Posted on May 14, 2020
Which is more important, your personal safety or your Civil Liberties?
2.08K
15
21
1
1
0
During this pandemic, our government has forced us to choose between the promise of personal safety and our civil liberties. We were informed that 2.2 million US could die from the Wuhan Flu and as a result, we were instructed to self incarcerate (house arrest), voluntarily become unemployed (refuse to work), defer all 'elective' medical procedures, become indigent and much more, for the 'greater good of our society.' When the actual results failed to meet predictions (which is good news), the restrictions on our liberties did not go away. In fact, they continued with additional restrictions.
Despite statements made by the US Surgeon General, Dr. Fauci and scientific evidence that masks are ineffective against viruses (and could in fact cause healthy people to become sick after prolonged use), our government and many private organizations are directing us to wear masks. To provide some clarity on why this is nonsensical, this direction is similar to directing people to erect a fence to protect against mosquitoes. Similarly, we are being informed that without a vaccine, wearing masks, social distancing and continued restriction of our civil liberties will become the 'new normal.' And once the vaccine is available, everyone will be mandated to be vaccinated and carry proof of vaccinated to regain civil liberties.
For those, choosing civil liberties (freedom), defying government edicts and not wear masks, refusal to abide by social distancing, protest our economic shutdown and an apparent tyrannical government, they are shamed for being selfish, not considering the 'greater good' and often arrested. For those, who comply and wear masks, parrot the media presented warnings and claim 'we are all in this together,' they are considered heroes.
I raise this question because the US Constitution does not have a clause that states: 'valid unless a pandemic strikes the US' and as a document, it limits government authority (does not grant rights). Our government, as defined under the Constitution establishes three branches of government and requires each state to maintain a republican form of government. As such, the legislature creates laws, the Executive branch (state and federal) enforces laws and the Judiciary metes our punishment and confirms constitutionality. So, without a declaration of Martial Law, the Constitution remains in effect and 'orders' by any executive are suggestive without the force of law. (Unless I have missed something in our legal system).
For some history of previous pandemics, we fought a Revolutionary War during a Smallpox pandemic, we fought in the Philippines and Cuba during a Yellow fever and Malaria outbreak, we fought in Burma during a dysentery outbreak and yet, we never shut down the economy and restricted or eliminated civil liberties.
Yet, in 2020, government officials at every level have made it unlawful to attend church, gather publicly or privately in groups greater than 10, use public beaches, national parks, be gainfully employed or have the freedom of movement that all freemen have the right to conduct. Instead of protecting our individual civil liberties, many in our government, based on fear and a promise of safety, have used the force of law to restrict or eliminate our civil liberties.
To those, who have sworn an oath 'to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic,' I ask you, do you prefer personal safety or civil liberties? Was Ben Franklin correct when he stated, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety?" Finally, at what point does the loss of liberty require action or compliance (relinquishing of rights)? Must we be mindful of Jefferson's statement - “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
Despite statements made by the US Surgeon General, Dr. Fauci and scientific evidence that masks are ineffective against viruses (and could in fact cause healthy people to become sick after prolonged use), our government and many private organizations are directing us to wear masks. To provide some clarity on why this is nonsensical, this direction is similar to directing people to erect a fence to protect against mosquitoes. Similarly, we are being informed that without a vaccine, wearing masks, social distancing and continued restriction of our civil liberties will become the 'new normal.' And once the vaccine is available, everyone will be mandated to be vaccinated and carry proof of vaccinated to regain civil liberties.
For those, choosing civil liberties (freedom), defying government edicts and not wear masks, refusal to abide by social distancing, protest our economic shutdown and an apparent tyrannical government, they are shamed for being selfish, not considering the 'greater good' and often arrested. For those, who comply and wear masks, parrot the media presented warnings and claim 'we are all in this together,' they are considered heroes.
I raise this question because the US Constitution does not have a clause that states: 'valid unless a pandemic strikes the US' and as a document, it limits government authority (does not grant rights). Our government, as defined under the Constitution establishes three branches of government and requires each state to maintain a republican form of government. As such, the legislature creates laws, the Executive branch (state and federal) enforces laws and the Judiciary metes our punishment and confirms constitutionality. So, without a declaration of Martial Law, the Constitution remains in effect and 'orders' by any executive are suggestive without the force of law. (Unless I have missed something in our legal system).
For some history of previous pandemics, we fought a Revolutionary War during a Smallpox pandemic, we fought in the Philippines and Cuba during a Yellow fever and Malaria outbreak, we fought in Burma during a dysentery outbreak and yet, we never shut down the economy and restricted or eliminated civil liberties.
Yet, in 2020, government officials at every level have made it unlawful to attend church, gather publicly or privately in groups greater than 10, use public beaches, national parks, be gainfully employed or have the freedom of movement that all freemen have the right to conduct. Instead of protecting our individual civil liberties, many in our government, based on fear and a promise of safety, have used the force of law to restrict or eliminate our civil liberties.
To those, who have sworn an oath 'to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic,' I ask you, do you prefer personal safety or civil liberties? Was Ben Franklin correct when he stated, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety?" Finally, at what point does the loss of liberty require action or compliance (relinquishing of rights)? Must we be mindful of Jefferson's statement - “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
Bill of Rights
Oath
Duty
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Great topic Sir!
Civil liberty allows personal safety, they should coexist. Unless civil liberty undermines the safety of those at-risk. I'm all for restrictions, the wearing of masks in public spaces, etc. until such a time that we have spent more than 2 months to understand the short and long-term effects of a virus that is transmitted by people who are largely asymptomatic, and has such a detrimental affect on at-risk populations.
Is your argument that there are even more restrictions as the curve flattens/declines based on your local area? Because where I live, restrictions are being lifted. Most States' restrictions are being lifted. Maryland is reopening tomorrow (I think...).
Masks are ineffective against viruses the same as our wet-weather gear is ineffective against being submerged in water. Viruses are typically transmitted when fused together with other particulates (moisture, dust, saliva, etc.) all of which masks DO protect against. The same as my wet weather gear will keep me "mostly" dry, I'll take some protection over no protection. On top of that, masks are to protect you from me, not me from you. If I cough or sneeze, that mask is going to filter 90% of what comes out of my mouth and it will come out at 10% of the speed (more-so if I cough into my elbow with a mask). Then - I wash or replace my mask daily. Not really an infringement upon my civil liberties. To me the mask thing is a straw-man argument. An IBA isn't effective against 7.62mm round at close range, so by your rationale should I not wear an IBA? It'll protect me from other rounds. Similarly, if my mask protects me from other illnesses, in the event I contract COVID, my immune system will be ready to fight the battle on one front instead of several.
In all honesty, we could completely reopen everything and return to normalcy if the general population had the common decency of protecting others from themselves. We live in a narcissistic society where "I want to do what I want when I want to do it" is more important than "What can I do to help my fellow man?". Who would have figured it takes a "pandemic" like this to teach people to wash their hands more often?
Lets return to normal and take care of each other!
I'm interested to see any references from a medical professional that things return to normal without restrictions is a GOOD idea - and I'm not talking about click-bait internet articles or social media. I mean honest to goodness studies from an educated medical professional. I'm asking seriously... I'd like to see both sides of the argument.
Civil liberty allows personal safety, they should coexist. Unless civil liberty undermines the safety of those at-risk. I'm all for restrictions, the wearing of masks in public spaces, etc. until such a time that we have spent more than 2 months to understand the short and long-term effects of a virus that is transmitted by people who are largely asymptomatic, and has such a detrimental affect on at-risk populations.
Is your argument that there are even more restrictions as the curve flattens/declines based on your local area? Because where I live, restrictions are being lifted. Most States' restrictions are being lifted. Maryland is reopening tomorrow (I think...).
Masks are ineffective against viruses the same as our wet-weather gear is ineffective against being submerged in water. Viruses are typically transmitted when fused together with other particulates (moisture, dust, saliva, etc.) all of which masks DO protect against. The same as my wet weather gear will keep me "mostly" dry, I'll take some protection over no protection. On top of that, masks are to protect you from me, not me from you. If I cough or sneeze, that mask is going to filter 90% of what comes out of my mouth and it will come out at 10% of the speed (more-so if I cough into my elbow with a mask). Then - I wash or replace my mask daily. Not really an infringement upon my civil liberties. To me the mask thing is a straw-man argument. An IBA isn't effective against 7.62mm round at close range, so by your rationale should I not wear an IBA? It'll protect me from other rounds. Similarly, if my mask protects me from other illnesses, in the event I contract COVID, my immune system will be ready to fight the battle on one front instead of several.
In all honesty, we could completely reopen everything and return to normalcy if the general population had the common decency of protecting others from themselves. We live in a narcissistic society where "I want to do what I want when I want to do it" is more important than "What can I do to help my fellow man?". Who would have figured it takes a "pandemic" like this to teach people to wash their hands more often?
Lets return to normal and take care of each other!
I'm interested to see any references from a medical professional that things return to normal without restrictions is a GOOD idea - and I'm not talking about click-bait internet articles or social media. I mean honest to goodness studies from an educated medical professional. I'm asking seriously... I'd like to see both sides of the argument.
(3)
(0)
SGT Herbert Bollum
COL (Join to see) - I choose to (my wife requests it). Also it is expected where I work as a Security Officer dealing with people throughout the day. Not everybody is doing it, both public and fellow employees, but I prefer to stay as safe as possible at this time.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SGT Herbert Bollum - Choice is the point I am raising. You have a choice to protect yourself and others. Despite the possibility that the mask provides little to no protection against the virus, you choose to believe that it does and act accordingly. That is an indicator of liberty.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL (Join to see) - Took me a little bit to separate the current situation from the question you posed. I see using the current pandemic and associated restrictions as a prime and relevant example of the question you posed.
Without getting lost in that (because everything is METT-TC dependent), civil liberties are in place to promote the safety and well-being of every citizen. It allows the freedom of movement and freedom of action to protect one-self and their loved ones.
The nature of the pandemic, the media, and the current restrictions promote debate that could go on infinitely.... but as merely an example it makes the question clearer to me. Civil Liberties. Final answer. Haha
Without getting lost in that (because everything is METT-TC dependent), civil liberties are in place to promote the safety and well-being of every citizen. It allows the freedom of movement and freedom of action to protect one-self and their loved ones.
The nature of the pandemic, the media, and the current restrictions promote debate that could go on infinitely.... but as merely an example it makes the question clearer to me. Civil Liberties. Final answer. Haha
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Although there is a chance you conceded too easily, I will illustrate why I believe civil liberties should never be relinquished. First, safety is never guaranteed. In fact, when our safety is threatened, we need the personal freedom to choose how to respond. If you are threatened by a criminal with a gun but your 2nd amendment rights have been restricted to a single shot shotgun and no more than 10 rounds, you will respond differently than if personal ownership of any gun was unlawful. If your rights to confront your accuser are eliminated, then your choice of attorney may be different. But if your rights are a priority and the government performs its duty to protect them versus restrict them, then addressing issues of safety, security, relationships, etc. are less limited. It may not result in the outcome you desire but you have the freedom to pursue it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
My Civil Liberties are of paramount importance. The measures that have been put into place have been Draconian and politicians have used them to push their own "progressive" (ie Socialist) agendas on the American people by fear-mongering and the Media has been complicit with them.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
What would do different? How would you address a pandemic and safeguard liberties?
(0)
(0)
I'm of the mindset that with Civil Liberties comes Personal Safety. Working in the medical field in the civilian capacity, and as Preventive Medicine in the Army capacity....and epidemiology is one of the things that we do....I have to say that people are LOSING THEIR EVER LOVING MINDS. And I'm referring to people on both sides of the fence.
People outside screaming their heads off in masses....wearing masks....protesting the government telling them they have to wear masks. People freaking out and jumping into the stores to hoard every damn thing they can get their hands on. Cities and States putting in place the stop movement/shelter in place order...and in some cases no intent to enforce and/or no ability to enforce....but people will be quick to rat out someone or some business for "breaking" the order. Fining a business and threatening (or actually doing it) to take away their license to operate permanently.....or both.
While I understand that there is still no medical proof that those that have caught COVID-SARS 2 (or COVID 19 if you prefer) will not catch it again....I also understand that people that did catch it and survived have built antibodies in their system to help fight it if they do end up catching it again. That is the nature of antibodies. BUT....telling everyone to shelter in place to minimize/eliminate exposure pretty much is going to lead to a bigger wave the next time because those individuals won't have the proper antibodies.
Let us look at the numbers. As of 3 minutes ago, MSNBC reports that, in their COVID Watch, there has been a total reported 4,371,611 cases worldwide. Of the 7.8 BILLION, that equates to 99.9995 % of the worlds population that have NOT been infected....or at least reported infected. Yes, there is room for error (who knows how much) based on proper reporting (if any reporting at all). 297,682 of the reported cases have been fatal. Only 4% of the worlds reported cases have died.
Based on that, I am of the mindset that yes, precautions need to be taken. But to tell people that they are not essential employees/business....well, that just creates an economic nightmare that we are now currently in. To tell people that they need to run and hide....yea, that just creates mad panic.
Many leaders (city, state, federal) are...IMHO...way overstepping their authority. Many of them will face the reaper come re-election time.
There are better ways to fight this pandemic. Fear mongering, hate, shaming, and hiding are NOT the ways to do it.
This is of my opinion.
People outside screaming their heads off in masses....wearing masks....protesting the government telling them they have to wear masks. People freaking out and jumping into the stores to hoard every damn thing they can get their hands on. Cities and States putting in place the stop movement/shelter in place order...and in some cases no intent to enforce and/or no ability to enforce....but people will be quick to rat out someone or some business for "breaking" the order. Fining a business and threatening (or actually doing it) to take away their license to operate permanently.....or both.
While I understand that there is still no medical proof that those that have caught COVID-SARS 2 (or COVID 19 if you prefer) will not catch it again....I also understand that people that did catch it and survived have built antibodies in their system to help fight it if they do end up catching it again. That is the nature of antibodies. BUT....telling everyone to shelter in place to minimize/eliminate exposure pretty much is going to lead to a bigger wave the next time because those individuals won't have the proper antibodies.
Let us look at the numbers. As of 3 minutes ago, MSNBC reports that, in their COVID Watch, there has been a total reported 4,371,611 cases worldwide. Of the 7.8 BILLION, that equates to 99.9995 % of the worlds population that have NOT been infected....or at least reported infected. Yes, there is room for error (who knows how much) based on proper reporting (if any reporting at all). 297,682 of the reported cases have been fatal. Only 4% of the worlds reported cases have died.
Based on that, I am of the mindset that yes, precautions need to be taken. But to tell people that they are not essential employees/business....well, that just creates an economic nightmare that we are now currently in. To tell people that they need to run and hide....yea, that just creates mad panic.
Many leaders (city, state, federal) are...IMHO...way overstepping their authority. Many of them will face the reaper come re-election time.
There are better ways to fight this pandemic. Fear mongering, hate, shaming, and hiding are NOT the ways to do it.
This is of my opinion.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Great summary of the medical aspect. As a retired AMEDD officer, I understand and respect the medical aspects. Your point that less than 1% of the global population appears to be infected is an important point to make. Your observation about the seemingly illogical responses to the pandemic are important as well. Because in many cases what you are seeing is a media created panic and individual responses to the media and government message.
For instance, many people believe that there is risk and are taking precautions. Another group lost trust in both media and government and completely disregard the message/accept the risk. But there are at least two more groups on the extremes. There is the hysterical group, who buy all the toilet paper and act irrationally, becoming over protective, believing everything they are told. This hyper-vigilant group is the group most likely to call the police regarding 'social distancing' violations. The other group is a hyper-liberty group, who believe that the virus is a method of assuming control over individuals, extending government powers and instituting globalist control over the US. This group refuses to believe anything the government claims and would prefer than we replace our current government with something else.
A point I would like to make is that this is the first time we have allowed government to overstep its authority with something that might claim less than 1% of the population (2.2 million). We have 7650 deaths per day (22 from veteran suicides) and the only deaths the media is focused on are the Wuhan flu. I suspect that if we had 24x7 coverage of motor vehicle deaths, accidents, recalls, etc. people would be too afraid to travel. The hysteria would make it impossible to build or sell cars and we would see a similar panic to what we are witnessing with the virus. Because what you have presented and a point I am raising is that hysteria and panic enable free people to assume greater control.
For instance, many people believe that there is risk and are taking precautions. Another group lost trust in both media and government and completely disregard the message/accept the risk. But there are at least two more groups on the extremes. There is the hysterical group, who buy all the toilet paper and act irrationally, becoming over protective, believing everything they are told. This hyper-vigilant group is the group most likely to call the police regarding 'social distancing' violations. The other group is a hyper-liberty group, who believe that the virus is a method of assuming control over individuals, extending government powers and instituting globalist control over the US. This group refuses to believe anything the government claims and would prefer than we replace our current government with something else.
A point I would like to make is that this is the first time we have allowed government to overstep its authority with something that might claim less than 1% of the population (2.2 million). We have 7650 deaths per day (22 from veteran suicides) and the only deaths the media is focused on are the Wuhan flu. I suspect that if we had 24x7 coverage of motor vehicle deaths, accidents, recalls, etc. people would be too afraid to travel. The hysteria would make it impossible to build or sell cars and we would see a similar panic to what we are witnessing with the virus. Because what you have presented and a point I am raising is that hysteria and panic enable free people to assume greater control.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google