Comparing Corona Virus Success Stories with Abysmal Failures

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What exactly is your point?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

and that level of sarcasm should be applicable to any suggestion that aspires to return to a world where "All Lives Matter" is a contentious issue. 

Is it not clear? 

 

[iNow]

 

[MigL]

The 'standard' I use is
"your rights stop, once they start infringing on the rights of others"

You want to go out and get sick ?
Fine I have no problem with that.
But what gives you the right to infect others, for several weeks before you come down with symptoms and eventually die ?
Or to infect the health care workers whose job it is to save your ignorant a*s ?

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'standard' I use is
"your rights stop, once they start infringing on the rights of others"

You want to go out and get sick ?
Fine I have no problem with that.
But what gives you the right to infect others, for several weeks before you come down with symptoms and eventually die ?
Or to infect the health care workers whose job it is to save your ignorant a*s ?

Yes.Your rights stop when your activities  become an existential threat to others.

[Danijel Gorupec]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

"your rights stop, once they start infringing on the rights of others"

I noticed that you often say this, but it does not tell that much to me. What are 'rights' and how do your rank them when there is a conflict? Do you really think that your statement makes decisions easier?

StringJunky is being a bit more specific - he mentions the 'existential threat'. But still, I don't find this that much helpful. Is it the imminent existential threat or just any existential threat (like polluting the air)?

In my opinion, we are only left with the law (and even law is not clear all the time). Something either is or is not in accordance with the law. Mentioning additional 'rights' beside the law just adds to confusion... I mean, this is what the law is -> our recipe to resolve rights priority. When we feel that we should clarify rights priority it should be done through the law.

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I noticed that you often say this, but it does not tell that much to me. What are 'rights' and how do your rank them when there is a conflict? Do you really think that your statement makes decisions easier?

StringJunky is being a bit more specific - he mentions the 'existential threat'. But still, I don't find this that much helpful. Is it the imminent existential threat or just any existential threat (like polluting the air)?

In my opinion, we are only left with the law (and even law is not clear all the time). Something either is or is not in accordance with the law. Mentioning additional 'rights' beside the law just adds to confusion... I mean, this is what the law is -> our recipe to resolve rights priority. When we feel that we should clarify rights priority it should be done through the law.

Ultimately, when challenged, it is whatever has a legal precedent and specifically prescribed/defined in law. If it is not apparent  then it is either interpreted by a high court or created by lawmakers.

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

In my opinion, we are only left with the law (and even law is not clear all the time). Something either is or is not in accordance with the law

Perhaps you should take it up with former Chief Supreme Court Justice of the United States, Oliver Wendall Holmes, to whom that exact quote is often attributed:

“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Its also been similarly stated by legal experts like John Stuart Mill, and even Abraham Lincoln. Maybe it’s you who’s the odd man out on this one?

Freedom brings with it certain responsibilities, especially when others around us are equally free. 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Freedom brings with it certain responsibilities, especially when others around us are equally free. 

I saw video recently with someone "explaining" why they said so many offensive things: "because the first amendment says I can".

To which my response would be: it says you can, it doesn't say you have to. If the only justification you have for doing something is that it is not strictly illegal, then maybe you need to rethink why you are doing it.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I think, iNow and Strange, that you are talking about morality. Morality is great, but I don't think it has a power to resolve conflicts of rights. There are over 7.5 billion morality schemas in this world, which one to apply?

Morality is great because it effectively decreases the probability that we will have conflicts of rights in the first place. However when conflicts of rights arise, you should not resolve it by looking into your own morality schema. You should look at the law. (You should suppose, just to be safe, that your own morality schema is wrong.)

However my post was not even aiming that far. I was just commenting that MigL statement might not be that useful to make decisions. I know he will not accept it, but I would suggest a more practical motto: "your right stops, once it is breaking the law". No man would accept such a dull motto.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I think, iNow and Strange, that you are talking about morality. Morality is great, but I don't think it has a power to resolve conflicts of rights. There are over 7.5 billion morality schemas in this world, which one to apply?

Rights exist because they are enshrined in law, and are usually based on the ethical and moral considerations of that society. There is always a conflict of morals and rights, the purpose of law and the courts is to attempt to balance those fairly.

7 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I would suggest a more practical motto: "your right stops, once it is breaking the law". No man would accept such a dull motto.

While true, the law comes second: it reflects what rights people think should exist. So the rights that people believe in come first, and the the law to create them.

I suppose I should add that there are two general approaches to this in law. either "everything not specifically banned is permitted" and "everything not specifically permitted is banned" (these have fancy names, but I can't remember what they are.)

But we seem to be getting off topic...

[J.C.MacSwell]

There are laws in the World that most of us here would consider unjust. Respect for the law generally is important, but it will never be 100%.

[Alex_Krycek]

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is it not clear? 

 

No.  Not one iota.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

But what gives you the right to infect others, for several weeks before you come down with symptoms and eventually die ?
Or to infect the health care workers whose job it is to save your ignorant a*s ?

That's a pretty weak argument.  These protesters are staying within their own group outdoors for the most part.  I don't see them parading through hospitals or entering the homes of those who don't want to participate.

Also, a German court ruled last week that banning protests would be unconstitutional:

The court said health concerns linked to the coronavirus pandemic are no grounds for a general ban on demonstrations.

“The local authorities had incorrectly assumed that the provision by the Hesse state government to fight the coronavirus includes a general ban on gatherings of more than two people who don’t live in the same household and has therefore violated the constitutional right to assembly,” the court said.

The Constitutional Court added that the city of Giessen as well as the two lower courts must use its ruling to make a new decision on whether to allow the protests to go ahead under certain conditions or to ban them.

Source:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN21Y220

 

The question:  "What right does the government have to deny a citizen the opportunity to work? (thus greatly increasing the chances of bankruptcy, starvation, poverty, and potential death) is not being sufficiently addressed.  As I mentioned before, this question is being arrogantly dismissed (as Cuomo did when he told people to "go get essential jobs".)

Edited April 26, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That's a pretty weak argument.  These protesters are staying within their own group outdoors for the most part. 

That is not what I meant.
They are protesting against the lockdown.
IOW they want lockdown and distancing restrictions lifted.
Lifting those restrictions is what will put everyone else at risk.
You rebutted something I did not suggest; Try again.
( and as far as I know, Germany has no such protests, so I fail to see the value of their court rulings in Canada or the US )
 

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What right does the government have to deny a citizen the opportunity to work?

Let's consider a similar example...
In countries where prostitution is legal, do you also believe sex trade workers who have contracted HIV and /or AIDS, should be allowed to continue working without informing their 'customers, or should they be charged with willful negligence/reckless endangerment to human life, or possibly even manslaughter ?

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

That is not what I meant.
They are protesting against the lockdown.
IOW they want lockdown and distancing restrictions lifted.
Lifting those restrictions is what will put everyone else at risk.
You rebutted something I did not suggest; Try again.
( and as far as I know, Germany has no such protests, so I fail to see the value of their court rulings in Canada or the US )

Lockdown Protests Germany:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/apr/26/coronavirus-dozens-arrested-in-berlin-protesting-against-lockdown-video

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN2270RD

Lockdown Protests France:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/paris-suburbs-protests-villeneuve-la-garenne/2020/04/25/55f5a40c-85a1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html

 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Let's consider a similar example...
In countries where prostitution is legal, do you also believe sex trade workers who have contracted HIV and /or AIDS, should be allowed to continue working without informing their 'customers, or should they be charged with willful negligence/reckless endangerment to human life, or possibly even manslaughter ?

Fallacious argument.  The premise should be: should sex workers be stopped from working because they have the potential to get HIV / AIDS and spread it to others?  By all accounts, that's a different question. 

Yes, the protesters might have COVID-19, or they might get it by leaving their homes.  But right now they are being prevented from earning a living because of a potentiality, not a reality.  And the reality is, if they don't work, they will starve.  That is much less uncertain.  So what takes precedence - the situation that might arise, or the situation that is?

 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The question:  "What right does the government have to deny a citizen the opportunity to work? (thus greatly increasing the chances of bankruptcy, starvation, poverty, and potential death) is not being sufficiently addressed.  As I mentioned before, this question is being arrogantly dismissed

It’s known as Police Powers, and it comes directly from the 10th amendment to the Constitution 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

Quote

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulatebehavior 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. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power is exercised by the legislative and executive branches of the various states through the enactment and enforcement of laws. States have the power to compel obedience to these laws through whatever measures they see fit

 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s known as Police Powers, and it comes directly from the 10th amendment to the Constitution 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

 

Of course.  And ultimately it is up to the legislature and the executive at the state level to determine whether a mandatory lockdown order infringes on people's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".  But people should certainly have the right to protest that it does.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

Again, as far as Germany is concerned...

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I fail to see the value of their court rulings in Canada or the US

If you carefully think about it, my 'fallacious' argument is perfectly sensible, as you have no idea if people you interact with are infectious or not.
So answer the question as posed, without re-wording.

 

Or whether lifting the lockdown

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

infringes on OTHER* people's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

*( added to your quote )

Edited April 27, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

But people should certainly have the right to protest that it does.

And there too (much like yelling fire in a crowded theater) exist valid limitations: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

And there too (much like yelling fire in a crowded theater) exist valid limitations: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

I don't see any parallel with the "crowded theater" argument.  Someone leaving their home to protest doesn't infringe upon my rights to self-quarantine if I want to.

But that's one for the courts. 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

If you carefully think about it, my 'fallacious' argument is perfectly sensible, as you have no idea if people you interact with are infectious or not.
So answer the question as posed, without re-wording.

Or whether lifting the lockdown

*( added to your quote )

Ok, so what do you propose the world do?  Extend the shutdown indefinitely, so that the economy crashes and millions starve?  Great - you just created a problem that's worse than the supposed cure. 

And you didn't answer my question.  Which is worse: A.)  the reality of losing your job and going bankrupt (or the economy crashing), or B.) potentially getting infected with a disease form which the vast majority of people recover?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't see any parallel with the "crowded theater" argument.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. There are valid and enforceable limitations on both free speech and protest. That was my only point. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

24 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And you didn't answer my question.

For the ones who don't recover, getting infected is much worse.
( so far, over 200 000, and climbing )

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And you didn't answer my question.  Which is worse: A.)  the reality of losing your job and going bankrupt (or the economy crashing), or B.) potentially getting infected with a disease form which the vast majority of people recover?

We can recover from a temporary economic slowdown. We cannot recover from death. 

X-posted with MigL

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. There are valid and enforceable limitations on both free speech and protest. That was my only point. 

Keyword:  "limitations".  You can't arbitrarily suspend someone's constitutional rights.  You don't get to decide that; only the courts can.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

We can recover from a temporary economic slowdown. We cannot recover from death. 

X-posted with MigL

"Temporary"?  You don't know if it will be temporary.  Many of the so called experts are advocating some form of shutdown for years.  Fine because it won't affect them.  Not so great for average working people.

Here's a fun read for you:  Unemployment causes 45,000 suicides a year worldwide, finds study

  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/unemployment-causes-45000-suicides-a-year-worldwide-finds-study  

That was when unemployment was low.  Think what the number of suicides will be at with 20,000,000 people unemployed (and rising), and that's just in the United States.  Depressions / recessions KILL.  No matter how dismissive you choose to be, that is just as serious a threat as possibly dying from COVID, if not more serious.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[Alex_Krycek]

Great piece by Robert Reich:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/covid-19-pandemic-shines-a-light-on-a-new-kind-of-class-divide-and-its-inequalities

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[StringJunky]

Quote

Exceptions to Inalienable Rights (US Constitution)

By their very nature, having been bestowed by God, or by happenstance of birth, inalienable rights can only be suspended or abolished in dire circumstance. According to the Constitution of the United States and the legal precedent of the nation, there are certain exceptions to inalienable rights. For instance, a person’s inalienable rights may be temporarily suspended throughout period of due process and trial.

For example:

John has been arrested and charged with felony assault and robbery. His freedom can legally be suspended throughout the investigation and trial preparation, if the judge deems John a danger to society if let out of jail on bail. In the event John is convicted at trial, his right to freedom can be legally taken away for the period he is imprisoned. In addition, some of John’s property, or assets, may be seized to pay restitution to his victim.

A person’s natural rights may also be suspended by an injunction. When issued by a court, an injunction may limit a person’s activities, and is most commonly issued when the exercise of that person’s rights interferes with another person’s rights. In such situations, the court must disentangle the rights of each party during a civil lawsuit. Other situations in which a person’s inalienable rights may be suspended include acts that may interfere with public safety.

https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by StringJunky