Latest Reports of Past Actions on COVID

[Unfettered]

The willy nilly was people doing whatever while an extremely contagious virus with then no cure or vaccine spreads through the masses.
If this had been a deadlier type of coronavirus then America would have lost such a massive chunk of the population that it would have been society changing.

Hypotheticals have their place, but we've exhausted their usefulness in this conversation. Which is why I asked you to share your view on your own contracting of the virus. Or do your views not apply to that real-world scenario like they do to the curated hypotheticals?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which is why I asked you to share your view on your own contracting of the virus.

You called it political, said it's not real and other things not really worth considering.

 

[Unfettered]

You called it political, said it's not real and other things not really worth considering.

Then consider instead your experience of being infected with the virus and contracting the disease. Someone is responsible for that. Who was it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then consider instead your experience of being infected with the virus and contracting the disease. Someone is responsible for that. Who was it?

Mine was from being in the healthcare field. You have to accept that as a part of the job when you go into the field.

 

[Unfettered]

Mine was from being in the healthcare field. You have to accept that as a part of the job when you go into the field.

So you don't know who infected you?

 

[Koldo]

I didn't advocate for Joe's rights to be infringed; why should I be the one presenting the policy? If you think Joe shouldn't be allowed to work, present the case. Otherwise I'll agree with you that, absent a just case to act against him, Joe is free to live and subsist.

As long as his work doesn't consist of an activity that will end up spreading around a deadly virus during a pandemic, sure.

Well, no, it was not obvious during the pandemic. Many were favored, others were disfavored. There was not equal protection under the laws; there was faction-based protection under the laws. And you've been advocating that such was justified. If you're walking that back, OK. Otherwise I don't know now what you're saying.
I agree!

I have no idea over what exactly you are talking about. The entire world doesn't reside in the US. You need to be specific about what policies you took an issue with.

OK, what was actually necessary? We're back in the throes of the pandemic. You have all the power. What do you do? You've advocated for people in the same situation to be afforded the same treatment; what "same treatment" do you offer, now that you get to make the decision unchecked?

Out of the top of my head:

First of all, I would have closed all the national borders back when Covid was starting to become an international problem. Only nationals get in until we better understand the situation and only after a quarantine period.

Second, if closing the national borders wasn't enough, I would have closed all borders between states. Essentially only allowing a few things like trucks loaded with necessary supplies (such as food and medicine) and medical personnel to move around.

Third, I would have worked towards the development of a vaccine as if my life depended on it. If that failed, I would have rushed to buy it from elsewhere.

Fourth, I would have enacted a law that would mandate all employers to send their workers to work from home whenever feasible given the work done by that employee.

Fifth, all forms of activities that involve significant gatherings would be banned. This ranges from festivals to eating in restaurants.

Sixth, many forms of debt (such as credit card debt and loans) acquired before the pandemic would be suspended.

Seventh, public relief.

And so on and on...

Who cares about theaters and festivals? They don't have rights. People do. Are we asking the right questions here?

It is a simple question: Did you support prohibiting festivals and closing down movie theathers during the pandemic? And why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The wording of that question makes it difficult for me to know what you're asking. Could you re-word it?

Which specific "unalienable right to live and subsist" were taken away from anyone during the pandemic?

More detail is needed. In your scenario, am I afforded my natural right to land actually suited to growing food?

This was in response to, "You mean, like you're "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask?"

What further details do you need here?
Okay, do you think you have a "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask, during a global pandemic, where the grocery store has decided that their policy is that everyone must wear a mask inside the store, in order to protect the safety of their employees and customers?

And then you go way off into left field here ....
So you think humans have a "natural right" to own land that is "suited to growing food?" Do they have to pay for this land or do they just get to have it by virtue of being alive?

 

[Unfettered]

As long as his work doesn't consist of an activity that will end up spreading around a deadly virus during a pandemic, sure.

I have no idea over what exactly you are talking about. The entire world doesn't reside in the US. You need to be specific about what policies you took an issue with.

As any good US citizen would do, I took issue (and take issue) with any law, policy or executive order that usurps authority not granted to government, tramples rights without due process, creates a de facto monarch/dictator, etc.

Out of the top of my head:

First of all, I would have closed all the national borders back when Covid was starting to become an international problem. Only nationals get in until we better understand the situation and only after a quarantine period.

Second, if closing the national borders wasn't enough, I would have closed all borders between states. Essentially only allowing a few things like trucks loaded with necessary supplies (such as food and medicine) and medical personnel to move around.

Third, I would have worked towards the development of a vaccine as if my life depended on it. If that failed, I would have rushed to buy it from elsewhere.

Fourth, I would have enacted a law that would mandate all employers to send their workers to work from home whenever feasible given the work done by that employee.

Fifth, all forms of activities that involve significant gatherings would be banned. This ranges from festivals to eating in restaurants.

Sixth, many forms of debt (such as credit card debt and loans) acquired before the pandemic would be suspended.

Seventh, public relief.

And so on and on...

So you'd act like a dictator. Thanks for detailing what you'd do. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that in a pejorative manner; dictatoralness may be approved by the People where you live.

It is a simple question: Did you support prohibiting festivals and closing down movie theathers during the pandemic? And why?

No, I did not support the prohibition of any group gatherings. Why? Because I understand law, which restrains government, not the People: "Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble." That's the law. It's clear. It's simple. If that is a bad law; if provision needs to be made for pandemics, the People may amend the law. The People have not amended it. So I expect government to uphold the law. Otherwise government exceeds its authority, loses the trust of the People, invites discord, and incites disorder and chaos. All of the latter took place because government did not uphold the law.

 

[Koldo]

As any good US citizen would do, I took issue (and take issue) with any law, policy or executive order that usurps authority not granted to government, tramples rights without due process, creates a de facto monarch/dictator, etc.
So you'd act like a dictator. Thanks for detailing what you'd do.



No, I did not support the prohibition of any group gatherings. Why? Because I understand law, which restrains government, not the People: "Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble." That's the law. It's clear. It's simple. If that is a bad law; if provision needs to be made for pandemics, the People may amend the law. The People have not amended it. So I expect government to uphold the law. Otherwise government exceeds its authority, loses the trust of the People, invites discord, and incites disorder and chaos. All of the latter took place because government did not uphold the law.

In other words, adherence to what you perceive to be the proper interpretation of the law takes precedence even when that would entail the avoidable death of millions to a pandemic?

 

[Unfettered]

In other words, adherence to what you perceive to be the proper interpretation of the law takes precedence even when that would entail the avoidable death of millions to a pandemic?

No one has to interpret what the 1st Amendment says; it's clear. The words can only mean one thing—just what they say: "Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble." IE, if a bunch of people get together peaceably for a concert, Congress shall make no law abridging their right to do so. So, yes, I expect government to uphold that law always.

 

[Unfettered]

Which specific "unalienable right to live and subsist" were taken away from anyone during the pandemic?

Are you asking about permanent loss of rights or temporary?

This was in response to, "You mean, like you're "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask?"

What further details do you need here?
Okay, do you think you have a "right" to enter a grocery store without wearing a mask, during a global pandemic, where the grocery store has decided that their policy is that everyone must wear a mask inside the store, in order to protect the safety of their employees and customers?

And then you go way off into left field here ....
So you think humans have a "natural right" to own land that is "suited to growing food?" Do they have to pay for this land or do they just get to have it by virtue of being alive?

What good is a right to life if you have no right to secure your own subsistence without the involvement of others? It's not "left field;" it's as pertinent a question as "Do human beings have a right to life?" (asking both questions within the framework of human societies) Your question proceeds from false assumptions; I have no answer to your question until you account for those assumptions. Hence, my clarifying question.

 

[Koldo]

No one has to interpret what the 1st Amendment says; it's clear. The words can only mean one thing—just what they say: "Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble." IE, if a bunch of people get together peaceably for a concert, Congress shall make no law abridging their right to do so. So, yes, I expect government to uphold that law always.

Do you always support a strict reading of the law? The 1st ammendment doesn't mention the internet, so whatever is typed in the internet would neither count as speech nor press (strictly speaking). Do you interpret it as lawful then for the government to censor absolutely everything in the internet?

 

[Koldo]

What good is a right to life if you have no right to secure your own subsistence without the involvement of others?

If your subsistence is coming to you in the form of money (wherever it comes from), it involves others.

 

[Unfettered]

Do you always support a strict reading of the law? The 1st ammendment doesn't mention the internet, so whatever is typed in the internet would neither count as speech nor press (strictly speaking). Do you interpret it as lawful then for the government to censor absolutely everything in the internet?

Law is strict. That's the point of law. What good is a law securing one's right to life if that law can be ignored simply when someone says it can be ignored? So, yes, if the law says X, I read it strictly and expect X. Heaven knows government reads the law that way when it's after what it's after! That said, "strict" can't extend outside the realm of human sense and experience. So, no, a "strict" reading does not mean reading "without sense."

If your subsistence is coming to you in the form of money (wherever it comes from), it involves others.

The statement was written within a framework of self-reliance: no money, no trade.

 

[Koldo]

Law is strict. That's the point of law. What good is a law securing one's right to life if that law can be ignored simply when someone says it can be ignored? So, yes, if the law says X, I read it strictly and expect X. Heaven knows government reads the law that way when it's after what it's after! That said, "strict" can't extend outside the realm of human sense and experience. So, no, a "strict" reading does not mean reading "without sense."

Do you or do you not interpret the first ammendment as allowing the government to censor what is typed in the internet?

The statement was written within a framework of self-reliance: no money, no trade.

Self-reliance doesn't exist.

 

[Unfettered]

Do you or do you not interpret the first ammendment as allowing the government to censor what is typed in the internet?

It is self-evident that, by default, what a person types on the internet is secured by the 1st Amendment against government censorship.

Self-reliance doesn't exist.

If that's what you believe, then my statement won't make sense to you. So let's not attempt to discuss it.

 

[Koldo]

It is self-evident that, by default, what a person types on the internet is secured by the 1st Amendment against government censorship.

The contrary is self-evident if we were to make use of an strict interpretation. The words typed in the internet are neither speech (lacks orality) nor press (no printing press involved). To interpret the first ammendment to include the internet you need to necessarily move past the letter of the law and align your interpretation with the spirit of the law. Because there is no doubt that being able to censor content in the internet is contrary to the spirit of the law, even though it does not violate the letter of the law.

If that's what you believe, then my statement won't make sense to you. So let's not attempt to discuss it.

It is not a belief. If your subsistence comes from transactions, you are not relying strictly on yourself.

 

[Unfettered]

The contrary is self-evident if we were to make use of an strict interpretation. The words typed in the internet are neither speech (lacks orality) nor press (no printing press involved). To interpret the first ammendment to include the internet you need to necessarily move past the letter of the law and align your interpretation with the spirit of the law. Because there is no doubt that being able to censor content in the internet is contrary to the spirit of the law, even though it does not violate the letter of the law.

Seems like you misunderstand me. Thanks, though.

It is not a belief. If your subsistence comes from transactions, you are not relying strictly on yourself.

Like I said, I don't think we understand one another enough to have a profitable discussion on it at this point.

 

[Koldo]

Seems like you misunderstand me. Thanks, though.

Like I said, I don't think we understand one another enough to have a profitable discussion on it at this point.

I think I understand you pretty well though.

 

[Unfettered]

I think I understand you pretty well though.

I must be wrong then.