Yes, I do agree with it.
Why? Because I am a Libertarian who believes that each individual should have a right to choose how to act, or react to any given situation. That they are also responsible for anything they do, or knowingly fail to do as a result.
As long as one's actions don't directly or indirectly cause harm to others or other's property, then one should retain freedom of action.
What government should do IMHO is explain the situation clearly and convincingly, then offer solutions to act upon.
Of course, if it is shown that someone is acting either directly/or indirectly to cause harm, then government has the power to act to either prevent, or punish.
Our country is divided over what actions we should be taking. IMO there has been little done to convince people of the right and wrong things to do.
IMO this is mostly because our government is not united and cooperating to achieve specific goals, but is divided and conflicted by partisan in-fighting. This has been exacerbated by the MSM's scaremongering.
IMO, if both Parties could have factually agreed to put partisan differences aside, and fully acted to cooperate in a non-partisan way focusing on a united government outlook and plan? Things would be going better for us all.
Instead we have naysaying, arguments, partisan attacks, etc.. With everyone seeking to lay blame, and everyone pretending they know what's best.
So I can understand Swedish thinking. Without condoning reckless indifference.
The problem here is how the hell do I know if i'm harming you and yours with my viral shedding when I am quite likely to not even know I'm doing it?
The whole "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" has changed for the time being.
Because now that range extends to at least six feet, and I can kill you without ever even knowing I did it.
How does libertarianism deal with this?
Lets say you live in a state that went with SD early and got ahead of the curve enough to start some return to normalcy with isolation measures targeted to clusters and those clusters traced, as well as surveillance testing.
Our realistic best case scenario until we get to a vaccine or a very effective antiviral of some kind.
And then lets say I live in a state that didn't just lag but defied the idea of SD. And it blows up in my state's face. Geometric spread, overwhelmed healthcare infrastructure. Worst case scenario.
Would you be within your rights to deny me entry to your state? Knowing where i'm coming from, no mandatory quarantine for 14 days followed by a test? Just let me walk in and plop down next to you at the bar?
Don't I have a right to travel freely within the borders of this country?
This kind of question is coming for this society.
The ONLY way we avoid months of turmoil is going to be some restrictions on movement from one area to another. Severely limiting travel between states/regions/counties as necessary.
How do you enforce your right to not be infected by me when neither of us can identify the other as a risk by the evidence of our senses? A 20%+ risk of serious complications for everybody over the age of 20 who is exposed.
Or a .38 revolver aimed at our lungs with only one bullet in it, cylinder spun and the trigger pulled. Without either party even being aware.
