4 ms·

>can harm others Can you be more specific? It's the nebulousness of what "can harm" that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Taken to one extreme, there's almo

by daenz 6y ago

>can harm others Can you be more specific? It's the nebulousness of what "can harm" that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Taken to one extreme, there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't potentially harm others. For example, I could leave my stove burner on and burn down the entire apartment building. So many things come with risks to others, and those things are just part of existing in society.

TylerE 6y ago
Does the Bill of Rights give the police the right to arrest you for driving drunk?
- daenz 6y ago
  It comes across as bad faith to ignore my question and expect me to answer yours. What is the definition of "can harm" that excludes activities like leaving my stove burner on?
  - djannzjkzxn 6y ago
    You could be charged with crimes (eg. arson, child endangerment, negligent homicide) depending on the scenario in which you left the burner on.
    - daenz 6y ago
      But I wouldn't be preemptively barred from turning my burner on in the first place, which is my point.
      - ajmurmann 6y ago
        In that scenario there also would be an investigation. It would find you left the stove burner on and you might be charged with arsen or similar. If we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else and they die you get charged with manslaughter, that would certainly work. If we can overcome the practical problems and actually enforce this, I think it would be a great practice that I think would make all the freedom over community people happy as well. But is it realistic that we can do this in practice?
        daenz 6y ago
        I'm honestly not opposed to the theory, though I think we both agree it is impractical.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I think there is a bit of a difference of opinion and a lack of conclusive evidence (but no shortage of questionable evidence), on the degree of risk involved in various activities involving this pandemic. Now I'm not marching in the street or anything like that, but the more I'm told we must follow authoritarian orders without significant compelling evidence, while dissenting voices are being censored, the more appealing the idea is to me, just as a matter of principle. Favor force over reason, and you might get the same in return.
- zebrafish 6y ago
  Yes, in the 10th amendment the bill of rights gives the states power to make their own laws. Each state has a law concerning what is considered DUI and the BAC limit for drivers who are considered to be driving legally.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Does the Bill of Rights give the police the right to arrest you for driving drunk? Yes, actually. The Tenth Amendment does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co... > In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people.
bsder 6y ago
Fine. I doubt you're arguing in good faith, but let's go there ... Vaccines. The government has the right to require your children to have vaccines before they go to school because not doing so has extremely harmful effects on others when we drop below herd immunity. Smoking. The government has the right to create anti-smoking laws because the market simply wouldn't produce a non-smoking bar that wouldn't affect the health of the people actually working there. Shall I go on?
- daenz 6y ago
  >Shall I go on? You should, because you'll quickly realize that there are far, far more activities that potentially cause harm to others than there are laws that prohibit them. Also, vaccines and smoking have a history that are peppered with lawsuits about their legality, so as far as examples go, they are not the ones I would hold up as evidence of laws that people clearly think are constitutional. The flu killed ~50,000 last year in the USA. Do we require all non-essential businesses to shut down and everyone quarantine? Is there some magical cutoff number between 50,000 (flu deaths) and 80,000 (COVID deaths) where we decide to shut down the entire country? Also you're conflating "the government has the right" with "there exists a law." The government has the right to enforce the law, but there is no innate right in that law itself. If we overturned smoking laws tomorrow, it doesn't remove rights from the government, it removes laws that the government enforces.
  - singlow 6y ago
    The government does not have to protect its ability to ban potentially harmful actions by banning every possible harmful action. The purpose of the legislative representatives is to make judgement calls about which things have enough potential harm to warrant restriction. I really don't understand the argument here that because not all harmful actions are banned, that banning harmful actions is not constitutional. Am I just not understanding what your argument is?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > The purpose of the legislative representatives is to make judgement calls about which things have enough potential harm to warrant restriction. That's what they currently claim, but it's not what they're supposed to be doing. We made a huge mistake when we allowed the government to morph from "enforce the minimum basic rules that are necessary to have a civil society" to "solve everything that anyone thinks is a problem".

by daenz 6y ago

TylerE 6y ago

Does the Bill of Rights give the police the right to arrest you for driving drunk?

daenz 6y ago
It comes across as bad faith to ignore my question and expect me to answer yours. What is the definition of "can harm" that excludes activities like leaving my stove burner on?
- djannzjkzxn 6y ago
  You could be charged with crimes (eg. arson, child endangerment, negligent homicide) depending on the scenario in which you left the burner on.
  - daenz 6y ago
    But I wouldn't be preemptively barred from turning my burner on in the first place, which is my point.
    - ajmurmann 6y ago
      In that scenario there also would be an investigation. It would find you left the stove burner on and you might be charged with arsen or similar. If we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else and they die you get charged with manslaughter, that would certainly work. If we can overcome the practical problems and actually enforce this, I think it would be a great practice that I think would make all the freedom over community people happy as well. But is it realistic that we can do this in practice?
      - daenz 6y ago
        I'm honestly not opposed to the theory, though I think we both agree it is impractical.
mistermann 6y ago
I think there is a bit of a difference of opinion and a lack of conclusive evidence (but no shortage of questionable evidence), on the degree of risk involved in various activities involving this pandemic. Now I'm not marching in the street or anything like that, but the more I'm told we must follow authoritarian orders without significant compelling evidence, while dissenting voices are being censored, the more appealing the idea is to me, just as a matter of principle. Favor force over reason, and you might get the same in return.
zebrafish 6y ago
Yes, in the 10th amendment the bill of rights gives the states power to make their own laws. Each state has a law concerning what is considered DUI and the BAC limit for drivers who are considered to be driving legally.
ardy42 6y ago
> Does the Bill of Rights give the police the right to arrest you for driving drunk? Yes, actually. The Tenth Amendment does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co... > In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people.

bsder 6y ago

Fine. I doubt you're arguing in good faith, but let's go there ... Vaccines. The government has the right to require your children to have vaccines before they go to school because not doing so has extremely harmful effects on others when we drop below herd immunity. Smoking. The government has the right to create anti-smoking laws because the market simply wouldn't produce a non-smoking bar that wouldn't affect the health of the people actually working there. Shall I go on?

daenz 6y ago
>Shall I go on? You should, because you'll quickly realize that there are far, far more activities that potentially cause harm to others than there are laws that prohibit them. Also, vaccines and smoking have a history that are peppered with lawsuits about their legality, so as far as examples go, they are not the ones I would hold up as evidence of laws that people clearly think are constitutional. The flu killed ~50,000 last year in the USA. Do we require all non-essential businesses to shut down and everyone quarantine? Is there some magical cutoff number between 50,000 (flu deaths) and 80,000 (COVID deaths) where we decide to shut down the entire country? Also you're conflating "the government has the right" with "there exists a law." The government has the right to enforce the law, but there is no innate right in that law itself. If we overturned smoking laws tomorrow, it doesn't remove rights from the government, it removes laws that the government enforces.
- singlow 6y ago
  The government does not have to protect its ability to ban potentially harmful actions by banning every possible harmful action. The purpose of the legislative representatives is to make judgement calls about which things have enough potential harm to warrant restriction. I really don't understand the argument here that because not all harmful actions are banned, that banning harmful actions is not constitutional. Am I just not understanding what your argument is?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > The purpose of the legislative representatives is to make judgement calls about which things have enough potential harm to warrant restriction. That's what they currently claim, but it's not what they're supposed to be doing. We made a huge mistake when we allowed the government to morph from "enforce the minimum basic rules that are necessary to have a civil society" to "solve everything that anyone thinks is a problem".