should protesters reject treatment if infected?

This looks like a good place to put this:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

yes, that is why the government needs socialism in some cases

we do not all use all roads, but society benefits from having government roads

imagine if businesses had to pay to use all the roads

America uses the best of all systems, otherwise we would have toll roads everywhere

 

Im glad you brought up roads. CA spends more than twice the money per mile of road and they are crumbling. We have many toll roads, called Lexus Lanes so that limousine liberals don't have to sit in traffic like the rest of us tax payers.

 

You have no right to vote for the electors of your state. It's all up to your state legislature if you are allowed to no emergency necessary. If the virus were to come back with a vengeance in the fall 10 times worse and the state elections for electors had to be cancelled by each state the state legislatures would choose the electors and they would choose a new President on the 3rd Wednesday after the first Monday in December. Trump nor anyone else could stop that.

 

Building roads and infratstructure does not require socialism or a socialist government or a socialist economy. Nor does maintaining a military or police or a postal service.

 

Didn't read the whole thread. This reminds me of the dumbass LW meme on the supposed hypocrisy of Ayn Rand taking social security that makes the rounds from time to time.

Taking issue with a law one disagrees with, but that is still in effect does not change the fact that the law still applies for good or ill. Is it really necessary to state that among literate adults?

 

This is what the ME, ME, ME do not get.
At times you have to give up some of your liberties, for the common good and save the lives of your fellows. Liberty is earned. Our farther showed that to us.
Freedom is earned, our fathers and mothers showed that to us. Its not a birth right, its a earned right. Earned through service to the whole community.
If you want to put beef behind what you say, show me that you deserved the right, through your service.
1 and 2 are hollow, if they are not based on a community, if they are just based on the individual and disregarding the safety of the community.
If you catch that dam virus tomorrow, the community will not just let you die in the ditch, no matter how iresposebile you were.
We will do what ever it takes to save your live.
Correctly so.
That is what you count on, that is what you know and people will risk their lives to do so, that is what you count on and know.
Your Liberty infringes on the community, endangers the community and infringes on the people who than will try to save your sorry Liberty ars, which might cost their lives.

ME, ME, ME, of a spoilt brat.
If you want your liberty earned, go to the hospital and serve, just an example, for free.

 

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/not-like-the-flu-not-like-car-crashes-not-like

 

That was a poor attempt at trying to do it.

 

You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to reverse liberty that was already earned. They are within their rights and are not the only ones who benefit from opposing abuse of power. Deaths from C19 is low compared to all other causes so perhaps we should stay home for the rest of our lives!

You cannot claim to have a concern over infringing on rights if you oppose protesters.

 

Mary Mallon was put in isolation by the authorities when she refused to stop cooking and spreading Typhoid. She appealed it, but the Supreme Court of NY declined to hear the case. She was eventually released from isolation, with her promise that she never work as a cook again. She didn't comply and was again put in isolation, where she died, over 20 years later.

I'm not sure if this is the only case like this, but it's probably the most famous. Does it count as valid precedent? I don't know. We need a lawyer to weigh in.

Point is, I don't believe a citizen should have the right to intentionally put the public in danger.

 

No one is suggesting that those known to be infected should be preparing food. It is reasonable to expect sick people to stay home.

 

Many people are sick and/or spreading the germ long before (or even if) they have symptoms. That's the problem. My Mary Mallon example was to throw out a case where government forced someone into isolation who refused to stay isolated and the courts refused to hear the case. (Which I take to mean that they saw no problem with it.)

The protesters are entitled to medical care, as are meth heads, people who get hurt while driving drunk and murderers. Whether or not they have the right to be out and about protesting is the real question.

 

True. We don't know if the worker restocking toilet paper for the elderly to buy during their special hours is sick either. The line around Costco may have sick people as well. The government wants me to wait in long lines for toilet paper, but wants to force businesses to close even if the risk if much lower. If someone wants to buy yarn from the local mom n pop store, the government should not interfere.

 

No, we can mail in our votes.