Yes, it would be nice to know when you can intervene and when not; however, apart for reasons like stated above you'd need a crystal ball to predict what will the outcome be, was it ever worth the price. Also, do this a few times and nobody will even bother with freedom anymore, as precedent has been set.

But would we need a crystal ball? We all knew COVID was bullshit from the beginning. We were right. It certainly wasn't proven to be oh-so-dangerous like they claim. Obviously, to limit freedom for the greater good would require actual good evidence, not just unsubstantiated claims and mass hysteria like with the coof.

And so in that situation, we correctly predicted the outcome of their and our views. We predicted that ours would lead to a good outcome and theirs to a bad outcome. So it is absolutely possible to predict the outcomes, and if we do fuck up, we change it. This isn't hard in a properly functioning system.

Now, in the case where the government implements intentional tyranny with the support of most people, it doesn't matter what system you have. The fact that people will claim they are doing the righteous and just thing, even when they knowingly or unknowingly aren't, isn't an argument against any specific system. The system has to have integrity, or it doesn't matter.

So, if it is OK to throw away freedom for noble causes, it is OK to do so now. No higher principle.

It is absolutely ok to throw away freedom for noble causes, for two reasons:

1. Freedom is a means to an end, the end being a good society. If it was the other way around, freedom would include the freedom to infringe on other people's rights. As we both know, it doesn't, and the reason it doesn't is because that doesn't lead to a good society and is unjust.

2. Any society that allows immorality collapses. It is inevitably overcome by immorality, and that evidently leads to collapse. Just compare historically Muslim countries to historically Christian countries. One religion was created by Satan, and the other one is true and good. If you allow immorality for freedom's sake, collapse will follow.

The issue here isn't throwing away freedom for noble causes. It's throwing away freedom for ignoble causes. To conflate the two is asinine. To reject the idea that we can discern between the two is to accept the modernist leftist ideology that says we can't know objective truth and all the shit that comes along with that, like "men can become women" and "some children actually "want" to be in a sexual relationship with a 40-year-old gay man".

Nobody is arguing you should be free to break neighbour's windows because you are free. That's the argument of the left, and why you can do less and less shit, all for noble causes.

Firstly, yes, that is why I presented that statement as a supporting argument to my other statement that calling something just doesn't make it just, which itself was a supporting argument to my prior claim which is that we can know what is actually just versus unjust despite the covid crazies also thinking they're right.

Secondly, all laws obviously reduce freedom. All laws also legislate morality. The problem isn't reducing freedom, it's reducing freedom in an unjust and immoral manner. And justice and morality don't only cover things that "infringe" upon other people.

And as a bonus, I find these statements to be bullshit. My initial thought is always, "who the fuck are you, and how do you know what anybody other than yourself is arguing?"

Also, it's the same argument lefties use when they try to ban guns.

Also, also, I'm sure I could get plenty of people to argue that, in a hypothetical world where the coof is extremely deadly and masks work perfectly, freedom still means being able to go to the store without a mask and kill grandma.

I feel that for last couple for decades, freedom didn't have the best press. Actually, people insisted on being the smarter, righteous and other nice sounding adjectives, freedom was for rednecks or other local slur.

This argument is one of the best I've seen. It's admittedly hard to make any claims about the effects of the increasing freedom of society after the enlightenment, when in reality we have a facade of freedom at best (it'd be like commies calling free market capitalism bad. We don't have it, so how do they know it's bad).

Still, it's quite evident that many of the problems are the result of the increased "freedom". Sure, it's hard to tell what society would look like under a truly free system, but it's still possible to identify that reduced freedom isn't why so many are obese and addicted, nor is it why virtue is nearly non-existent. People live maybe the most hedonistic and narcissistic lives in human history, and if you asked them why, their answer would most likely be some variant of the word "freedom". e.g. "Because I can", "how does it affect you", etc.

And another thing is, you're using positive words in a negative way. Obviously, you're making it out that the people using these words to justify reducing freedom are full of shit, but if it was indeed the case that reducing freedom would make us smarter, more righteous, and any other nice sounding adjectives, that's 100% what we should do as a society. The alternative is living in a shit, but free, society. That's the result of freedom being the end and not the means.

So I'd argue it is the case that society would be better banning certain things. The goal should be to figure out what those things are. Currently, it seems only one side is trying to do this, and it's the delusional side that contains so little true virtue that all they can do is signal fake virtue. Meanwhile, our side is split seemingly between conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning types, which means while the left acts as a tyrannical bloc, we can't agree what is actually worth legislating. No wonder we've been failing for so long.

How's the social decay going?

I don't know, take a look around any leftist shithole city where freedom runs rampant. You know, the freedom to piss in the streets, shoot up heroin in the streets, have sex in the streets, live on the streets in a shitty tent, steal anything you want as long as it doesn't cost too much, murder people, show your dick to children as long as you have enough rainbow flags with you, chop off your own genitals, etc.

Freedom is clearly not a virtue. Most of those things don't even infringe on anyone else except for the theft, murder, and child abuse.

If they made all those things illegal, and actually enforced the laws, their cities would improve massively. This would happen because it isn't about freedom, but morality. If all your laws ban everything good and allow everything bad, your society will suck. If all your laws ban everything bad and allow everything good, your society will flourish. And again, this includes banning bad things that don't infringe on anyone else.

In this case, you'd have people lining up for their mRNA shot absolutely freewillingly

And what about those who don't? Force them to get it? Force them to social distance? Force them to stay home? Or allow them to kill grandma because "freedom"?

It is synonymous though, and honestly, would actually be reasonable in this line of thought:

Maybe so. It would be hard to actually know who has it or not, and fuck some kind of gay ass "registry". Privacy is important, and privacy doesn't mesh well with detailed tracking of every citizen, obviously.

Though I'd say, it's absolutely possible to identify people who are going out in public with symptoms and tell them to go home, somewhere alone, somewhere with other sick people, or somewhere with people who don't mind. It'd be no different from the police booting someone out of Walmart for indecent exposure. They address it when they see it, but don't go to nude beaches and start making mass arrests.

There can absolutely be a middle ground between freedom to do what you want during an alleged pandemic and a medical tyranny. It shouldn't be a free-for-all if an actual deadly disease appears, but we don't need to lock down the world and force inject people, either.

The option shouldn't be "let me do whatever I want, or you might as well shoot me". It should be "let me take my unvaxxed grandma who isn't afraid of dying of the coof to the empty beach near my house". That's freedom properly understood.

if I understand right, around half your country, and all of blue cities, would gladly feel righteous and just again, drowning in tingles as they are better than those grandma murdering freedom lovers, so this thought experiment may materialize faster than anybody of us would want.

I think it's less than half. They like to make it seem like it's half or a majority, though.

And the difference would be that, while in my thought experiment the coof was deadly and the vax is safe, in reality, the coof is benign and the vax is deadly, so they can feel how they want, but it's not just and righteous to reimplement their bullshit.

Their feelings don't matter. Just like feelings don't matter in science, feelings don't matter when determining the right course of action in government. It's about what is true, and that CAN be discovered.