During the COVID pandemic, we were treated to tyrannical policies based upon the argument that forcing people to engage in worthless or nearly worthless behaviors was justified based upon the extreme position that it was justified to do so if it could save one life.

It was an absurd argument for many reasons–many of the required behaviors had no prospect of saving anybody, while others were so costly in monetary or other ways that the costs far exceeded the benefits. Not to mention the social costs with which we will be living for years or even decades.

Like during the pandemic lockdowns, for instance, when society ground to a near halt. Hmm. If it saves one life…

Now, though, the Biden Administration has reversed course on the issue of avoiding the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, particularly ones that tend to be concentrated in the LGBTQ+ community. This is unsurprising because no sacrament is higher than sexual freedom for the Left. During COVID people were restricted from going to church; during the outbreak of a sexually transmitted disease, we are told that restricting risky behaviors or even labeling these behaviors “risky” is creating a stigma that must be avoided.

The administration that coined the phrase "pandemic of the unvaccinated" doesn't want to stigmatize anyone.

— Chief Impact Officer BT (@back_ttys) June 18, 2023

Now I half agree with the argument being made here. I think it is insane to NOT label behaviors that increase the risk of catching a disease “risky” because there are, in fact, behaviors that increase the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease. Unprotected sex with multiple partners in orgies should be avoided by people of all sexual orientations, both because it is degrading to everybody involved and because the risks of catching disease from doing this is very high.

But Daskalakis is right that people have different risk tolerances, and that it really isn’t up to the government to tell people what the appropriate level of risk you are willing to accept is except in the most extreme cases. We often admire people who take enormous risks in order to attain great achievements. Alex Honnold, for instance, is famous for his achievements in rock climbing. He takes enormous risks, and we all thrill to see his achievements despite or even because of his enormous risks.

Obviously, orgies are closer to dining out during a pandemic than a free solo in Yosemite, but the principle is not that dissimilar. As disapproving as I am of people engaging in unprotected anonymous sex, I actually agree with Daskalakis that I really am in no position to do more than disapprove. I certainly am not going to demand that government impose my views on others.

My big complaint with Daskalakis’ argument is not that he justifies members of the LGBTQ community taking risks that most people wouldn’t, but that such a laissez-faire attitude only applies to behavior that Leftists like. Freedom for others doesn’t end where my preferences for risk curtailment begin. I should be free to disapprove of orgies without demanding that others do as I prefer.

The entire “if it saves just one life” argument is ridiculous, and nobody actually believes whatever they claim.

In every area of public policy, we understand the importance of trade-offs. We could make a lot of things safer but choose not to because the costs of doing so are simply too high to justify it. In consumer products, for instance, there are maximum levels of risk that are considered acceptable, and then the government sets regulations based on cost/benefit calculations. We could set speed limits at 10 miles an hour and reduce traffic deaths dramatically but don’t because society would grind to a halt.

Most arguments made on the basis of reducing risks below a basic level of safety are merely excuses for imposing one’s desires on others. We generally find a way to justify our own risk assessments while demanding others share ours exactly.

That’s not how it should work.