Coronavirus Thread

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

I have the inalienable rights of freedom of worship and assembly. Therefore, I don't need permission to worship and assemble. Government thinks they can give me permission. But permission is the antithesis to liberty. When man's laws contradict God's laws, I will follow God's laws. Furthermore, there is no pandemic exception to the first amendment.

The constitutionality of this is a bit murky. The First Amendment originally applied to CONGRESS and the Federal Government. The states, of course, pre-existed the Federal Government and came together to create it. Originally, almost all police powers resided in states and localities and were far, far broader than federal prerogatives.

The laws governing police powers in Anglo-American culture go back to the common law and Magna Carta, but apparently it was always assumed in cases of war or pandemic normal rights and customs were permissibly suspended. Alexander Hamilton was forcibly quarantined when he arrived in New York from DC after a smallpox outbreak in DC, and he didn't file suit because NY did in fact have those police powers.

Where it gets a bit murky is the massive amounts of civil rights jurisprudence that has ruled the Bill of Rights DOES apply to the states even where the language doesn't suggest it does.

Long story short: 200 years ago states clearly had these powers; intervening constitutional developments since make it murky; ultimately we need to be mindful when we vote for our governor that this office is potentially far more powerful than the presidency (although give it time with how imperial that office has become.)

 

[takethepoints]

The most communist part of India has the lowest income. Who would have guessed. Bernie Sanders likes to tout Fidel Castro’s literacy programs too.

My bad. Actually, Kerala is 9th among the 33 Indian states in per capita income. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories_by_GDP_per_capita

I suspect it's all that tourism. Some friends of ours went there not too long ago and had a great time. And spent money like Americans.

Really, the way you fling numbers around without checking them is remarkable. Yesterday, it was "100K mass graves in Brazil" with no citation to … well, anything at all. Now you pick on the Keralans just because you have some preconceptions about why they are poor. News Flash! All of India is poor. There are pockets of prosperity here and there, but the place is still a sub-continent with a lot of poor people. At least in Kerala the people know they'll get medical care and enough to eat. That's definitely not the case with the rest of the country.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

My bad. Actually, Kerala is 9th among the 33 Indian states in per capita income. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories_by_GDP_per_capita

I suspect it's all that tourism. Some friends of ours went there not too long ago and had a great time. And spent money like Americans.

Really, the way you fling numbers around without checking them is remarkable. Yesterday, it was "100K mass graves in Brazil" with no citation to … well, anything at all. Now you pick on the Keralans just because you have some preconceptions about why they are poor. News Flash! All of India is poor. There are pockets of prosperity here and there, but the place is still a sub-continent with a lot of poor people. At least in Kerala the people know they'll get medical care and enough to eat. That's definitely not the case with the rest of the country.

Well, enjoy your spot in the ignore bin with the others. Your incessant personal attacks and inflammatory posts are ridiculous. All I quoted was your comment that they had low income. You can search and find that their median net worth is 1/15th that of the United States. IIWII. You never asked for a citation on Brazil mass graves, but without asking where I read that, you condemn me for not fact checking anything. I fact check EVERYTHING. Sometimes I make mistakes. But I never just make things up. Google it yourself, there are videos on YouTube. Just ask for help. You have plenty of options before attacking other site members. Ridiculously pathetic. Your daily waxing poetic of dirt poor communist regimes is creepy.

 

[takethepoints]

Well, enjoy your spot in the ignore bin with the others. Your incessant personal attacks and inflammatory posts are ridiculous. All I quoted was your comment that they had low income. You can search and find that their median net worth is 1/15th that of the United States. IIWII. You never asked for a citation on Brazil mass graves, but without asking where I read that, you condemn me for not fact checking anything. I fact check EVERYTHING. Sometimes I make mistakes. But I never just make things up. Google it yourself, there are videos on YouTube. Just ask for help. You have plenty of options before attacking other site members. Ridiculously pathetic. Your daily waxing poetic of dirt poor communist regimes is creepy.

You know, you can avoid these kinds of criticisms by the simple act of citing your sources. If you do fact-check, good. Let us know where you found your data.

I don't do that as often as I should myself, but I do try to do it when I'm making a claim that will strike others as far-fetched.

 

[TechPreacher]

The constitutionality of this is a bit murky. The First Amendment originally applied to CONGRESS and the Federal Government. The states, of course, pre-existed the Federal Government and came together to create it. Originally, almost all police powers resided in states and localities and were far, far broader than federal prerogatives.

The laws governing police powers in Anglo-American culture go back to the common law and Magna Carta, but apparently it was always assumed in cases of war or pandemic normal rights and customs were permissibly suspended. Alexander Hamilton was forcibly quarantined when he arrived in New York from DC after a smallpox outbreak in DC, and he didn't file suit because NY did in fact have those police powers.

Where it gets a bit murky is the massive amounts of civil rights jurisprudence that has ruled the Bill of Rights DOES apply to the states even where the language doesn't suggest it does.

Long story short: 200 years ago states clearly had these powers; intervening constitutional developments since make it murky; ultimately we need to be mindful when we vote for our governor that this office is potentially far more powerful than the presidency (although give it time with how imperial that office has become.)

I'm all for states' rights. But God's laws still supercede man's laws. And I don't need permission when I already have liberty.
The government cannot grant rights that I have already been given. They can only try to take them away.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm all for states' rights. But God's laws still supercede man's laws. And I don't need permission when I already have liberty.
The government cannot grant rights that I have already been given. They can only try to take them away.

That's right - the government's job is to enforce our inalienable rights. It by definition cannot remove them, legislate them away, or infringe upon them without suffering the occasional watering of the tree of liberty.

 

[takethepoints]

Problem = this is a completely subjective definition of rights. You think you have inalienable rights that God gave you. Prove it.

Just got harder, didn't it? Scripture isn't much help. Reason - no matter how defined - varies with individuals and with what particular cultures think is reasonable. You can - most political philosophers have - fall back on utilitarianism, but even that has problems.

Oth, it is demonstrable that societies that don't respect some things we call rights end up being tyrannical hell-holes. So recognizing the existence of rights is important. The usual practical solution is to set a government up to define what rights its citizens have then putting together institutions that hold them to it. That makes the whole process a lot more difficult, but it has turned out to be the most reliable course of action.

 

[GT_EE78]

> Fauci and Big Pharma gonna get nervous again.the politicians are gonna have a hard time killing this.
Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis
Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities.These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut (Harvey A. Risch)


American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093
Published:
27 May 2020

 

[gtbeak]

Problem = this is a completely subjective definition of rights. You think you have inalienable rights that God gave you. Prove it.

Just got harder, didn't it? Scripture isn't much help. Reason - no matter how defined - varies with individuals and with what particular cultures think is reasonable. You can - most political philosophers have - fall back on utilitarianism, but even that has problems.

Oth, it is demonstrable that societies that don't respect some things we call rights end up being tyrannical hell-holes. So recognizing the existence of rights is important. The usual practical solution is to set a government up to define what rights its citizens have then putting together institutions that hold them to it. That makes the whole process a lot more difficult, but it has turned out to be the most reliable course of action.

Not implying that you are saying otherwise, simply a reminder.....

The founders stated in the Declaration of Independence that certain rights are "self-evident", endowed by their Creator, and include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then, 13 years later, a similar body attempted to define these rights in more detail in what we know as the Bill of Rights.

As is the case with most abstract ideas, proving that these rights exist is difficult. All the same, their existence has been described as self-evident and endowed by the Creator, which Creator is considered a higher source than the government established by those free peoples. This doesn't mean that these rights can't be effectively taken away by a strong force, but those rights are merely taken away, not destroyed.

 

[TechPreacher]

Problem = this is a completely subjective definition of rights. You think you have inalienable rights that God gave you. Prove it.

Just got harder, didn't it? Scripture isn't much help. Reason - no matter how defined - varies with individuals and with what particular cultures think is reasonable. You can - most political philosophers have - fall back on utilitarianism, but even that has problems.

Oth, it is demonstrable that societies that don't respect some things we call rights end up being tyrannical hell-holes. So recognizing the existence of rights is important. The usual practical solution is to set a government up to define what rights its citizens have then putting together institutions that hold them to it. That makes the whole process a lot more difficult, but it has turned out to be the most reliable course of action.

America's founding documents say I do.

 

[CuseJacket]

Merged the two Covid threads. The newer covered the same topics being discussed in this one.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Bad news in S.C. and will be interesting to watch. Charleston County again only a few new daily cases. Greenville County who only has a 20% larger population had 75 (!) new cases today. They’ve been very high for a long time. It smells like the start of an uncontrolled outbreak. Will be interesting to see if the state sets new rollback restrictions on movement and commerce there, but not elsewhere. The state daily peak from early April (IIRC) was around 300 new cases and we had 330 today. Not good. Hospital capacity is still way empty, but that will likely change in the next 1-2 weeks from this. Yikes.

 

[takethepoints]

Not implying that you are saying otherwise, simply a reminder.....

The founders stated in the Declaration of Independence that certain rights are "self-evident", endowed by their Creator, and include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then, 13 years later, a similar body attempted to define these rights in more detail in what we know as the Bill of Rights.

As is the case with most abstract ideas, proving that these rights exist is difficult. All the same, their existence has been described as self-evident and endowed by the Creator, which Creator is considered a higher source than the government established by those free peoples. This doesn't mean that these rights can't be effectively taken away by a strong force, but those rights are merely taken away, not destroyed.

Look, those people were leading a war of national liberation. They had to say something to justify what they were doing and stealing from Locke came readily to hand. Besides, they were writing to convince a nation of believers.

But notice what the actual structure of rights we ended up with was like. You don't see much in the way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution or the BoR; in both rights are very carefully laid out in the form of legal restrictions, most of them either long standing in common law or part of existing state constitutions. And, I might add, they didn't depend on God to enforce them or to control the government from infringing on them. It's all either limits on government or institutional controls.

Btw, a right that has been taken away by a government or a private organization has been destroyed, to all intents and purposes. That's why we want governments to recognize them and work to re-establish them when they are laid aside.

 

[takethepoints]

America's founding documents say I do.

And they were getting mighty high on the stalk when they did.

 

[MWBATL]

It's all either limits on government or institutional controls.

That's because it is almost universally governments (men) who try to take away the natural rights of man as granted by God (or Allah or Jehovah or whatever you wish to call him/her).

The best way to think about the rights given by God is this..if you were in a remote island, with absolutely no government and no other people around ...what rights would you have?

 

[forensicbuzz]

America's founding documents say I do.

Your rights end where they infringe on mine, and vice versa.

 

[cyclejacket]

Look, those people were leading a war of national liberation. They had to say something to justify what they were doing and stealing from Locke came readily to hand. Besides, they were writing to convince a nation of believers.

But notice what the actual structure of rights we ended up with was like. You don't see much in the way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution or the BoR; in both rights are very carefully laid out in the form of legal restrictions, most of them either long standing in common law or part of existing state constitutions. And, I might add, they didn't depend on God to enforce them or to control the government from infringing on them. It's all either limits on government or institutional controls.

Btw, a right that has been taken away by a government or a private organization has been destroyed, to all intents and purposes. That's why we want governments to recognize them and work to re-establish them when they are laid aside.

LOL, throw water on the motives of the founders. Surprised you feel compelled to abide by them since they were trying to hornswaggle a nation of superstitious rubes. We'd hate for ttp to be caught identifying with that unsophisticated mob. And don't worry, Nate Silver can be borrowed from at will but these guys actually borrowed from John Locke, how quaint they were.

I certainly hope your reference to restrictions were those put on the government because freedoms belonging to us as citizens of religion, speech, press, assembly, bearing arms, and protection from illegal search & seizure, etc. are pretty plainly spelled out.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

In one single interview, the head of the NIH gives 5 different answers to the change in mask guidance. Wow, what a buffoon.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/national...-guidelines-confused-americans-090016556.html

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You can’t fix stupid.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lake-ozarks-pool-partier-tests-000440083.html

 

[GoldZ]

Your rights end where they infringe on mine, and vice versa.

TechPreacher, this is all you need to know. Do unto others........ Where did this come from ?