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