🇳🇱
@Pat Yes I figured that is what you were thinking of it in terms of (though i disagree about their guidelines being premature, or that they were good guidelines to begin with).
I am just giving another interpretation of the same metaphor.
And yes of course we lost rights, we lost the right to determine for ourselves what is medically effective. The right to peacefully assemble, for example, is a pretty fundamental right. You can argue revoking the rights were justified, thats another argument, but there is no doubt rights were revoked.
I think we agree on the right to assemble and the right to control your own body with regard to medical procedures that don't effect others. I think only a few jurisdictions actually tried to prevent people from gathering in a private setting (e.g., churches). Nearly all of the policies from the states were guidelines and not mandates.
Although an environmental argument could be made against actions that promote the spread of the virus and cause more virulent strains, kind of like regulations against dumping too much of some particular toxin into a river... I haven't thought that argument completely through though.
@Pat like i said, the policies themselves are debatable, but it seems we agree that it was, for better or worse, a limiting of our rights. So to the original point it is somewhat expected that people dont have much trust or comfort in a government restricting our rights for longer. People dont trust the government so like the marshmallow test we will take our rights now cause we dont trust we will get them at all if we wait.
This may seem like a fine point, but I assign a very specific meaning to the word "rights" in this context.
Some of our freedom was limited by the virus, but not our rights. An analogy is if there is a flood (a natural disaster) that floods out a road. We can no longer drive on the road, but the flood didn't take away our rights, it limited our freedom. Authorities may recommend that we do not attempt to drive on the road because of the danger. They may even have reason to prohibit that action in some circumstances (if some jerk gets stuck in the water and needs to be rescued while emergency personnel are busy helping others; or if the guy is driving a bus and he tries to drive through the water and endangers the passengers on bus.)
I see the limits on our freedom as happening because of the natural disaster of the virus, not because of the appropriate limits that flow from that natural disaster. (And yes, there were some authorities who used the situation for a power grab, but most didn't. Most States had suggested guidelines, not mandates.)
Except you cant just make up your own definitions. The definition of a right is "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;"
Ergo you cant separate out freedom from rights. While you may not want a right to exist, or even think such a right existing is harmful. The definition of a right is well established.
It seems like to me your on a euphemism treatmill. You're trying to redefine words you deem as positive or negative so as to be associated with your opinion in a purely positive light. I dont usually find that to be a productive practice. It also isnt terribly constructive as it reduces most conversations to semantics rather than meaningful content.
There is also a big difference between a road flooding and thus causing you not to cross it vs the government stopping people from crossing it as a result of the flooding. I could have a large wheeled 4x4 more than capable of safely crossing the road, someone with a regular car cant, they are free to evaluate if their situation is safe and despite the road being flooded still has the **right** to cross it (though may lack the means), unless the government takes that right away.
Take that analogy to the virus, the virus would have made it wise not to have public gatherings, and thus many people would have chosen not to. That isnt a restriction of ones rights, just as the river flooding is not. But the second the government sets it as a rule and disallows public gatherings its a very different situation and there is no way, short of denying the dictionary definition of the word, you cant see that as a revocation of ones rights.\
There is a very specific difference between a right and a freedom. A freedom can be limited from many sources, such as a lack of means, or even just the laws of physics. A freedom can also be limited through a proscribed restriction, in which case it is also a limit on one's rights. A right exists in the context of a society -- your rights imply that someone else recognize them. This is the difference between the two concepts.
Pre-pandemic, society had an understanding about what rights would be recognized by society based on the conditions of our situation and upon reasoned extrapolation of certain values.
When the pandemic hit, the situation changed, and a reasoned extrapolation of our values under that new situation formed a slightly different set of specific rights. That's all.
Some people are not very good at change. They don't like it. And many don't have a very deep understanding of where rights come from or how the recognition of those rights have been developed (hint - rights aren't given to us by the government). So when the situation changes and requires a quick re-extrapolation of our fundamental principles to meet the new challenge, they become confused or even restive. They believe that the pre-pandemic set of specific rights are absolute even if the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others under the new situation.
This is what has happened during the pandemic.
> There is a very specific difference between a right and a freedom.
Again, we dont get to make up our own definitions for things. These words are well established and well defined.
Freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Right: "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;"
You cant distinguish them as different categories just because it suits you.. A freedom is what you get when a right is granted, a freedom is ones execution of a right.
But as I said debating semantics is silly, these words are already defined for us so we dont have to invent language as we go. Its even more silly when we try to redefine words simply because it makes our opinions sound less harsh to people, that gets us nowhere.
@Pat The only way I can interprit what you said in a meaningful way is that you are confusing the general idea of "right" with "natural rights" which are a subset.
Actually, the meanings of words are continually changing over time and always subject to interpretation, especially these words, which have broad meaning.
But, as you say, we don't even need to get into semantics. Using the definitions you provide, what I said makes complete sense. "Freedom" is a broader term and "rights" has narrower scope which derives meaning in the context of society.
What I said makes complete sense and is totally reasonable given those definitions you provided.
@Pat Well you were trying to claim freedom and rights were different categories of things...
But right in the definition it clearly states that freedom is the right to act, and that a right is a principle of freedom.
There is no categorical difference between them as you suggest, freedoms and rights are the same thing as the definitions suggest.
Moreover rights are not limited in scope to society. That can easily be debunked by understanding the category of natural rights which by definition are rights one has regardless of society.
You know what, let me say again what I said before without using those words...
Before the pandemic, people could do a lot of things that didn't particularly effect others or cause harm to others. So under those circumstances, those things that people did were just fine with society.
When the pandemic hit, some of those same things that people did before the pandemic, now effected others and could cause harm to others. Therefore, those specific things that can now cause harm to others are no longer okay. That means that people can no longer do those specific things anymore without potentially causing harm to others. So society now says that it is better if people avoid doing those things. Ethics says that people should not do those specific things that can now cause harm to others.
Before the pandemic, those things didn't cause harm, so they were okay.
During the pandemic, those things cause harm, so they should be avoided.
That's my point...
It's simple.
@Pat Sure, but that "point" is not one that was being argues or in disagreement with anything I said.
Like I said rights were taken away, people dont trust that and thus arent particularly patient with getting them back, as they are scared they may not.
At no point did I say that people should be out **exercising** their rights, nor did I say whether it was good or bad that governments decided to revoke those rights. So your arguing for a point that I intentionally avoided so as not to go down this very tangent.
So my whole point is once you remove the whole semantic discussion of "rights" your "point" is largely an unrelated tangent to what I was saying, which was **my** point :)
Points and tangents. Suddenly we're talking about geometry!
@Pat Admitily a much more interesting topic, at least for me :)
Those kids who don't trust adults are WAY smarter.
@anonymoose
They have done that study 1000 different ways and the result is always as you describe more or less... People really are idiots when in large groups.
@Pat
I understand. But that is basically what people votes.
Besides of the party colors, in California they made the promise that the pandemic will be over in June and in June the pandemic is over here.
Yesterday there were not new deaths by the virus. First time in a long time.
The California state government said it will help people affected by the pandemic and helped they were. Yesterday, the state published that will pay the rent of everybody unable to do it so, offering a clear start.
In Georgia, in the other hand, the government supported the Tuskegee Experiment.
In Texas, people had to pay those huge electric bills without help from the government. And they were lied. And still the local government has full support of its voters...
In America the government is us.
That makes you wonder why some regions support aberrations like the Tuskegee Experiment with no conflict. People there votes the same bad apples again and again.
It is a matter of comfort with those events... I think.
There have been no shortage of lies from the california government in the past.. To pain a governing body as honest, in any capacity, is a huge departure from reality even if we can cherry pick a few examples of carry through.
But your right, I have no idea why people keep voting for democrats and republicans who continually lie.
In Texas, politicians are used to justify each incompetence act and each corruption act with the Lonely Star legend.
When they ran out of explanations, then they start with the "This is the Texan way"
And it is not. It is incompetence or corruption.
And I am talking about decades of this behavior. Si it is not a current government thing.
Again. The Texan "freedom" is not the point. It is the lies of its government and the lack of consequences.
The horrible bills of the last energy crisis on Texas has its origin in the government and its corruption.
But people paid the bills. That is corruption. It does not matter if the is governed by dems or the GOP. It is corruption.
The point is that generally texans strongly oppose overreach of the government. This is specifically one of the "consequences" you speak of, texans have seen how often all politicians from all parties lie and as such dont trust them, the consequence is they generally vote for politicians who support limiting government power.
The end result, therefore, of the lies of the government and its consequences is the freedom texans enjoy. The consequences and freedom are closely related.
Yes texas isnt perfect (and there are more than enough examples of the government screwing up)... but again they must be doing something right considering their freedoms, doesnt mean their perfect.
What consequences? Nobody in Texas can choose to connect to the national grids (there are 2) so those users do not have this problem anymore.
They cannot go to the court to fight against the high bills (because electricity companies are shielded by law).
They are drinking in some places water with brain eating amoeba and they can do nothing about it (except buying bottled water).
I mean, if they like it, OKay. But the fact they cannot defend of the inaction of the government is basically corruption. At the very least they should have the right to go to the court for the last energy crisis.
The last governor said the local government cannot help people with thousands of dollars bills because "it is too complicated".
I do not know...
Complicated is to design an iPhone or travel to the moon. Fixing an electricity bill is easy.
They are just corrupt. And they can do it because this governor will win next elections by providing some consolation with the Lonely Star Legend and the State Wall... tell me about gullible.
What consequences?
that they tend to not vote for politicians who have a platform of increasing government power (regulations, restrictions, funding, etc). This is a direct consequence of governments having violated the trust in the past.
You are talking about a specific incident where texas dropped the ball. I am not claiming texas is perfect, you will find wrong doing from governments in literally every single state, and by the handful.
On the other hand I am speaking more generally and pointing out that part of the consequences, which manifests in how the voters vote, that distrust of the government is why they have some of the greatest freedoms of any state.
But, no state being perfect, there are plenty of examples of problems, but that isnt the best way to evaluate the big picture, by looking at isolated examples.
Generally the voting public are just as gullible in california as they are in georgia.. in fact I might say more so as they continually accept greater and greater government over reach even after repeated violations. In georgia they generally lean more towards limiting the governments reach.
Though I wouldnt really state that either state's voting public is a great example of mindful voters.
We like government. We prefer government approved water supply than Brain Eater Ameba Water supply like in the lonely star.
My home has a government certification that will not fall by eartquakes, will not flood, will save water (with numbers) and it is efficient (with numbers), inspected and approved by the government.
We like it like that.
That is NOT a corruption act, or deception act.
@Pat What I found more interesting about this study is how it was partly debunked by showing that children were not choosing the immediate reward of a single marshmallow over the later reward of several due to an inability to delay gratification. Later studies showed the choice was made because some children lacked trust in adults and simply did not believe and chose the immediate (and certain) reward over a delayed reward they never thought they would get since they were so used to being lied to.
I would say that in any attempt to relate this study to COVID you will find the same sort of thought process holds true. That is, many have lost trust in the government and institutions. They feel if they delay getting their rights back they may not get them back at all.