Inalienable rights are natural rights, that John Locke wrote about. Only up to the point they put others in danger or infringe on others natural rights, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I think life is the main issue here. And those can be suspended, jail and being held on bond. Other rights are legal rights as defined by laws, ie. amendments. Healthcare as you use in your example is far from any right, legal or natural, in the US. Access to healthcare is controlled by the private corporate rules, preexisting condition clauses, deductibles and lifetime limitations are one's we uniquely enjoy.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
they should have law enforcement use drones... (settle down...no not that kind of drone) to take pictures of liscense plates and faces, and when round 2 of this shit comes around and these dip shits are sick... to fucking bad. and they should also cancel their stay at home and feel good about it checks from uncle donald.
Cuz that is what the first amendment is all about?
Oh and all the democrat legislators in Mich that are rebuking the governor? Should they lose their right to treatment? Sorry but this is just plain stupid. A doc out here used the same rational in a quote for the paper. Amazing little view into his god complex.
Am I taking away their right to free speech? No they are free to say what they want, but freedoms have consequences and if they trigger an outbreak then there should be personal consequences. Their actions could endanger a lot of people. I like a lot of your takes, but this one is ass backwards. You can't determine where people got infected from and you can't punish people for being "endangering". For all you or any judge knows, the "victims" could have gotten everyone else sick. The precedence would be massively wrong. Could your teenager have their right to healthcare revoked because they're bad at driving and a risk to their community? What about people who go to work sick during non-pandemic times? Eliminate their insurance, because they might get someone with a weak immune system sick? Can I just start suing people who cough around me? Restricting ability to communicate via social media to people who pass my arbitrary set of qualifications for intelligence, because they might be spreading disinformation as I determine it? How about vaccines or any other drug? They might be safe for most people, but some people have adverse reactions to them. Should doctors be punished for "endangering" that small percentage of people? Should the governor/president be liable for the deaths of his citizens if they open things up too soon? Are they liable for the deaths of the citizens due to increased suicide rates by keeping it closed too long? They're "endangering" both populations with their choices. If two people are at a protest and one has been tested and shown to be negative, and the other is untested. Is the tested one allowed to have their right to health care, but the untested one not? Who do we sue for outbreaks that happen at "essential" businesses?
I know covid19 is scary, but your rights are inalienable. period.
normally I would agree about individual rights, but in a time of a national crisis those rights get set aside at times for the betterment of society.
and Trump is talking about suing china, I think I have read where some states are already doing so. I dont agree with the people protesting the protesters... thats is about the dumbest fuckers out there IMO, but as I said, those that are openly ignoring the govt guidlines, mandates, etc, and are taking unnecessary risks to make a point... I wont feel sorry when they get sick. we have to accept for the time being that its not going to be like it was last year, the years before, etc. Until they get a grasp on this virus we need to be better and smarter and above all more concerned about our at risk neighbors than we are for our own wallets.
I am not going to get into scenarios and shit, the comments were mostly tongue in cheek, but to many fucking idiots think they are above the rules because they are mad about something. it sucks for a lot of people and its going to keep on sucking for a while longer, protest and shit arent going to help find an anti virus, or accelerate development of antibody testing.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
they should have law enforcement use drones... (settle down...no not that kind of drone) to take pictures of liscense plates and faces, and when round 2 of this shit comes around and these dip shits are sick... to fucking bad. and they should also cancel their stay at home and feel good about it checks from uncle donald.
Cuz that is what the first amendment is all about?
Oh and all the democrat legislators in Mich that are rebuking the governor? Should they lose their right to treatment? Sorry but this is just plain stupid. A doc out here used the same rational in a quote for the paper. Amazing little view into his god complex.
Am I taking away their right to free speech? No they are free to say what they want, but freedoms have consequences and if they trigger an outbreak then there should be personal consequences. Their actions could endanger a lot of people. I like a lot of your takes, but this one is ass backwards. You can't determine where people got infected from and you can't punish people for being "endangering". For all you or any judge knows, the "victims" could have gotten everyone else sick. The precedence would be massively wrong. Could your teenager have their right to healthcare revoked because they're bad at driving and a risk to their community? What about people who go to work sick during non-pandemic times? Eliminate their insurance, because they might get someone with a weak immune system sick? Can I just start suing people who cough around me? Restricting ability to communicate via social media to people who pass my arbitrary set of qualifications for intelligence, because they might be spreading disinformation as I determine it? How about vaccines or any other drug? They might be safe for most people, but some people have adverse reactions to them. Should doctors be punished for "endangering" that small percentage of people? Should the governor/president be liable for the deaths of his citizens if they open things up too soon? Are they liable for the deaths of the citizens due to increased suicide rates by keeping it closed too long? They're "endangering" both populations with their choices. If two people are at a protest and one has been tested and shown to be negative, and the other is untested. Is the tested one allowed to have their right to health care, but the untested one not? Who do we sue for outbreaks that happen at "essential" businesses?
I know covid19 is scary, but your rights are inalienable. period.
normally I would agree about individual rights, but in a time of a national crisis those rights get set aside at times for the betterment of society.
and Trump is talking about suing china, I think I have read where some states are already doing so. I dont agree with the people protesting the protesters... thats is about the dumbest fuckers out there IMO, but as I said, those that are openly ignoring the govt guidlines, mandates, etc, and are taking unnecessary risks to make a point... I wont feel sorry when they get sick. we have to accept for the time being that its not going to be like it was last year, the years before, etc. Until they get a grasp on this virus we need to be better and smarter and above all more concerned about our at risk neighbors than we are for our own wallets.
I am not going to get into scenarios and shit, the comments were mostly tongue in cheek, but to many fucking idiots think they are above the rules because they are mad about something. it sucks for a lot of people and its going to keep on sucking for a while longer, protest and shit arent going to help find an anti virus, or accelerate development of antibody testing. I just don't agree that people are not doing the right thing at any rate that matters. Everywhere I go is a ghost town. I don't think you can make an argument that everyone should lose their rights because a small handful of people that were shown on the news are dumb. Maybe you're seeing more things out there, but I'm just not seeing it. I see people online wanting to have a discussion and I see people bitching about things, but I'm not seeing the disregard for life that you're expressing.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Inalienable rights are natural rights, that John Locke wrote about. Only up to the point they put others in danger or infringe on others natural rights, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I think life is the main issue here. And those can be suspended, jail and being held on bond. Other rights are legal rights as defined by laws, ie. amendments. Healthcare as you use in your example is far from any right, legal or natural, in the US. Access to healthcare is controlled by the private corporate rules, preexisting condition clauses, deductibles and lifetime limitations are one's we uniquely enjoy.
Obviously I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to shoot someone. I would even agree that someone who has HIV and knows it and has unprotected sex is infringing on other people's rights. Do you have any examples where people in the US lose their rights based on the potential of something happening and not on the past? Criminals have their rights revoked because they're already shown a willingness to injure other people. Are there any examples of people who have a disease losing their rights because of their disease?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
they should have law enforcement use drones... (settle down...no not that kind of drone) to take pictures of liscense plates and faces, and when round 2 of this shit comes around and these dip shits are sick... to fucking bad. and they should also cancel their stay at home and feel good about it checks from uncle donald.
Cuz that is what the first amendment is all about?
Oh and all the democrat legislators in Mich that are rebuking the governor? Should they lose their right to treatment? Sorry but this is just plain stupid. A doc out here used the same rational in a quote for the paper. Amazing little view into his god complex.
Am I taking away their right to free speech? No they are free to say what they want, but freedoms have consequences and if they trigger an outbreak then there should be personal consequences. Their actions could endanger a lot of people. I like a lot of your takes, but this one is ass backwards. You can't determine where people got infected from and you can't punish people for being "endangering". For all you or any judge knows, the "victims" could have gotten everyone else sick. The precedence would be massively wrong. Could your teenager have their right to healthcare revoked because they're bad at driving and a risk to their community? What about people who go to work sick during non-pandemic times? Eliminate their insurance, because they might get someone with a weak immune system sick? Can I just start suing people who cough around me? Restricting ability to communicate via social media to people who pass my arbitrary set of qualifications for intelligence, because they might be spreading disinformation as I determine it? How about vaccines or any other drug? They might be safe for most people, but some people have adverse reactions to them. Should doctors be punished for "endangering" that small percentage of people? Should the governor/president be liable for the deaths of his citizens if they open things up too soon? Are they liable for the deaths of the citizens due to increased suicide rates by keeping it closed too long? They're "endangering" both populations with their choices. If two people are at a protest and one has been tested and shown to be negative, and the other is untested. Is the tested one allowed to have their right to health care, but the untested one not? Who do we sue for outbreaks that happen at "essential" businesses?
I know covid19 is scary, but your rights are inalienable. period.
normally I would agree about individual rights, but in a time of a national crisis those rights get set aside at times for the betterment of society.
and Trump is talking about suing china, I think I have read where some states are already doing so. I dont agree with the people protesting the protesters... thats is about the dumbest fuckers out there IMO, but as I said, those that are openly ignoring the govt guidlines, mandates, etc, and are taking unnecessary risks to make a point... I wont feel sorry when they get sick. we have to accept for the time being that its not going to be like it was last year, the years before, etc. Until they get a grasp on this virus we need to be better and smarter and above all more concerned about our at risk neighbors than we are for our own wallets.
I am not going to get into scenarios and shit, the comments were mostly tongue in cheek, but to many fucking idiots think they are above the rules because they are mad about something. it sucks for a lot of people and its going to keep on sucking for a while longer, protest and shit arent going to help find an anti virus, or accelerate development of antibody testing.
The rights enshrined in our constitution are not just for times when it is convenient. It is exactly for times like these when the government seeks to take them away.
We don't have to accept the fear and hysteria. It isn't just about someone's wallet. It is very easy for those with jobs to ask others to sacrifice. But what if it were your job? Destroying a person's ability to feed their family is an unnecessary risk. Just as I should respect a coworker that wishes to distance themselves, I think they should respect the need for other people to work.
And I will guarantee that more people die from tyrannical governments than they do from viruses.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
they should have law enforcement use drones... (settle down...no not that kind of drone) to take pictures of liscense plates and faces, and when round 2 of this shit comes around and these dip shits are sick... to fucking bad. and they should also cancel their stay at home and feel good about it checks from uncle donald.
Cuz that is what the first amendment is all about?
Oh and all the democrat legislators in Mich that are rebuking the governor? Should they lose their right to treatment? Sorry but this is just plain stupid. A doc out here used the same rational in a quote for the paper. Amazing little view into his god complex.
Am I taking away their right to free speech? No they are free to say what they want, but freedoms have consequences and if they trigger an outbreak then there should be personal consequences. Their actions could endanger a lot of people. I like a lot of your takes, but this one is ass backwards. You can't determine where people got infected from and you can't punish people for being "endangering". For all you or any judge knows, the "victims" could have gotten everyone else sick. The precedence would be massively wrong. Could your teenager have their right to healthcare revoked because they're bad at driving and a risk to their community? What about people who go to work sick during non-pandemic times? Eliminate their insurance, because they might get someone with a weak immune system sick? Can I just start suing people who cough around me? Restricting ability to communicate via social media to people who pass my arbitrary set of qualifications for intelligence, because they might be spreading disinformation as I determine it? How about vaccines or any other drug? They might be safe for most people, but some people have adverse reactions to them. Should doctors be punished for "endangering" that small percentage of people? Should the governor/president be liable for the deaths of his citizens if they open things up too soon? Are they liable for the deaths of the citizens due to increased suicide rates by keeping it closed too long? They're "endangering" both populations with their choices. If two people are at a protest and one has been tested and shown to be negative, and the other is untested. Is the tested one allowed to have their right to health care, but the untested one not? Who do we sue for outbreaks that happen at "essential" businesses?
I know covid19 is scary, but your rights are inalienable. period.
normally I would agree about individual rights, but in a time of a national crisis those rights get set aside at times for the betterment of society.
and Trump is talking about suing china, I think I have read where some states are already doing so. I dont agree with the people protesting the protesters... thats is about the dumbest fuckers out there IMO, but as I said, those that are openly ignoring the govt guidlines, mandates, etc, and are taking unnecessary risks to make a point... I wont feel sorry when they get sick. we have to accept for the time being that its not going to be like it was last year, the years before, etc. Until they get a grasp on this virus we need to be better and smarter and above all more concerned about our at risk neighbors than we are for our own wallets.
I am not going to get into scenarios and shit, the comments were mostly tongue in cheek, but to many fucking idiots think they are above the rules because they are mad about something. it sucks for a lot of people and its going to keep on sucking for a while longer, protest and shit arent going to help find an anti virus, or accelerate development of antibody testing. I just don't agree that people are not doing the right thing at any rate that matters. Everywhere I go is a ghost town. I don't think you can make an argument that everyone should lose their rights because a small handful of people that were shown on the news are dumb. Maybe you're seeing more things out there, but I'm just not seeing it. I see people online wanting to have a discussion and I see people bitching about things, but I'm not seeing the disregard for life that you're expressing.
I am not saying everybody that is against the closure should have their rights taken away or be denied health care. but if people are out in a large group and they are dumb enough to get caught on camera... I aint taking sympathy on them.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
I just don't agree that people are not doing the right thing at any rate that matters. Everywhere I go is a ghost town. I don't think you can make an argument that everyone should lose their rights because a small handful of people that were shown on the news are dumb. Maybe you're seeing more things out there, but I'm just not seeing it. I see people online wanting to have a discussion and I see people bitching about things, but I'm not seeing the disregard for life that you're expressing.
I am not saying everybody that is against the closure should have their rights taken away or be denied health care. but if people are out in a large group and they are dumb enough to get caught on camera... I aint taking sympathy on them.
Yeah, I'm cool with thinking people are dumb and can get their Darwin awards.
Quote:
Quote: @medaille said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Inalienable rights are natural rights, that John Locke wrote about. Only up to the point they put others in danger or infringe on others natural rights, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I think life is the main issue here. And those can be suspended, jail and being held on bond. Other rights are legal rights as defined by laws, ie. amendments. Healthcare as you use in your example is far from any right, legal or natural, in the US. Access to healthcare is controlled by the private corporate rules, preexisting condition clauses, deductibles and lifetime limitations are one's we uniquely enjoy.
Obviously I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to shoot someone. I would even agree that someone who has HIV and knows it and has unprotected sex is infringing on other people's rights. Do you have any examples where people in the US lose their rights based on the potential of something happening and not on the past? Criminals have their rights revoked because they're already shown a willingness to injure other people. Are there any examples of people who have a disease losing their rights because of their disease?
I was contrasting the difference between inalienable and legal rights you used in your initial argument. Yes you have second amendment rights, and those are legal rights, granted by law. Inalienable are natural rights read Locke he's more eloquent and accurate than I. Quarantine laws are legal "rules" defined by our legal system. I really dislike copy and pasting information to convince someone, this is more to show how I understand it, to me it's just common sense. Health and welfare of citizens was kinda social studies 101 intro concept to the constitution, you know the why thing.
https://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-co...state.html
Does the Government Have Legal Grounds to Force People to Quarantine?
Yes. The federal government can quarantine people, mainly based on the powers it derives from the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution. Also, section 264 of the Public Health Service Act gives
the federal government the authority "to take measures to prevent the
entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into
the United States and between states."
States also have broad police powers, granted to them by the
Constitution, to ensure the health and welfare of their citizens are
protected.
Note, the federal and state governments may both impose certain
quarantine obligations on citizens. However, if there is any conflict
with the state and federal orders, the federal law will be given
priority.
Is There a Uniform "Self-Quarantine" Law?
No. States and cities usually draft their own quarantine laws. These
laws can either be general or specific, depending on what best achieves
their purpose. Look at the National Conference of State Legislatures for an exhaustive list of each state's laws on quarantines.
|
