• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Safety Theater

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news.....
Resistance Building To Coronavirus 'House Arrest' Orders...It's About Time!
Excerpted....
Across the country, from political leaders, to small business owners, to
parents who just want to take their children to the park, resistance is
growing to the authoritarians who have effectively suspended the
Constitution and placed most of the country under house arrest.
Lawsuits are also challenging unlawful "stay at home" orders.
What if all the hysteria-driven orders have actually made the virus
outbreak even worse? More scientists are coming forward to argue
for the "Sweden model" of moderation rather than lockdown.
:

OK, the screed above was merely the inspiration for this thread.
Don't focus upon it too much.
I agree that we must take precautions to prevent the virus's spread.
But government is a very blunt an instrument, & is treating the issue
simplistically at the moment. Some businesses, while non-essential,
can operate with very low risk. And for contractors, there's no
program yet giving them money to weather the loss of business.

One local business was caught delivering mulch. Cops shut them
down as non-essential. But the nature of the business is such that
there's massive social distance. Mulch is loaded in dump trucks by
wheeled loaders. Dump trucks drop the load without drivers ever
leaving the vehicle. Human contact doesn't happen. Close proximity
doesn't happen.

Some self storage facilities are even deny tenants access to their
already rented units. I won't go that far We've closed the office,
but still allow tenants access to their units. There's virtually no
interaction between them, & they only touch their own units & locks.
There's very little activity anyway...perhaps 1 person a day.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
With any law or policy there will be some instances where it does not make sense. And it would be good to see them worked out in a reasonable way. But these situations do not invalidate the law overall.

The evidence is clear that social distancing is having a positive effect on flattening the curve.

I am not impressed by an editorial from the Ron Paul institute. :rolleyes:
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I see the Constitution and "freedom" only matter to some people when it comes to going to the park, carrying guns, and going outside despite a pandemic. But when it comes to, say, reproductive rights or LGBT equality, the Constitution takes second stage to their personal prejudice.

It must be a convenient and fun way to live.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
With any law or policy there will be some instances where it does not make sense. And it would be good to see them worked out in a reasonable way. But these situations do not invalidate the law overall.

The evidence is clear that social distancing is having a positive effect on flattening the curve.

I am not impressed by an editorial from the Ron Paul institute. :rolleyes:
The editorial was merely the spark which ignited this post.

I & others have been violating state orders to continue
working, but doing so safely....keeping distance, hand
washing, masks at times. (Although @Wu Wei knows
that I do very little work. It leaves more for him.)

Blind obedience to the law has its shortcomings. Some
people I know would face financial ruin if they do exactly
as told. So it's entirely reasonable for them to continue
working.
I'd prefer that government put more consideration into
who can continue working safely, even if they're deemed
"non-essential". There are health & safety consequences
from financial disaster & poverty too. We need a better
balance.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I see the Constitution and "freedom" only matter to some people when it comes to going to the park, carrying guns, and going outside despite a pandemic. But when it comes to, say, reproductive rights or LGBT equality, the Constitution takes second stage to their personal prejudice.

It must be a convenient and fun way to live.
For the purposes of this thread, let's not make it about
the Constitution & how "some people" are a problem.

Instead, let's address government policy approaches to
public health & economic well being.
Are the current restrictions here the best approach?
Is the Swedish model better?
Where can things be improved?
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I agree that we must take precautions to prevent the virus's spread.
But government is a very blunt an instrument, & is treating the issue
simplistically at the moment. Some businesses, while non-essential,
can operate with very low risk. And for contractors, there's no
program yet giving them money to weather the loss of business.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Many of us are smart and responsible enough to be in today's world safely. But the problem is that many of our fellows are idiots.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Many of us are smart and responsible enough to be in today's world safely. But the problem is that many of our fellows are idiots.
Cops should limit enforcement to those who behave
unsafely, eg, people gathering needlessly in groups.
They should leave reasonable people to their business,
not stopping safe work, issuing fines, & destroying a
livelihood.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I see the Constitution and "freedom" only matter to some people when it comes to going to the park, carrying guns, and going outside despite a pandemic. But when it comes to, say, reproductive rights or LGBT equality, the Constitution takes second stage to their personal prejudice.

It must be a convenient and fun way to live.

I agree some people seem to have double standards.

Libertarians typically don't.

The constitution guarantees freedom of assembly, and, while I support closing businesses, I do have a problem with governments telling people that they cannot meet with anyone outside of their own household, even in small groups (my state is one among many that has actually told people that they cannot even meet with friends in small groups). Though I have obeyed the law (so far), I do have a major objection to it, and I imagine resistance will continue to grow. We should take precautions to prevent the spread of the pandemic. But should we allow our fear of the pandemic to make us willing to give up our right to assembly and allow the government to tell us we cannot leave our houses or even meet with small groups of friends? I don't think so, and I for one am becoming outraged at people's willingness to give up their rights for security.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
For the purposes of this thread, let's not make it about
the Constitution & how "some people" are a problem.
Instead, consider public policy approaches to health &
economic well being.
Are the current restrictions here the best approach?
Is the Swedish model better?
Where can things be improved?

I think something needs to be changed, because trying to sustain a lockdown over the whole summer will destroy the economy and mental health. The Mafia is already succeeding in recruiting members in Italy who can't get jobs. I expect similar events in the US.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'd prefer that government put more consideration into
who can continue working safely, even if they're deemed
"non-essential". There are health & safety consequences
from financial disaster & poverty too. We need a better
balance.
And if people who insist that spreading the virus at spring break parties and church keep insisting that their activities are "essential", this epidemic will probably last so long that the legislatures will have time to craft more nuanced responses.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And if people who insist that spreading the virus at spring break parties and church keep insisting that their activities are "essential", this epidemic will probably last so long that the legislatures will have time to craft more nuanced responses.
Tom
The problem with those activities is the unsafe behavior.
Focus should be on enforcing safe behavior, not deciding
which groups are exempt.
As for churches, I'd let'm meet in groups....but they should
all wear N95 masks, stay 6' apart, & wash hands thoroughly
before & after service.
What? Impractical, you say?
Consider that they're already meeting, but not observing
the listed safe practices. It might be easier & more
productive to address behavior than enforce prohibition.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This all reminds me somewhat of security theater after 9/11.
One brilliant government idea was to require that anyone
borrowing money from a bank must sign a statement
declaring that one isn't a terrorist. I've signed a couple
of those.
Really? If someone is actually a terrorist, I'm 100%
certain they won't admit it on any bank forms.
And what if they caught someone lying on the form?
Would they be prosecuted for the lie? I'd think their
being a terrorist is the better basis for prosecution.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In the news.....
Resistance Building To Coronavirus 'House Arrest' Orders...It's About Time!
Excerpted....
Across the country, from political leaders, to small business owners, to
parents who just want to take their children to the park, resistance is
growing to the authoritarians who have effectively suspended the
Constitution and placed most of the country under house arrest.
Lawsuits are also challenging unlawful "stay at home" orders.
What if all the hysteria-driven orders have actually made the virus
outbreak even worse? More scientists are coming forward to argue
for the "Sweden model" of moderation rather than lockdown.
:

I agree that we must take precautions to prevent the virus's spread.
But government is a very blunt an instrument, & is treating the issue
simplistically at the moment. Some businesses, while non-essential,
can operate with very low risk. And for contractors, there's no
program yet giving them money to weather the loss of business.

One local business was caught delivering mulch. Cops shut them
down as non-essential. But the nature of the business is such that
there's massive social distance. Mulch is loaded in dump trucks by
wheeled loaders. Dump trucks drop the load without drivers ever
leaving the vehicle. Human contact doesn't happen. Close proximity
doesn't happen.

Some self storage facilities are even deny tenants access to their
already rented units. I won't go that far We've closed the office,
but still allow tenants access to their units. There's virtually no
interaction between them, & they only touch their own units & locks.
There's very little activity anyway...perhaps 1 person a day.

So, you're saying that they're making mulch ado about nothing?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Cops should limit enforcement to those who behave
unsafely, eg, people gathering needlessly in groups.
They should leave reasonable people to their business,
not stopping safe work, issuing fines, & destroying a
livelihood.

Again, agreed in principle. And the problem is that the ne'er do wells put the rest of us at risk - it's really tricky. But if we could come up with a way to keep the troublemakers from putting us all at risk, I fully agree with your premise.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Because there are so many of those to go around that we can waste them on this nonsense?
Religion is nonsense to you & me.
But it's serious business to them. They're going to do this worship
thingie, & we won't convince them otherwise. So the question is
about how to accommodate their needs while ensuring public health.
I see this being done in stores (grocery, hardware, etc), so the same
thing can be done with churches.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Again, agreed in principle. And the problem is that the ne'er do wells put the rest of us at risk - it's really tricky. But if we could come up with a way to keep the troublemakers from putting us all at risk, I fully agree with your premise.
There are problems with every possible approach to the pandemic,
be it an over-reaction, under-reaction, & even proper reaction..
So one cannot dismiss any particular one because of a "problem".
It's about determining which approach is the best, ie, balancing
all the competing factors.
I advocate not prosecuting people who are doing their business
safely. Limit sanctions to those who are being unsafe.

People see government failing us with unreasonable restrictions.
And so they violate the dictates. I favor enforcement of the law,
but with the law being more practical, so that there'd be fewer
violations, while still being safe.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Religion is nonsense to you & me.
But it's serious business to them. They're going to do this worship
thingie, & we won't convince them otherwise. So the question is
about how to accommodate their needs while ensuring public health.
I see this being done in stores (grocery, hardware, etc), so the same
thing can be done with churches.
Still, do you understand how desperately needed those n95 masks are? There really are none to spare. If they are used for church goers countless more doctors, nurses, and other medical emergency workers are going to die. People who could live if people just skipped church for a while.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The problem with those activities is the unsafe behavior.
Focus should be on enforcing safe behavior, not deciding
which groups are exempt.
As for churches, I'd let'm meet in groups....but they should
all wear N95 masks, stay 6' apart, & wash hands thoroughly
before & after service.
What? Impractical, you say?
Consider that they're already meeting, but not observing
the listed safe practices. It might be easier & more
productive to address behavior than enforce prohibition.

I totally agree.
The problem is people insisting that their preferences are essential. So "essential" that continuing to spread C19 is just the price that society must pay for their behaviors of preference. Without taking responsibility, such as not going to the grocery or caring for more at risk people.

There are things I really want to do, but don't because they're unnecessary risks.

And things I'm prevented from doing.
I bought Doug concert tickets for Christmas. They were pricy, a big name act at a remarkably intimate venue. The concert was scheduled in late March. Well, guess what. Show was cancelled, and all I got was a vague promise TBA.

We were very unhappy and disappointed, but didn't gripe at the government for infringing on our right to free assembly. Because we aren't Constitutional Literalists.
Tom
 
Top