sense and prudence; and second, in western post-WWII societies, individualism has trounced on the older once-accepted notion of the collective good being more important than any one single individual is. Gone too are frightening fire-and-brimstone edicts from pulpits that damned those who failed to do the right thing.

That said, I'd contend that the debate is hardly necessary (at least among thinking people) given the upheaval—chaos, deaths, etc.—that COVID has brought to the whole globe. Its effects are easily an order of magnitude greater than that of influenza.

I accept that this isn't enough for some. What their threshold would be is hard to say. However we do know from history that by the time one in three are dying and bodies litter the streets as with medieval plagues then everyone is terrified into submission.

[smt88]

> this article is inflammatory US-centric crap

You may not be familiar, but Reason.com is largely distorted fear-mongering.

I wish there were a true mainstream, libertarian publication (even though I'm not a libertarian, I think we need the counterpoint view). Unfortunately Reason is not internally consistent and often relies on clickbait fear-mongering instead of focusing on the most salient threats to freedom (e.g. ongoing attempts to disable US democracy).

[hilbert42]

"Australians did not protest against lockdowns; selfish idiots who happen to be Australian did."

This is very true and it's escaped much of the American press that reported it. Unfortunately, the blind side of many Americans is that they seem unable to add nuance to the word freedom which puts them at odds with much of the rest of the world. Without nuance, to them freedom is a black and white/all-or-nothing issue, which when boiled down means that they should be able to do whatever they damn well like irrespective of the wishes and rights of others.

What they fail to realize is that other citizens also have rights and that one of the most important is the right not to be killed by a virus spread by damn ideological fools who either do not know or accept the fact that with rights come responsibilities. If they want to live in a democratic society then they have to accept the minimum standards set by that society, if not then they've the option of opting out and living somewhere in the wilderness.

They also fail to realize that the arbiter of those rights is democracy itself and that's why we have governments who then set the limits on what they can and cannot do. If they fail to accept the rules then in effect they are rejecting democracy itself. As Churchill once said, democracy is far from perfect but it's the best system we have.

As I pointed out in post to another COVID story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27793470) about a week ago:

"<...> many seem to forget the a priori reason for government is to keep the citizenry safe—safe from the threat of outsiders, and safe from insiders who wish to harm their fellow citizens, they're justification for the military and law enforcement respectfully.

Incidentally, I expect Government to keep my fellow citizens and me safe; if it doesn't then it has failed in its mission."

For those slow-on-the-uptake here's what this means: in normal society if we have a dangerous individual roaming around threatening citizens with a gun then we have law enforcement arrest him to minimize the danger. With COVID, the best advice available has told us that people should not associate with others and isolate themselves, and if that is the consensus of the democratic process then that's what should happen (they can criticize but not block the edict). In effect, those who disobey the edict are no different to the guy wielding a gun and thus we need to restrict their freedoms as they're endangering the lives of others.

Thus, mandated lockdowns are made in the light of utilitarian considerations; that means they are democratic decisions made to provide the greatest good or benefit to the greatest number of citizens. That said, in the current heated political climate, nothing I say—or anyone for that matter—is likely to alter the distorted logic that's catapulted the debate in the US (and elsewhere) over the notion of freedom up into the realms of religious zealotry.

Unfortunately, like veganism and other 'special' subjects where debate has been stilted through political orthodoxy, this subject cannot be rationally debated in the current political climate. I only have to look at my posts to the aforementioned HN story to attest to that. There, I was accused of flaming even though my comments were made in general against those who weren't prepared to accept that others also had rights. When others aren't prepared even to listen to the arguments then I reckon that's a tragedy for free speech.

" This article does raise some valid concerns about freedom in Australia - the raiding of press offices, and attempts at backdooring encryption. But while I find those an affront to freedom, I will gladly wear a mask and stay indoors so that other people won't suffer and die a horrible death from a miserable fuck of a virus."

This situation is very different to the above scenario over COVID and is something that I consider very worrying and disconcerting. Unlike the COVID debate, these moves by government are authoritarian and little by little, we are moving towards a totalitarian state. In my opinion, we all would be much better off if these idiot COVID protestors put their efforts into objecting to these government intrusions into our freedoms, as demonstrably we've already lost some of them that were hard won over the past few centuries. Unfortunately, I realize that's just wishful thinking on my part.