5 ms·

The local government is doing what the majority of its citizens want it to do. This is exactly the purpose of having a government. Every libertarian I know bel

The local government is doing what the majority of its citizens want it to do. This is exactly the purpose of having a government. Every libertarian I know believes governments should provide intervention in these kinds of situations. If you don't, that makes you an anarchist (or whatever).

syshum 6y ago
>Every libertarian I know then you do not know any libertarians, or you have massively overstated their acceptance of these measures. Having vested power in a single person to literally close the entirety of the economy, and arrest people for exercising basic rights is a violation of all things that should America Stands for. No libertarian would stand for arresting people out for a walk, threatening to arrest people for posting on Instagram, arresting people enjoying activity outside alone in ocean, arresting people if they sit in chair on the beach, but sitting in the same spot in the sand is ok, etc etc etc... While some libertarians may accept the basic social distancing orders, even closing some events and gather thing, there is a mile long list of massive government overreach in every region and state including CA. Everyone likes to hold America and other First world nations as "free" in contrast to Authoritarian States like China, but the line gets less defined every year, and every crisis I am sure I will get zero support for my thoughts here, but if rights end when a crisis begins we have no rights at all. Today it is a pandemic that they have used to justify their authoritarian action, What will it be next, and how far will they push their power after seeing how well fear will enable them to cease control. Too many people during this time are shortsighted, failing to see the bigger threat to liberty this precedent will bring.
- a_t48 6y ago
  What would you like to happen in the short term instead?
  - syshum 6y ago
    I do not claim to have all the answers, but in the equation of Liberty vs Safety, I will come down on the side of liberty every time, for a life with out liberty is not a life worth living at all. Personally I would like to see some check put on governor and mayor emergency powers, limit them to 30-45 days then require a committee, judicial or legislature approval to continue to the orders. There also needs to be some kind of Due process or appeals process for individuals and business impacted by the orders, and IMO if the government is going to mandate a business close that should be considered a 5th amendment taking and the governments assumes liability for all lost revenue for the business. I am not an big proponent of allowing a single office to have unlimited unchecked power even in a pandemic The way that Emergency powers are written today is terrifying or rather should be terrifying to anyone that believes in individual liberty
    - earthtourist 6y ago
      Your personal liberty ends where my nose begins. When it comes to rights, we always have to ask "what are the reasonable trade-offs?". There are no absolute rights, even in the U.S. Most people believe it's clearly reasonable that we lock down our cities to prevent mass death. The economic pain is great, and it's very inconvenient for all, but it's much better than mass death. You're entirely free to read/watch/do anything you want in your home, you can exercise, talk to anyone about anything you want, get food, take care of essential things. You're not free to risk killing many people just so you can enjoy leisure activities. That would be privileging your personal liberty over the lives of your fellow citizens. And, incidentally, you would be depriving some of them of their personal liberty by virtue of killing them... Does it bother you that you can't own significant quantities of radioactive material and carry them around while you're in public? Clearly laws forbidding this are an infringement of personal liberty. But they're an incredibly reasonable infringement so it doesn't bother you, I'd assume. A democratic society should be governed by the people. We, The People, have decided that the lock downs are good. We have in effect demanded and endorsed them. So you're disagreeing with the majority of your fellow citizens, not some dictator. For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale.
      - 6y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You have a point - the state's authority to arrest people is a huge hammer that should never be brought out unless absolutely necessary. That's why Bay Area officials aren't using it. Nobody in my county has been arrested for not staying at home, and last I heard only a single person outside of Santa Cruz has been.
  - earthtourist 6y ago
    It is a huge hammer and this is a huge problem. We normally arrest people for endangering the public. People not abiding by the lock down are clearly endangering the public. They should be arrested. I don't see any slippery slope or danger of totalitarian take over. The virus is inherently time-limited.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>I don't see any slippery slope or danger of totalitarian take over. then you do not have a proper understanding or respect for history if you fail to recognize the dangers of this precedent.
      - earthtourist 6y ago
        If you want to convert this from a contentless ad hominem to an actual argument feel free to point to some relevant examples in history, if you can.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The Patriot Act was time-limited too, until we found more reasons to keep it around after the limit. We should be skeptical of this kind of thing, although I'm not so absolutist that I'd say it's never worth it.
      - earthtourist 6y ago
        The Patriot Act was not inherently time-limited. A virus will have an end at some point through a vaccine or therapies. Terrorism does not have any end. In fact it is timeless.

syshum 6y ago

>Every libertarian I know then you do not know any libertarians, or you have massively overstated their acceptance of these measures. Having vested power in a single person to literally close the entirety of the economy, and arrest people for exercising basic rights is a violation of all things that should America Stands for. No libertarian would stand for arresting people out for a walk, threatening to arrest people for posting on Instagram, arresting people enjoying activity outside alone in ocean, arresting people if they sit in chair on the beach, but sitting in the same spot in the sand is ok, etc etc etc... While some libertarians may accept the basic social distancing orders, even closing some events and gather thing, there is a mile long list of massive government overreach in every region and state including CA. Everyone likes to hold America and other First world nations as "free" in contrast to Authoritarian States like China, but the line gets less defined every year, and every crisis I am sure I will get zero support for my thoughts here, but if rights end when a crisis begins we have no rights at all. Today it is a pandemic that they have used to justify their authoritarian action, What will it be next, and how far will they push their power after seeing how well fear will enable them to cease control. Too many people during this time are shortsighted, failing to see the bigger threat to liberty this precedent will bring.

a_t48 6y ago
What would you like to happen in the short term instead?
- syshum 6y ago
  I do not claim to have all the answers, but in the equation of Liberty vs Safety, I will come down on the side of liberty every time, for a life with out liberty is not a life worth living at all. Personally I would like to see some check put on governor and mayor emergency powers, limit them to 30-45 days then require a committee, judicial or legislature approval to continue to the orders. There also needs to be some kind of Due process or appeals process for individuals and business impacted by the orders, and IMO if the government is going to mandate a business close that should be considered a 5th amendment taking and the governments assumes liability for all lost revenue for the business. I am not an big proponent of allowing a single office to have unlimited unchecked power even in a pandemic The way that Emergency powers are written today is terrifying or rather should be terrifying to anyone that believes in individual liberty
  - earthtourist 6y ago
    Your personal liberty ends where my nose begins. When it comes to rights, we always have to ask "what are the reasonable trade-offs?". There are no absolute rights, even in the U.S. Most people believe it's clearly reasonable that we lock down our cities to prevent mass death. The economic pain is great, and it's very inconvenient for all, but it's much better than mass death. You're entirely free to read/watch/do anything you want in your home, you can exercise, talk to anyone about anything you want, get food, take care of essential things. You're not free to risk killing many people just so you can enjoy leisure activities. That would be privileging your personal liberty over the lives of your fellow citizens. And, incidentally, you would be depriving some of them of their personal liberty by virtue of killing them... Does it bother you that you can't own significant quantities of radioactive material and carry them around while you're in public? Clearly laws forbidding this are an infringement of personal liberty. But they're an incredibly reasonable infringement so it doesn't bother you, I'd assume. A democratic society should be governed by the people. We, The People, have decided that the lock downs are good. We have in effect demanded and endorsed them. So you're disagreeing with the majority of your fellow citizens, not some dictator. For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale.
    - 6y ago
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
You have a point - the state's authority to arrest people is a huge hammer that should never be brought out unless absolutely necessary. That's why Bay Area officials aren't using it. Nobody in my county has been arrested for not staying at home, and last I heard only a single person outside of Santa Cruz has been.
- earthtourist 6y ago
  It is a huge hammer and this is a huge problem. We normally arrest people for endangering the public. People not abiding by the lock down are clearly endangering the public. They should be arrested. I don't see any slippery slope or danger of totalitarian take over. The virus is inherently time-limited.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>I don't see any slippery slope or danger of totalitarian take over. then you do not have a proper understanding or respect for history if you fail to recognize the dangers of this precedent.
    - earthtourist 6y ago
      If you want to convert this from a contentless ad hominem to an actual argument feel free to point to some relevant examples in history, if you can.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The Patriot Act was time-limited too, until we found more reasons to keep it around after the limit. We should be skeptical of this kind of thing, although I'm not so absolutist that I'd say it's never worth it.
    - earthtourist 6y ago
      The Patriot Act was not inherently time-limited. A virus will have an end at some point through a vaccine or therapies. Terrorism does not have any end. In fact it is timeless.