Big Government Socialism to the rescue?

[Mountain Man]

And needing a card in your wallet proclaiming yourself free of corona doesn't prevent you from freely traveling outside your home

Not yet, but it could so easily happen. Some governments have already instituted a "Snitch On Your Neighbor" policy to report people who are not staying in their homes or not wearing masks (one gentleman was forcibly removed from a city bus because his face was uncovered), and some governors have ordered the police to collect license plate numbers of Easter Sunday attendees which will be followed by home imprisonment for the "guilty".

"Are your papers in order, good citizen?" used to be a joke we told about Soviet Russia, but it's coming soon to the US, and in some cases, it's already here.

comrade-coronavirus-11.jpg

[Watermelon]

The quora link is a lot of people saying different things. Which trial? And from what distance? And when? Most of the Robinson black out was lifted about 2 weeks after the fact.



No, he was outside and didn't film any witnesses. I can't find it on YouTube anymore but I saw his arrest. He was standing on the sidewalk outside the courthouse and a good distance from the entrance.



It was reported after the fact. Not when it happened. One newspaper from Leeds appealed the black out and finally got it lifted.

The Robinson event is a long story. Needless to say, it exposed how fragile basic freedoms are in Britain.

[carpedm9587]

Not yet, but it could so easily happen. Some governments have already instituted a "Snitch On Your Neighbor" policy to report people who are not staying in their homes or not wearing masks (one gentleman was forcibly removed from a city bus because his face was uncovered), and some governors have ordered the police to collect license plate numbers of Easter Sunday attendees which will be followed by home imprisonment for the "guilty".

"Are your papers in order, good citizen?" used to be a joke we told about Soviet Russia, but it's coming soon to the US, and in some cases, it's already here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44115[/ATTACH]

And we're in a pandemic. You're either helping...or you're potentially infecting the people you encounter. We're not talking about protecting ourselves against an idea - or a specific type of person. We're talking about protecting ourselves against a microbe that can hitch a ride without detection. Joining together to resist the microbe is a rational response. Deciding "to heck with everyone else's health, I'm going to exercise my freedom," puts friends and neighbors and strangers at risk. Every state in the union is under an emergency declaration - an unprecedented reality for this country.

If we were talking about people defying evacuation orders in the face of a hurricane or wildfire, I'd say, "their choice, as long as they understand 1st responders will NOT be coming to save their butt." But we're talking about people potentially spreading a virulent virus - and their freedom ends where my health/life begins. When the pandemic is over - I'll be right alongside you defending the right of people to "freely move."

[Mountain Man]

And we're in a pandemic.

Yes. Keep pounding on those "SCARY!" numbers. Inciting fear is a wonderful way to get people to give up their basic liberties, isn't it? You say, "When the pandemic is over - I'll be right alongside you defending the right of people to 'freely move,'" but when will that be? Some "experts" are saying we may not have a vaccine for at least a year (does that include testing and trials? I don't think it does.). And as long as they have everybody "locked down" and compliant, what about forced vaccination for other communicable diseases? How many vaccines and tests will be required before your "papers" are in order? How many essential liberties are you willing to surrender in exchange for a little safety?

[carpedm9587]

Yes. Keep pounding on those "SCARY!" numbers. Inciting fear is a wonderful way to get people to give up their basic liberties, isn't it? You say, "When the pandemic is over - I'll be right alongside you defending the right of people to 'freely move,'" but when will that be? Some "experts" are saying we may not have a vaccine for at least a year (does that include testing and trials? I don't think it does.). And as long as they have everybody "locked down" and compliant, what about forced vaccination for other communicable diseases? How many vaccines and tests will be required before your "papers" are in order? How many essential liberties are you willing to surrender in exchange for a little safety?

Providing people with the information about the criticality of a situation and pointing to strategies to deal with it is an effective way to get people to act so as to protect us all. The hope is that when people act voluntarily and the problem is addressed, stronger measures are not needed.

And this has gone around often enough. I have no desire to be further trolled. Last word to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

And needing a card in your wallet proclaiming yourself free of corona doesn't prevent you from freely traveling outside your home

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think they are understanding the proposal, and they are largely ignoring the inconsistencies of their position. Whether that is intentional or not only they know.

Irony at its finest.

[lilpixieofterror]

And we're in a pandemic. You're either helping...or you're potentially infecting the people you encounter. We're not talking about protecting ourselves against an idea - or a specific type of person. We're talking about protecting ourselves against a microbe that can hitch a ride without detection. Joining together to resist the microbe is a rational response. Deciding "to heck with everyone else's health, I'm going to exercise my freedom," puts friends and neighbors and strangers at risk. Every state in the union is under an emergency declaration - an unprecedented reality for this country.

If we were talking about people defying evacuation orders in the face of a hurricane or wildfire, I'd say, "their choice, as long as they understand 1st responders will NOT be coming to save their butt." But we're talking about people potentially spreading a virulent virus - and their freedom ends where my health/life begins. When the pandemic is over - I'll be right alongside you defending the right of people to "freely move."

[lilpixieofterror]

Providing people with the information about the criticality of a situation and pointing to strategies to deal with it is an effective way to get people to act so as to protect us all. The hope is that when people act voluntarily and the problem is addressed, stronger measures are not needed.

And this has gone around often enough. I have no desire to be further trolled. Last word to you.

Trolling - (Carp definition) Anyone who dares to disagree with me!

Keep trading your freedom, for safety. Let us know how well that works out.

[carpedm9587]

Not "it's for your own good."

Rather, "it's for our collective good."

Someone who will not take reasonable precautions to safeguard the health of their fellow citizens deserves to have their freedoms temporarily constrained until the danger has passed. It's why barring large group gatherings in an epidemic is permissible. It's why quarantining someone when they enter the country with a communicable disease is permitted. This is commonplace action in both free and unfree societies.

No one has unlimited freedom. There are always boundaries.

[Mountain Man]

The hope is that when people act voluntarily and the problem is addressed, stronger measures are not needed.

And how will we know if people are acting "voluntarily" if the "stronger measures" are not in place to monitor them and ensure compliance?

Not to mention that historically, once a government institutes a "strong measure", it never goes away. If anything, it only gets stronger.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not "it's for your own good."

Rather, "it's for our collective good."

Someone who will not take reasonable precautions to safeguard the health of their fellow citizens deserves to have their freedoms temporarily constrained until the danger has passed. It's why barring large group gatherings in an epidemic is permissible. It's why quarantining someone when they enter the country with a communicable disease is permitted. This is commonplace action in both free and unfree societies.

No one has unlimited freedom. There are always boundaries.

[JimL]

“Excuse me, but do you have your papers?”

You'd still be free to move about as you like Lilpix, a card verifying you to be Covid free would simply allow organizations to protect their customers, employee's etc. from thoughtless, careless people, until the pandemic is under control. Apparently you don't have that concern for the safety of others or for your own self and family in the midst of possible deadly disease.

These organizations are free to ban people already for cause, so what is the difference?

[JimL]

American exceptionalism! What makes you think that would be so difficult?

[carpedm9587]

This has nothing to do with the discussion to which it responds, which was about curtailing movement of people not adhering to social-distancing requirements. The card issue has been amply responded to and you are not responding to the proposals I have actually made, so I have no further response.