The root of civic liberties is preserving autonomy of the individual. To the extent that actions making an epidemic spread directly endanger lives of other people, it's kind of obvious to me that we have to have means to control that. I'm saying this as a strong, I think, civic libertarian.
The difference between this situation and the usual pretexts used to curb liberties is that 1. we know pretty well, scientifically, what is the problem and how it acts (not this specific virus, but in terms what diseases are in general) and 2. it's comparatively clear when such a crisis begins and ends. Compare that with the typical scenario of some dangerous people doing shady things, we don't know who and where, the government can't tell us, and we are to just give the state permanent and not clearly delineated powers.
Epidemic and war are the textbook legitimate emergency states.
To that extent I almost feel that talking about this crisis in terms of civil liberties may be harmful, in that it may make people more susceptible and desensitized in the long term in these discussions.
The difference between this situation and the usual pretexts used to curb liberties is that 1. we know pretty well, scientifically, what is the problem and how it acts (not this specific virus, but in terms what diseases are in general) and 2. it's comparatively clear when such a crisis begins and ends. Compare that with the typical scenario of some dangerous people doing shady things, we don't know who and where, the government can't tell us, and we are to just give the state permanent and not clearly delineated powers.
Epidemic and war are the textbook legitimate emergency states.
To that extent I almost feel that talking about this crisis in terms of civil liberties may be harmful, in that it may make people more susceptible and desensitized in the long term in these discussions.