That's a very American way of thinking, just the kind of reasoning that allowed Facebook to almost destroy your democracy.
I'm aware that discussing free speech on any platform is a fool's errand, but at some point somebody has to say that making people angry is profitable and facilitated through the US concept of giving anyone a platform to say anything with very little consequences.
And the last four years really showed how far it can go.
> They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another
People never ever learn. Wearing a mask has become a political struggle, people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally, like you software dev and Marine officer would.
> people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally
And that's fine. If you're going to live in a so-called "free" society, part of that "freedom" means people have to be "free" to make stupid choices, even if those stupid choices kill them.
Covid is so dangerous because you don't know when you're infected. People don't show symptoms for about 10 days after getting covid, and they're infectious long before symptoms appear. By the time you know you're infected with covid, you can easily have given it to someone else - and they could have already given it to another person in turn!
Here in Australia we're dealing with quarantine outbreaks by ring fencing. When we have a confirmed case, we isolate everyone that person has been in contact with, and also isolate everyone they've been in contact with as well. So, one confirmed case -> we lock down hundreds of people. This is the only way we've found to keep outbreaks under control without locking down entire cities.
The policy of only wearing a mask when you feel sick is nowhere near enough to stop you from infecting & potentially killing people.
I'm really not clear on what you're advocating here. Going out in public without a mask increases the risk of transmitting the virus to other people, possibly killing them. In this case one person's freedoms impinge on another's.
Risk is a part of life, driving a car puts people at risk. Going out with a mask also puts people at risk. Coal and nuclear power put people at risk.
You can’t eliminate risk by restricting people’s rights, at some point the restrictions cause more measureable harm and risk of future harm than they eliminate.
We restrict people's rights all the time. You don't have the right to drive drunk, or fly a drone around an airport or raise a false fire alarm in a crowded theater etc etc. Society is a balancing act of one person's freedoms vs another.
Why should I have to endure life threating extra risk for something that's a trivial inconvenience on your part like wearing a mask?
I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore.
> Why should I have to endure life threating extra risk for something that's a trivial inconvenience on your part like wearing a mask?
This question can be reasonably applied to any restriction on anyone’s liberty and the answer is that we always have to strike a balance and there will always be people like yourself who are unhappy with where that balance lies.
> I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore.
I’m glad that you sought out a community that strikes a balance more to your liking but you should probably consider that libertarians in the US do not consider the balance between personal freedom and social risk in the US to be representative of their values. The US is a neoliberal country, not a libertarian country. And that’s fine, and that’s also not for everyone, people who find themselves too far from the center of discourse should find a community where they are more at home. The world is a big place.
And that's why we have driver licences, clean air laws, NRC.
You can't just subject other people to risk because you want to, since it is the community who is going to pay the price, it is the community that decides how to restrict the rights.
(Granted, the process for making that decision is not always the best, but unfortunately this is the only one we have)
Oh I agree 100%. This is why there is constant tension between people who want less restrictions and people who want more. We are always striking an imperfect balance.
“A good compromise leaves everybody mad.” -Bill Watterson
I'm aware that discussing free speech on any platform is a fool's errand, but at some point somebody has to say that making people angry is profitable and facilitated through the US concept of giving anyone a platform to say anything with very little consequences.
And the last four years really showed how far it can go.
> They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another
People never ever learn. Wearing a mask has become a political struggle, people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally, like you software dev and Marine officer would.