5 ms·

>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

by syshum 7y 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 7y ago
What would you like to happen in the short term instead?
- syshum 7y 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 7y 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.
    - syshum 7y ago
      Your entire post is a series of logical fallacies, first economic decline and extreme unemployment in itself causes increase death and at the ever decreasing lethality of COVID as more and more data comes in there is an increasing probability that the economic impact will cause more death in the long term than COVID itself. Further we are now seeing supply change issues in food production and other markets critical to daily life not just "leisure activities" as you seem to believe. There seems to me to be an overreaction to this virus over other known health crisis, and for that matter other emergencies simply do to the unknown / novel nature of this event. The other problem with your response is the pure assumption that a total lockdown of all citizens was the only option, and that anyone daring to suggest there may have been another more measured way is simply wanting to put "leisure activities" over peoples lives, the fact remains that several people have suggested alternative measures that could have been used, including isolated only those of the vulnerable population where more than 80% of the deaths are accounted for, and where outside of that vernable population COVID is less deadly than the normal flu. Do you propose these same lockdowns every flu season? after all the flu does cause "mass death" as you seem to define it every year so it must be a reasonable response to shut down the economy every flu season right? You do understand that the lockdowns where never to prevent the transmission of the virus, but rather simply slow the rate of transmission to allow the health system to sick and not be overwhelmed. I will not bother to address your reductio ad absurdum on radio active material as it holds no bearing on this conversation, but I will say my position on that would not be what you expect :) >>For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale. Well allow me to provide some Rationale then 1. There were / are viable less extreme measures that could have been taken 2. It is yet to be seen if the Lock Downs actually were effective, there is some data to suggest they were not, and simply stating "it would have been worse" is not evidence based. Some data suggests that COVID was already widely spread before the lockdowns even went into effect and a large part of the population was asymptotic or suffers very mild symptoms 3. There is no section of the federal or any state constitution I am aware of that reads "These rights can be suspended in a time of emergency" while I am aware that the courts have played mental gymnastics to carve out these exceptions, the fact remains these acts prove the constitution is powerless to prevent infringement of basic rights by government 4. The precedent set by these unprecedented orders will be used to infringe on rights of the population using thinner and thinner justifications for an "emergency", I can see a flu season being used to trigger a draconian response in a few years. 5. One of the bigger problems I have with the lock downs is the open ended nature of them, and the power to extend or lift them is in a single person, in a single branch of government with out limit, oversight or control. It may be needed for a governor to act quickly to get process started, but that should then need to be follow up with some other branch of government oversight no less than 30 days after a governor acts. This is not a dictatorship and we should not devolve into one in a crisis
SpicyLemonZest 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.

by syshum 7y ago

a_t48 7y ago

What would you like to happen in the short term instead?

syshum 7y 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 7y 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.
  - syshum 7y ago
    Your entire post is a series of logical fallacies, first economic decline and extreme unemployment in itself causes increase death and at the ever decreasing lethality of COVID as more and more data comes in there is an increasing probability that the economic impact will cause more death in the long term than COVID itself. Further we are now seeing supply change issues in food production and other markets critical to daily life not just "leisure activities" as you seem to believe. There seems to me to be an overreaction to this virus over other known health crisis, and for that matter other emergencies simply do to the unknown / novel nature of this event. The other problem with your response is the pure assumption that a total lockdown of all citizens was the only option, and that anyone daring to suggest there may have been another more measured way is simply wanting to put "leisure activities" over peoples lives, the fact remains that several people have suggested alternative measures that could have been used, including isolated only those of the vulnerable population where more than 80% of the deaths are accounted for, and where outside of that vernable population COVID is less deadly than the normal flu. Do you propose these same lockdowns every flu season? after all the flu does cause "mass death" as you seem to define it every year so it must be a reasonable response to shut down the economy every flu season right? You do understand that the lockdowns where never to prevent the transmission of the virus, but rather simply slow the rate of transmission to allow the health system to sick and not be overwhelmed. I will not bother to address your reductio ad absurdum on radio active material as it holds no bearing on this conversation, but I will say my position on that would not be what you expect :) >>For some unknown reason you believe these lock downs are unreasonable, without any clear rationale. Well allow me to provide some Rationale then 1. There were / are viable less extreme measures that could have been taken 2. It is yet to be seen if the Lock Downs actually were effective, there is some data to suggest they were not, and simply stating "it would have been worse" is not evidence based. Some data suggests that COVID was already widely spread before the lockdowns even went into effect and a large part of the population was asymptotic or suffers very mild symptoms 3. There is no section of the federal or any state constitution I am aware of that reads "These rights can be suspended in a time of emergency" while I am aware that the courts have played mental gymnastics to carve out these exceptions, the fact remains these acts prove the constitution is powerless to prevent infringement of basic rights by government 4. The precedent set by these unprecedented orders will be used to infringe on rights of the population using thinner and thinner justifications for an "emergency", I can see a flu season being used to trigger a draconian response in a few years. 5. One of the bigger problems I have with the lock downs is the open ended nature of them, and the power to extend or lift them is in a single person, in a single branch of government with out limit, oversight or control. It may be needed for a governor to act quickly to get process started, but that should then need to be follow up with some other branch of government oversight no less than 30 days after a governor acts. This is not a dictatorship and we should not devolve into one in a crisis

SpicyLemonZest 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.