4 ms·

There is effectively martial law (yes, I wrote it down wrong, thanks) any time there's a large fire in CA. Police patrol abandoned neighborhoods. And then every

There is effectively martial law (yes, I wrote it down wrong, thanks) any time there's a large fire in CA. Police patrol abandoned neighborhoods. And then everything goes back to normal. It wouldn't immediately go Red Dawn. Most people would understand the reasoning and agree with it, however inconvenient it would be. Is it better to let millions die or risk the long-term health of the economy? Why not force people to stay home and watch Netflix for 2 weeks? With exceptions wherever it makes sense.

dvtrn 7y ago
Can we do better than the false dichotomy of “suspend civil liberties and give the military policing powers or everyone dies”? I ask this as politely as I can: do you know what it is you’re asking for when suggesting the enactment of Martial Law here?
- earthtourist 7y ago
  Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. 1. If we get to a 70% infection rate, and the mortality rate is (a low) 1%, that's 2+ million dead. 2. A vaccine is likely 18+ months away, which means it won't be here in time. 3. There is no real hope of stopping the spread without drastic measures.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require more will from elected leaders and public health officials, but I take serious exception to immediately suggesting that we either suspend civil liberties or let people die. There are several more options available before Martial Law should be allowed in the same room as options still on the table.
    - earthtourist 7y ago
      You still haven't explained an alternative to my "false dichotomy". What exactly do you propose as a third option? What option requires "more will" from health officials that would actually stave off a mass infection? They all seem to be explaining how powerless they are to stop the spread. Experts seem pretty unanimous in explaining that this is going to become a mass infection. They don't seem to be considering a martial law option, and yet it seems the only thing that could prevent it. I'm actually not cavalier about suggestion martial law. This just seems like one of those rare public safety situations that might warrant it. We could try asking people to stay home but this seems like it would result in huge compliance problems, which would elongate the stay-at-home period. Whereas the vast majority of people would stay home under threat of arrest.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

dvtrn 7y ago

Can we do better than the false dichotomy of “suspend civil liberties and give the military policing powers or everyone dies”? I ask this as politely as I can: do you know what it is you’re asking for when suggesting the enactment of Martial Law here?

earthtourist 7y ago
Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. 1. If we get to a 70% infection rate, and the mortality rate is (a low) 1%, that's 2+ million dead. 2. A vaccine is likely 18+ months away, which means it won't be here in time. 3. There is no real hope of stopping the spread without drastic measures.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require more will from elected leaders and public health officials, but I take serious exception to immediately suggesting that we either suspend civil liberties or let people die. There are several more options available before Martial Law should be allowed in the same room as options still on the table.
  - earthtourist 7y ago
    You still haven't explained an alternative to my "false dichotomy". What exactly do you propose as a third option? What option requires "more will" from health officials that would actually stave off a mass infection? They all seem to be explaining how powerless they are to stop the spread. Experts seem pretty unanimous in explaining that this is going to become a mass infection. They don't seem to be considering a martial law option, and yet it seems the only thing that could prevent it. I'm actually not cavalier about suggestion martial law. This just seems like one of those rare public safety situations that might warrant it. We could try asking people to stay home but this seems like it would result in huge compliance problems, which would elongate the stay-at-home period. Whereas the vast majority of people would stay home under threat of arrest.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]