I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic.
Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true.
I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.
It is an indisputable, historical fact that when you prioritize safety over human rights you will end up with an order of magnitude greater loss of life.
The only possible way to value and protect human life is to value and protect human rights, and that includes free speech. The minute you subsume those for safety (or as you put it, "human life", but we've also heard "for the kids", "terrorism", "immigrants", "communists", "monarchists", etc. etc.) you have not only given up your rights, but your life to the powers that be. And those powers do not have your best interests in mind.
These things are not separate, please do not turn this into a false dichotomy. We must protect both human rights and human life, but only by the acquiescence of our rights may they take our lives.
Safety of others is the domain of the government or regulator. And that, unfortunately, relies on the government being competent, and free from corporate influence. Neither of which are really the case in the US (nor much of the world).
That's exactly the point. I am not including the government in my definition of safety. Rather, the focus is purely on safety from an illegal point of view (murder, rape, robbery, etc.).
reply