skiindianaHere you go:
What is the actual threat to liberty of being recommended to make some temporary sacrifices for others?
You just described a loss of liberty and asked how is that a threat to liberty? My ability to leave my house and go where I please on public land should NEVER be limited. Not for a day, not for a week. It is not up to anyone to decide if I should 'make sacrifices for others'. Free will is not based on what you want me to do or what the government thinks is best.
Do you believe you will not get all your freedom back?
It doesn't matter if I get it back... I do not go outside with permission from the government. Ever.
If someone's freedom takes away freedom from someone else, how do you decide who deserves to have it?
This question doesn't make sense. My freedom to go outside doesn't inhibit the ability of anyone to go outside. You might argue it increases the risk of some population, but how does their increase in risk take away my freedom? Do cars make walking on the street more risky? No one 'deserves' freedom - you are entitled to it and no one can take it away.
What qualifies anyone to decide which losses are acceptable, and can a right to lifestyle win over a right to life?
Again this question doesn't make sense and is just loaded nonsense based on your existing belief that people who want to go outside are unwilling to sacrifice convenience for lives. If you don't want COVID stay the fuck inside. My life and well-being includes me going outside. No one is making you do anything, but you're arguing that I should be forced to do something. That is an untenable argument.
Free will means I can do what I want. It means you can do what you want too.
Seriously thanks for actually taking the time.
1. I don't think I described a loss of liberty. An important detail is that we make the choice to follow recommendations and a general social commitment for the greater good, and I believe that would still preserve freedom as you've described it. Choosing when to exercise your freedoms and when to play along for others is what reflects on character in this situation.
2. You'd need permission to go outside if you were in jail. Sorry I know it's not totally relevant since all the actions we're talking about are legal, but an elephant in the room is that society has happily drawn that line and agreed on laws based on decency. These reserve the right to limit freedoms of those who don't play nice. Ironically, the USA seems to have an obsession with incarceration as well. I know that stems from capitalist drivers in a privatized system and is its own can of worms, but still. You don't live in a country or world in which you would always have freedom to walk outside [of a fenced courtyard].
3. By definition and in isolation you're right. You going outside does not in itself inhibit anyone from going outside - risk aside. But if you are responsible for someone being hospitalized and losing their ability to be mobile in the future I think the question stands. If one group of people's actions knowingly limit the viability and potential of another demographic's livelihood, I believe that is even oppressive. I think freedom in its execution is a bit more complex than you describe it.
You could make the argument that cars do make walking (and driving) more risky, but within a socially agreed upon threshold. There are rules and licenses to bind you to them to make travel safer - with speed limits, separated sidewalks and standardized signage that you agree to follow or you lose your freedoms. These laws were created soon after the automobile became popularized, precisely because it became dangerous in the streets and people were being irresponsible. Your example is actually only a manageable risk today as a result of a huge amount of regulation and compliance.
4. You've definitely mischaracterized my beliefs and my argument. Nobody is suggesting locking people inside. In fact we are suggesting that everyone will go outside whether they want to be or not. I went skiing locally this weekend, and I'm going to hang in a park and pop by a local brewery tonight now that the health officer has given the green light. I'll just make some adjustments so I interact with as few people as possible and take as little risk as I can.
My argument is simply that we should weigh the value of our well-being against the value of other people's lives while we choose the details of where we go and what we do. You've chosen your particular way you go about your life to reach your well-being so far, and you are free to choose whatever alternatives you want to based on your situation and the evidence provided. If you really think making sacrifices would pose as significant harm to you as death would to an elderly person (and their family), then hey you've probably got some shit going on and I wish you the best.
I recognize at this point we're both talking in hyperbole and pushing some hypothetical extremes, but it seems like a useful way to hone in on the choices we make and why we make them. Thanks for shedding some light, and while I disagree with you I think I understand the position. Time for a beer.