04-19-2020, 02:01 PM
(04-19-2020, 07:54 AM)6andcounting Wrote: It's hard to disagree with the actions and precautions taken in this particular instance. As I've said, I think the government ultimately did what they had to is this case. My worry - and that what was my question was about - is the precedent it sets and how easily everyone was to control. Those who disagree and are protesting (who I think are dumb in this case) have been stamped out with relative ease. So sure I disagree with the protestors, but I don't like the government have the kind of power and control they have exhibited here. I myself don't have a good answer to my own question as it's hard to look at the question in context when I don't have a particular problem with the government's action in this situation.
I get that completely. I'm willing to give executives and officials some slack when it comes to emergencies, and legally they have powers that they normal would not. This isn't a scenario that any president or governor has been tasked with dealing with for a century. Information changes seemingly hourly.
As I said before, if you're a governor in charge of mitigating potential damage form something like this, would you rather do a little too much and make some people mad, or do too little and kill a few hundred extra citizens? You will be criticized either way, so it comes down to what you're able to accept form an ethical standpoint. I'd rather be criticized for the questionable at best constitutional issues than for a mass die-off that I could have potentially prevented.
As to your concerns, I think we need to watch for what they do in the aftermath of the pandemic. What happens when it's clearly no longer a threat? DO things go totally back to normal? Are all emergency powers relinquished? The time to watch is the end. if there's going to be an overreach or abridgment of rights, that's when it will happen. Think Patriot Act post 9-11.