|
|
Post by lmills72 on Apr 6, 2021 18:44:09 GMT -6
Everyone is "possibly infectious". YOU DON'T QUARANTINE THE HEALTHY. If you're at risk, don't go out, or mask up, or whatever you want to do to protect yourself. You don't have the right to tell me what to do just because you're scared. So, if everyone is potentially infectious, that also means everyone is at risk. Just curious: If you become infected, and in your unquarantined travels happen to infect 20-30 other people, would you feel bad at all? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 6, 2021 20:06:59 GMT -6
Please point out in the Constitution where it is my duty to “pitch in.” Since ordinary moral imperative to not do harm to others and to not act to endanger them doesn't seem to be relevant to you, that duty you have would probably arise due to the part of the Constitution where the government has the power to create legal duty for the public good.
Your ordinary freedoms protected under the Constitution are subject to law. Reasonable justification for any restriction, even quarantine, seems to be there when disease is a public health threat to others, where the behavior that is restricted makes that danger greater, and the government in response takes reasonable measures to require caution on your part. And you generally cannot ignore the duty because you do not agree there is danger or don't care about, being very brave and unafraid of harm to yourself does not allow you to endanger others.
A speed limit in a school zone restricts your freedom. Your answer to the problem of danger to children in a school zone seems to be that if I am afraid of an accident I should be cautious and drive slowly, or stay home as a coward. But you are very brave and freedom loving, so you have no duty to be careful.
Maybe so, but the government can create reasonable speed limits that restrict your freedom with the reasonable justification that it protects others. You have a legal duty to obey those laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 6, 2021 20:18:47 GMT -6
Everyone is "possibly infectious". YOU DON'T QUARANTINE THE HEALTHY. If you're at risk, don't go out, or mask up, or whatever you want to do to protect yourself. You don't have the right to tell me what to do just because you're scared. So, if everyone is potentially infectious, that also means everyone is at risk. Just curious: If you become infected, and in your unquarantined travels happen to infect 20-30 other people, would you feel bad at all? Whether or not he has any regrets, the related question is whether he had moral or legal duty.
Nobody is telling him what to do because of fear.
Reasonable caution and respecting the rights of others is not motivated by fear, both exist in the law, if not a moral imperative. There is at least a "duty of care" if not a "duty to care." He doesn't have to give a damn, he has to be careful though.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 6, 2021 21:05:46 GMT -6
Please point out in the Constitution where it is my duty to “pitch in.” Do you realize you’re talking to 00? Why are you bothering? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 6:02:24 GMT -6
Please point out in the Constitution where it is my duty to “pitch in.” Do you realize you’re talking to 00? Why are you bothering? Did I misspeak again to point out the Constitution has that thing about government role in promoting the general welfare, and recognizes rule of law? |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 8:14:57 GMT -6
Do you realize you’re talking to 00? Why are you bothering? Did I misspeak again to point out the Constitution has that thing about government role in promoting the general welfare, and recognizes rule of law? You must be a big fan of the Patriot Act, then. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 9:02:55 GMT -6
Did I misspeak again to point out the Constitution has that thing about government role in promoting the general welfare, and recognizes rule of law? You must be a big fan of the Patriot Act, then. Not a big fan.
The test of these laws is whether there is Due Process. Both in implementing the law, providing judicial review of application, and in the substance of it. Procedural and Substantive Due Process as it is termed.
Whether there is enough justification for such an extreme measure as the Patriot Act which threatens Due Process is clearly debatable.
Asking you to wear a mask in a public health crisis, especially in very high risk situations when there is inadequate ventilation, crowding, and a threat of very serious infectious disease is far less imposition on freedom, and the reasonableness of the restriction is far far more defensible.
Quarantine or lock down, either one, is an extreme measure, used when no lesser measures are working, and not employed without much greater cause than is lesser mitigation. Such as a threat to the ability of hospitals to continue to function.
The cases are much different too in the degree of public ability to see and evaluate the government action, and the extent of restrictions, not to mention the existence of both effective political and judicial review of possible abuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 11:04:16 GMT -6
Did I misspeak again to point out the Constitution has that thing about government role in promoting the general welfare, and recognizes rule of law? You must be a big fan of the Patriot Act, then. I do join you in being worried about freedom being threatened.
I especially think it is important we have citizen participation in government. Ultimately the people can counteract the possible abuses of government. You sure are right our history shows government by the few taking away freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 11:54:55 GMT -6
You must be a big fan of the Patriot Act, then. I do join you in being worried about freedom being threatened.
I especially think it is important we have citizen participation in government. Ultimately the people can counteract the possible abuses of government. You sure are right our history shows government by the few taking away freedom.
Please explain out how freedoms are being taken away from any legitimate voter in Georgia, using text from the actual bill. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 12:01:53 GMT -6
The cases are much different too in the degree of public ability to see and evaluate the government action, and the extent of restrictions, not to mention the existence of both effective political and judicial review of possible abuses.
I am legally allowed to move from place to place without being stopped. Mask mandates impede that ability if I am unmasked. Mask mandates are unconstitutional. Period. There is no valid counter to that. If I am a healthy person, I should not be forced to stay home. Period. There is no valid counter to that either. You can say it's for my safety, but if I'm willing to risk getting infected, then that's my decision. In case you didn't get it the first 2 times: YOU DON'T QUARANTINE THE HEALTHY. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 12:51:35 GMT -6
The cases are much different too in the degree of public ability to see and evaluate the government action, and the extent of restrictions, not to mention the existence of both effective political and judicial review of possible abuses.
I am legally allowed to move from place to place without being stopped. Mask mandates impede that ability if I am unmasked. Mask mandates are unconstitutional. Period. There is no valid counter to that. That is just silly. Plenty of laws restrict absolute freedom to move around. Many are health and safety regulations such as speed limits, jaywalking laws.
As for valid counter.
The US Constitution specifically gives government power to make laws for the general welfare as provided in Articles of that Constitution(Executive, Judicial, and Legislative powers), and protects your freedoms by providing that it only take away life liberty or property with due process. State constitutions provide inherent power to each state to regulate health and welfare of the people, called "police power." States constitutions also provide limitation of the exercise of the power.
The masking laws are reasonable restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 13:07:14 GMT -6
The masking laws are reasonable restrictions.
If you are infectious, sure. If you're not, they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 13:11:39 GMT -6
I do join you in being worried about freedom being threatened.
I especially think it is important we have citizen participation in government. Ultimately the people can counteract the possible abuses of government. You sure are right our history shows government by the few taking away freedom. Please explain out how freedoms are being taken away from any legitimate voter in Georgia, using text from the actual bill. So you want an absolute right to walk around anywhere you want, but the voters in Ga. declared to not be legitimate to vote by the new law are restricted from walking into that voting booth. That is OK?
The link above details some history on Jim Crow, and why it is particularly dangerous and pernicious.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 13:14:21 GMT -6
The masking laws are reasonable restrictions.
If you are infectious, sure. If you're not, they are not. And when the risk is sometimes not known but there is an emergency and good reason to think it may exist?
You prefer to be tested constantly? Or perhaps we just trust you? Or anybody else who claims they are medically safe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 13:37:16 GMT -6
And when the risk is sometimes not known but there is an emergency and good reason to think it may exist?
You prefer to be tested constantly? Or perhaps we just trust you? Or anybody else who claims they are medically safe?
You've seen how well governments react whenever there's an "emergency", right? Not a great track record. Trust in the citizenry is the basis for freedom. Trust each citizen until there is a reason not to trust one, then don't trust that one. Innocent until proven guilty, no? |
|
