Resist The Authoritarian Response To The Coronavirus

[dead0man]

Can we at least have elections before the government takes over the whole economy?  Or does that not fit into the plan to seize everything.

You're one hit off the crack pipe from Alex Jones territory here.

do you know how we can tell that you've run out of arguments?

[lfromnj]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

[T'Chenka]

Can we at least have elections before the government takes over the whole economy?  Or does that not fit into the plan to seize everything.

You're one hit off the crack pipe from Alex Jones territory here.

do you know how we can tell that you've run out of arguments?

I have more arguments than I know what to do with. He hasn't provided more than 1 or 2 arguments himself.

[dead0man]

you just switch to insults randomly then?

[TJ in Oregon]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

[Green Line]

you just switch to insults randomly then?

He just thinks he’s being cute, Dead0.  I’ve seen his kind before.  Let the kid have his fun.

[T'Chenka]

you just switch to insults randomly then?

When I'm exasperated by an illogal poster that refuses to have a constructive dialogue or argument, yeah, sometimes. As long as the insult is constructive criticism.

you just switch to insults randomly then?

He just thinks he’s being cute, Dead0.  I’ve seen his kind before.  Let the kid have his fun.

I'm probably older than you.

[T'Chenka]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

It's not unconstitutional to limit religious services to 9 people or less during a national emergency for the sake of public health.

Every church in America can have 9 people in it still.

[TJ in Oregon]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

It's not unconstitutional to limit religious services to 9 people or less during a national emergency for the sake of public health.

Every church in America can have 9 people in it still.

You and I know both know that is not a plausible solution that allows the free practice of religion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We're no different than the Russian peasants who installed a government which would go on to exterminate millions of their own.

Indeed, we aren't and no one is. There is an age old saying that basically says, "There is only so much S&@T you can take. The more desperate people are in a given situation, the more desperate and wild actions come on the table in response. Hence as you said, the Bolshevik take over is a case in point.

Most all of my ideologically motivated issue positions, are formulated with a mindset of minimizing the pressure and desperation that would possibly lead to the degradation of the constitution or of the freedoms that it is suppose to protect. The reason for this is that I realize that we are indeed not that special and the longevity of our system would be imperiled of people were pushed over their limit. Basically, rather than naively hoping that the freedoms and merits of the constitution would in every circumstance outweigh every competing priority, I seek to minimize the instances where people would feel the need to be forced to select one or the other.

[T'Chenka]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

It's not unconstitutional to limit religious services to 9 people or less during a national emergency for the sake of public health.

Every church in America can have 9 people in it still.

You and I know both know that is not a plausible solution that allows the free practice of religion.

It might have to do in a national health emergency.

I'd like to see the Supreme Court rule on this actually.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

It takes a whole new level of intellectual dishonesty to quote a sentence verbatim while ignoring the sentence that came immediately after. You must be very proud of yourself. You sure showed me! Any rational person will obviously see through your little parlor trick, but I'm sure it won't stop your coterie of rebel LARPers to applaud you.

That aside, you're probably right that Americans lack the basic self-discipline to follow the common sense measures needed to avoid making the situation a lot worse. Even Europeans, who are generally more down-to-earth, don't seem to be doing a good job of it. And yes, the lack of economic relief coming from the US government will probably mean that many people will be forced to keep going to work (even when a humane society would be helping them to stay home). This, of course, will all make life worse for everyone in the end. But I guess there's no other way when the country is full of people like you.

Your next sentence doesn’t even nearly cover it, sorry.  The state can’t cover for that kind of economic fallout.  That’s why I didn’t address it, it was nonsensical.  Try harder to think of a way to save the American worker, instead of just talking down to them.  We need to come together.

The state can absolutely cover 2-3 months of wage loss for workers who need it. It's really not rocket science. Worse come to worse, it blows up the deficit. Big deal. You can always make it up by raising taxes after the recovery, or better yet, just print money, since inflation is going to be anemic anyway.

Most small businesses can’t close down for 2-3 months.  There won’t be jobs to come back to when its over.  I think you just see an opportunity to turn this into your socialist playground.  I don’t blame you.  I would do the same if I could.

But I digress, hopefully we won’t have to take these steps.

Guess what, genius, those small businesses can be bailed out exactly the same way workers can. I know you're one of those neoliberal fanatics who has a principled stance against using government money to help people, but most real people don't want to let your bullsh*t ideology get in the way of their livelihoods.

Whats with the attitude Im getting.

Can we at least have elections before the government takes over the whole economy?  Or does that not fit into the plan to seize everything.

Thanks for showing your true colors as an ideologue who'd happily sacrifice other people's lives because something something muh soshulizm. Clearly there's no point in arguing with you anymore since we simply have different moral priorities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ironically we're in this mess because the very authoritarian Chinese government covered up the initial outbreak.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

That said, there are perhaps ways you could make an argument around it - for example, you could offer to all wear haz-mat suits, and perhaps argue that the state should (or maybe even must) let you meet in person in that case. If it is really a serious issue, the state could even offer to help pay/lend haz-mat suits to a religious group that really sincerely believed that it had to meet in person. This would be an accommodation, which wouldn't necessarily be required, but might be nice. Perhaps another option might be meeting in virtual reality, so that you could perform physical acts "virtually," depending on whether that would be compatible with the beliefs/practices.


The overall point though is that while maybe you could try to make some argument against it, it is definitely not "clearly unconsitutional." At the very least, the above is a reasonable argument for its constitutionality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh I should say, at risk of being misinterpeted, that we absolutely should have a ban on social gatherings at a minimum. Watching Italy from this side of the pond does not look like a fun place to be in a week. It's not very fun at home either, but we kinda have to do this. Three weeks ago things looked a lot different, but it's almost undeniable now the situation is far more dire than at least I had presumed. The way I see it, the better we are at following the smaller rules like social distancing the less likely we are to face a true lockdown. And I really don't want that.

The US has already reached the point that Italy was at when it went on lockdown. If social distancing had been properly enforced three weeks ago, then it might have been enough, but now it sadly probably won't be. I really, really hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a proper lockdown is coming, at least in high-density areas.

[lfromnj]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
National emergency arguments often end up like this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ironically we're in this mess because the very authoritarian Chinese government covered up the initial outbreak.

That's very true as well, and something that should not be forgotten in all this. Transparency is also key in emergencies, and that's something democracies are immeasurably better at.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Coronavirus: California prepared to enact martial law if its a 'necessity', governor says

California has prepared for worst case scenarios as the coronavirus pandemic heightens, including the possibility of enacting martial law.

Governor Gavin Newsom said during a press conference on Tuesday he would consider implementing martial law if it was necessary to curb the novel virus.

“We have the ability to do martial law ... if we feel the necessity,” he said.

Issuing martial law would be an unprecedented move rarely used by officials in US history. If enacted, it would temporarily replace civil rule with military authority.

The precedent for martial law in the US states “certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement,” according to a legal journal.

[...]

“If you want to establish a framework of martial law, which is ultimate authority and enforcement, we have the capacity to do that, but we are not feeling at this moment that is a necessity,” Mr Newsom said.

[...]

“So we had a very candid and a sober if not sobering conversation about where we may be and where we need to go together,” Mr Newsom said after the meeting with hospital officials. ”The good news is none of it surprised any of us. We as a state, working with our system, anticipated much of these needs and have been running plans to address them,” he added.

The fact that this is even being discussed is a huge red flag, and it's disheartening to see so-called "liberals" who are willing to go along with it.  You can force businesses to shut down, you can make reasonable restrictions for the sake of the public health, but civil liberties and due process don't stop at pandemics, and each passing day it looks like our response to this virus has been an overreaction.

Considering the big picture, how mild the symptoms of coronavirus are, how likely even a high-risk person is to die of it compared to almost anything else, and how effectively other countries have been able to "flatten the curve" through mostly voluntary measures, I am convinced that Americans by and large should take the attitude that quarantine is a temporary measure and not a long-term one.  If, on the other hand, you are willing to live under martial law during the reign of the most corrupt administration since Nixon, then you're not merely licking the boot - you are deepthroating it.

The last time Americans were this paranoid and complacent, we got the Patriot Act.  Worry about that as much as you worry about this virus.

[Coldstream]

Libertarians would rather die than have any minor social responsibilities placed on them. Shock.

[T'Chenka]

Libertarians would rather die murder their fellow citizens in an abstract way that allows them to deflect guilt than have any minor social responsibilities placed on them. Shock.

[dead0man]

It's cute that you think everybody that disagrees with you is a libertarian.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It's cute that you think everybody that disagrees with you is a libertarian.

Plus "granny will die" is just a rebranding of the classic "children will die" crap bandied about on all the other issues. If we don't ban the 99.9% of guns not used in crimes each children will DIE! If we don't pass Medicare for all children will DIE! If we limit abortion access children will DIE in back alleys! If we don't invade Syria children will DIE! If we dont ban flavored vape children will DIE! Is it any surprise there is a lot of pushback against hyperbolic Insanity about a cough. This may be something different but the same people demanding gun bans aren't very credible at weighing outcomes imo.

At this point it seems like I have half this thread on ignore now.

[dead0man]

It's cute that you think everybody that disagrees with you is a libertarian.

Plus "granny will die" is just a rebranding of the classic "children will die" crap bandied about on all the other issues. If we don't ban the 99.9% of guns not used in crimes each children will DIE! If we don't pass Medicare for all children will DIE! If we limit abortion access children will DIE in back alleys! If we don't invade Syria children will DIE! If we dont ban flavored vape children will DIE! Is it any surprise there is a lot of pushback against hyperbolic Insanity about a cough. This may be something different but the same people demanding gun bans aren't very credible at weighing outcomes imo.

At this point it seems like I have half this thread on ignore now.

indeed, appeal to emotion is a common logical fallacy and one employed heavily in this thread

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

It's cute that you think everybody that disagrees with you is a libertarian.

Plus "granny will die" is just a rebranding of the classic "children will die" crap bandied about on all the other issues. If we don't ban the 99.9% of guns not used in crimes each children will DIE! If we don't pass Medicare for all children will DIE! If we limit abortion access children will DIE in back alleys! If we don't invade Syria children will DIE! If we dont ban flavored vape children will DIE! Is it any surprise there is a lot of pushback against hyperbolic Insanity about a cough. This may be something different but the same people demanding gun bans aren't very credible at weighing outcomes imo.

At this point it seems like I have half this thread on ignore now.

My concerns stem from, as I posted in another thread, being in direct communication with doctors and healthcare professionals internationally.   One of my closest friends is a pulmonologist in north Italy -- it's an absolute nightmare over there.  Nothing that we learn in medical school fully prepares us for mass outbreaks on this scale.  

I definitely don't admonish you for wanting to defend your civil rights and liberties, but it can't be boiled down to just "a cough".  It's a combination of a novel virus strain that is highly contagious coupled with the testing of healthcare infrastructure.  

Is it the end of all civilization and mankind? No.  Will panicking and melting down help? No and no. Will tens of millions die? Probably not, at least not at the current rate.  

But I simply have to disagree with your characterization of this virus.  

Then again, perhaps I'm too emotionally attached to this whole affair. 

[Figueira]

It's cute that you think everybody that disagrees with you is a libertarian.

Plus "granny will die" is just a rebranding of the classic "children will die" crap bandied about on all the other issues. If we don't ban the 99.9% of guns not used in crimes each children will DIE! If we don't pass Medicare for all children will DIE! If we limit abortion access children will DIE in back alleys! If we don't invade Syria children will DIE! If we dont ban flavored vape children will DIE! Is it any surprise there is a lot of pushback against hyperbolic Insanity about a cough. This may be something different but the same people demanding gun bans aren't very credible at weighing outcomes imo.

At this point it seems like I have half this thread on ignore now.

I mean all of those things are true except the one about invading Syria.