Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now Dave, you know that everything you get from the major news organizations (except Fox News) is absolutely true, to be taken on faith, not verified, and anyone who questions it is a right wing tin foil hat wearing nut. Don't go confusing people with reality, let them enjoy their blue pill.
OK, all you bad-a** Constitution-guarding uber-patriots out there that seem to be drawn to this thread like moths to a light:
I've got to ask - are public health measures incompatible with Constitutional civil liberties? Because from the vibe I get on this thread, there should be no impingement upon people's ability to do anything they want, like peaceably gather, open their businesses without restriction, travel at will to wherever they want, etc - whether we're at war, in a pandemic, or other emergency.
It would seem that any restriction at all would bristle with police-state, civil liberty strangling oppression? I know there are people who believe that this pandemic is no big deal, a hoax, a power grab, media hype, whatever. But what if the death rate in NH were double? Triple? 10X? What if the hospitals were overflowing and the ICU's full? Would any attempt at public health management be met with flag-waving protesters at the statehouse brandishing AR15s because they can? This seems like an all or nothing proposition. Is there a point at which temporary public health management restrictions on business, travel, and other individual restrictions are tolerable from a Constitutional standpoint?
What about rationing during WWII and prohibition of consumer products, curfews, and government direction of civilian manufacturing. Were these intolerable infractions on civil liberties? The President says we are at war now with an invisible enemy. Is there a point when these restrictions would be justifiable? It seems the needs of the individual would always outweigh societal needs given the attitudes I see on this forum.
By the way, I am all for getting things opened up. Curve was flattened, it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be, hospitals not overflowing like they were in other places, and we know more about the virus than we did a month ago and learning more every day. Can't keep things closed up forever and can't shield everyone forever. People are going to get this and as long as the healthcare system doesn't break trying to deal with it, we let things run its course with careful monitoring. We let the hospital capacity dictate what, if any, restrictions we put in place to deal with this. I believe Gov Sununu has balanced things well given our situation, I believe the top epidemiologists, virologists, and public health professionals have the best intentions and are competent. I do not believe Fauci is working for the One World Order or any of the other conspiracy BS put forth by some dude on Youtube.
Just wondering where the limits are, if there are any. Would we let millions die just so we can say we are "free"? I really want to know what the guardians of the Constitution ultra-patriots think.
I've got to ask - are public health measures incompatible with Constitutional civil liberties? Because from the vibe I get on this thread, there should be no impingement upon people's ability to do anything they want, like peaceably gather, open their businesses without restriction, travel at will to wherever they want, etc - whether we're at war, in a pandemic, or other emergency.
Steve,
I think you're missing the point. People accept emergency measures when the case has been made that the measures are necessary. Making that case is essential to acceptance. In the absence of making that case, emergency measures just come across as authoritarianism.
As a practical matter, the case has only been effectively made if a large majority of the population believes the case has been made. It doesn't matter if 50% of the population is utterly convinced the case has been made, if the other 50% aren't buying it, the case hasn't been sufficiently made.
The ongoing push back is a crystal clear indication that a large percentage of the population doesn't believe the case has been made that the restrictions are the right thing to do.
Getting buy-in may be a real pain in the back side, but pushing unpopular measures down peoples' throats is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism.
I think you're missing the point. People accept emergency measures when the case has been made that the measures are necessary. Making that case is essential to acceptance. In the absence of making that case, emergency measures just come across as authoritarianism.
As a practical matter, the case has only been effectively made if a large majority of the population believes the case has been made. It doesn't matter if 50% of the population is utterly convinced the case has been made, if the other 50% aren't buying it, the case hasn't been sufficiently made.
The ongoing push back is a crystal clear indication that a large percentage of the population doesn't believe the case has been made that the restrictions are the right thing to do.
Getting buy-in may be a real pain in the back side, but pushing unpopular measures down peoples' throats is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism.
I think when there is so little trust of government by both the left and right these days, you will never get buy in anymore. Those days are gone. 9/11 was the closest we've come since WW2, and even that was not a slam dunk. With social media, Youtube, and all the inaccurate info and conspiracy theories out there that fuel doubt and discontent, the case will never be made. The days of this country being unified are over.
Given the logic of many I see on social media, an infringement is an infringement no matter what and civil liberties are never OK to violate because the Constitution says so. This country could literally be falling down and people would still bristle at anyone telling them what to do.
Maybe I need less social media, and less of this forum in my life
I think when there is so little trust of government by both the left and right these days, you will never get buy in anymore. Those days are gone. 9/11 was the closest we've come since WW2, and even that was not a slam dunk. With social media, Youtube, and all the inaccurate info and conspiracy theories out there that fuel doubt and discontent, the case will never be made. The days of this country being unified are over.
Given the logic of many I see on social media, an infringement is an infringement no matter what and civil liberties are never OK to violate because the Constitution says so. This country could literally be falling down and people would still bristle at anyone telling them what to do.
Maybe I need less social media, and less of this forum in my life
I agree social media is a problem. But I'll cite one example that shows the conduct of the media has changed, and it is also a major source of problems.
If you remember when George W. Bush was running for President, Dan Rather ran a story claiming Bush had skipped out on his National Guard duty. Normal journalistic practice is 2 independent sources to run a story, because 1 source can always be a fake. It turned out Dan Rather and his team only had 1 source, a document from Bush's time in the National Guard in the 1960's. Then it was proven conclusively the document was a fake (it used a computer font that wasn't created until decades after Bush was out of the National Guard).
Because they didn't follow standard journalistic practices, and they got a high profile story wrong, CBS News fired every single person who worked on that story, except Dan Rather himself. They were all very senior people, they were all well aware what they were doing was wrong, they all went along with it anyway, and not one of them flagged it to the news division. Dan Rather was put in a room all by himself where he couldn't hurt anyone until he quit. That's what network news divisions used to do when their journalists were caught doing shady things.
Now think about how many news stories in the past 3 years have been proven conclusively wrong. How many journalists have been fired for it? Zero that I know of.
Trust in journalism has certainly collapsed, and IMO it most definitely should have collapsed. If anyone has any faith in what comes out of news divisions anymore, I honestly have no idea why. And that's squarely on journalists and the corporations that run "news" divisions.
OK, all you bad-a** Constitution-guarding uber-patriots out there that seem to be drawn to this thread like moths to a light:
I've got to ask - are public health measures incompatible with Constitutional civil liberties? Because from the vibe I get on this thread, there should be no impingement upon people's ability to do anything they want, like peaceably gather, open their businesses without restriction, travel at will to wherever they want, etc - whether we're at war, in a pandemic, or other emergency.
It would seem that any restriction at all would bristle with police-state, civil liberty strangling oppression? I know there are people who believe that this pandemic is no big deal, a hoax, a power grab, media hype, whatever. But what if the death rate in NH were double? Triple? 10X? What if the hospitals were overflowing and the ICU's full? Would any attempt at public health management be met with flag-waving protesters at the statehouse brandishing AR15s because they can? This seems like an all or nothing proposition. Is there a point at which temporary public health management restrictions on business, travel, and other individual restrictions are tolerable from a Constitutional standpoint?
What about rationing during WWII and prohibition of consumer products, curfews, and government direction of civilian manufacturing. Were these intolerable infractions on civil liberties? The President says we are at war now with an invisible enemy. Is there a point when these restrictions would be justifiable? It seems the needs of the individual would always outweigh societal needs given the attitudes I see on this forum.
By the way, I am all for getting things opened up. Curve was flattened, it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be, hospitals not overflowing like they were in other places, and we know more about the virus than we did a month ago and learning more every day. Can't keep things closed up forever and can't shield everyone forever. People are going to get this and as long as the healthcare system doesn't break trying to deal with it, we let things run its course with careful monitoring. We let the hospital capacity dictate what, if any, restrictions we put in place to deal with this. I believe Gov Sununu has balanced things well given our situation, I believe the top epidemiologists, virologists, and public health professionals have the best intentions and are competent. I do not believe Fauci is working for the One World Order or any of the other conspiracy BS put forth by some dude on Youtube.
Just wondering where the limits are, if there are any. Would we let millions die just so we can say we are "free"? I really want to know what the guardians of the Constitution ultra-patriots think.
WWII? Isn't that where we locked up about 80,000 Japanese /American citizens ? I wonder how the majority felt about that "inconvenience" mmmm
WWII? Isn't that where we locked up about 80,000 Japanese /American citizens ? I wonder how the majority felt about that "inconvenience" mmmm
Yup, a shameful time. Seems like a lot of non-Japanese Americans were OK with it. That's not really what I was talking about though - that affected a small minority of Americans (although in an extreme way).
Don't deflect - just answer my question. At what point is it acceptable to put public health restrictions in place that infringe on civil liberties, real or perceived? Full hospitals, 5% or 10% death rates? Not sure where to draw that line, if it can even be drawn.
Status:
"Peace sells...but who's buying?"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: South of Heaven
8,095 posts, read 3,586,406 times
Reputation: 11879
Well now that the 3 northern NE states are beginning to open things up a little how long until people from Massachusetts flood in to these states from the south and bring the virus with them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
