...that much of the partisan divide in this nation is stemming from a divide in the fundamental perception of the legitimacy of power. Care to help me test the theory? Which is more authoritarian (and/or dictatorial and/or tyrannical)? The undermining of the rights of the individual, or the undermining of the rights of the democratic collective?
I think he is asking if it's okay to force an individual to do something in order to protect the community. Does the individuals right to choose to wear a mask supersed the right of the community to be safe from that person? I think an individuals right to life supersedes another individuals right to wear what they want.
I think I was having trouble with the term "collective" in this poll. Nevertheless, I do think that the "collective" -- defined as an identified segment of society -- IF PRESENTED WITH AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, should be protected above all, even if that means that the rights entailed in an individual's preferences are suppressed in the process. It's tricky! Example: the best medical minds have determined that we should all wear masks during this pandemic. I'm OK with that, even though some individuals are all upset over the government telling them they have to wear a mask. But, I would be very opposed to some hyperliberal crackpot trying to take away American citizens' constitutional right to defend ourselves with lethal force -- personal firearms -- because so many in the radical Democrat faction view firearms as a great danger to everyone in the country. That's the difference as I see it, anyway.... So, yeah, I wear a mask (and nitrile gloves) everywhere I go in any public building. But I would never approve of the confiscation of any firearms owned by a law-abiding citizen in 'good-standing'.
Perhaps the problem is a bit simpler than that... Maybe "the rights of the individual" are not in any danger at all and have never been.... that's just a smoke screen to cloud the real issue....
can't have one without the other. OTOH, temporary infringement of an individual's rights in order to protect the collective rights of all citizens is appropriate.
You mean like how long a national emergency like a global war, or internal rebellion or a pandemic might last?
No. I mean how long can one of those be used to justify the infringement of individual rights, and more to point, how long is too long? Is there a limit?
yes, the limit would be the resolution of the underlying rationale for the infringement in the first place. OTOH, I do remember republican partiality to authoritarianism. You remember this little gem? Imagine if trump had 2007 National Defense Authorization Act powers granted a president to declare martial law.
So there's no objective limit... we can 'temporarily' cancel individual rights for as long as some people are in danger?
not "some" - the majority of citizens. You know those individual rights? they are both granted by and limited by the state in the common interest of the nation and its people. Its not individual up, its state down.
Ah, so a majority of citizens have to be in danger before the cancelation of individual rights is justified. Very interesting. Thx for some objectivity! And no, I'm not being facetious.
What gun control? Any more guns and ammo...and my father-in-law will need a bigger house.... this idea of your gun rights being taken away is an illusion brought on by special interests not reality.
A danger lasts for as long as it lasts, in theory. That said, a LOT of despotic governments rule for many years with a continuing 'national emergency' supposedly going on. This is part of why I wrote earlier in this thread, "It's tricky!" A situation like the one we have right now with this virus is also tricky. As of December 30th, North Dakota had the most COVID cases on a per capita basis, and, Vermont had the least. But you never hear anything all about either of those states. Meanwhile, California is completely swamped with the disease, and people have to be put out in places like the gift shops of hospitals because there is no room for them anywhere else. Is this an overriding emergency? Some would say "no", but some would emphatically say, "yes". Link: https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...anked-by-confirmed-covid-19-cases-july-1.html
"Assault weapons" are not designed to hunt wild game...they are designed to kill humans. Seems logical that if you want one you must be planning on doing just that. Since the Trump supremacist hoards will not rest until they can manipulate this country into another civil war, might as well arm everyone to the teeth and get it over with. Like the good book says..."the meek shall inherit the earth." if there is anything left that is.
It sounds like you support an assault weapons ban ...while telling me theres no threat of restrictions to our gun rights. is that accurate?
I used to agree with a ban...but now? Like I said earlier...the Trump horde (I misspelled it last time sorry) will never be satisfied until they instigate another civil war here....so why not just arm everyone to the gills and get it over with? That's what you want right? That's why you "think" you need an assault weapon correct? There's no civil war here now...so you must be planning on starting one..no? What are you waiting for??
I don't think I need a semi-automatic rifle right now. But just like with fire extinguishers and homeowners insurance, I may need one later. And no, I'm not planning to start a civil war. But if someone else does, I also don't plan to let them determine its outcome for me. And neither should you. If we let the people who want a civil war bad enough to start one be the only ones fighting it, the rest of us are F'd.
How many fire extinguishers do you have....how many homeowners policies do you have....the chances of a civil war are probably no higher than your house catching fire and yet I don't see you posting any threads about fire prevention. Stop trying to scare folks into buying assault weapons. If you honestly believe you will not die if you have one...that's your choice. But as far as I can tell the sky is not actually falling.