Is there ever a time when personal liberties should be suspended?

I didn't read any of the responses your OP received so this may be a repeat.

At this point in time, I am completely against anything that involves encroaching on our freedoms. It's not that I necessarily agree there are no situations that warrant it, but the ambiguity of the what constitutes "the greater good". "Good", an adjective, doesn't have a specific or unbiased definition because what one person believes is "good" may be considered "bad" by someone else and somewhere between for others.

So, while the concept of "fluid" freedoms looks great on paper, I don't see a pathway for it being practical or feasible in real life.

For example, there are many bigots in the world. For all intents and purposes, they would just prefer that <whoever they hate> leaves the country and/or dies. They don't have any wiggle room at all so there is this constant bickering about why their position is "right" (for the "greater good") and anyone that doesn't share those views is wrong (and, equally deserving of being run out of town or killed). Their targets, however, clearly would agree with that.

Another issue we're grappling with is COVID mitigation and I'm working on the assumption that is what you were thinking about when you wrote your post. Please correct me if that's incorrect.

Many people have complied with social distancing, washing hands and wearing masks. Many have not.
Many people have been vaccinated completely and some have had boosters. Many have not.
Many people have committed suicide due to the sheltering in place and not being able to engage with others. Many have not.

Therefore, when we ask ourselves the question of "what is the greater *good*" we are essentially applying our OPINION about how to resolve a problem with very little regard that the next person has the opposite opinion about what the "greater good" is.

Licensed physicians carry medical malpractice insurance but they are also protected under the umbrella of JCAHO and the AMA. So, it is in their best interests not to only say whatever their "bosses" tell them to say. A patient wouldn't know if a doctor has received complaints unless those complaints were so off the deep end that it ended up in court and/or censuring. That begs the question "What about all the other stuff that might have happened to make us unaware of less seriously, albeit still harmful, to other people?" We just don't know.

Compounding that issue is the fact that we have absolute proof of some awful things happening.

* Babies dying because their mother took Thimerosal.
* Donating blankets with smallpox in an effort at genocide of Native Americans.
* The Tuskegee experiment (willfully not treating black males to document the progression of Syphilis).
* The Red Cross was fined millions of dollars for not testing all their blood donations.
etc.

For me, that, and many other problems I've faced due to medical mistakes give me pause when people make definitive statements that they actually don't *know* are accurate. Nobody in the world right now can tell us that the COVID vaccines are 100% safe because there hasn't been enough time to make that determination. Sure, we can look at the stats on new infections, repeat infections, hospitalizations and/or death, but nobody knows just how bad Long COVID is. Nobody knows so I can completely understand and empathize with the people that refuse to get the vaccine. They can change their minds in the future, but they can't go back in time and have it removed from their system if they develop some secondary health problems because of it.

And, of course, it naturally follows that people that want everyone to get the vaccine will not only push that but also try to silence the people that don't agree with them.

Would you be okay with

* somebody knocking on your door and forcibly hold you down to give you a vaccine?
* somebody grabbing you off the street and taking you to a doctor or hospital to force it on you?
* somebody tasing you and taking you to a mental hospital until you agree to get it?
* losing your children and/or visitation because a judge doesn't agree with your anti-vax position?
* your employer locking you in the office and forcibly giving you the vaccine?
* your employer terminating you because you won't get the vaccine?
* your family members shunning you because you won't get the vaccine?
* your spouse taking your shared children to get the vaccine against your wishes?
* your friends shunning you because you didn't get the vaccine?
* people you know wherever you might worship shunning you because you didn't get the vaccine?
* your neighbors shunning you because you didn't get the vaccine?

Unless you're a masochist, none of the above would be acceptable. However, the converse is also true.

Would you be okay with

* somebody knocking on your door and forcibly hold you down to stop you from getting vaccinated?
* somebody grabbing you off the street and taking you to a doctor or hospital to force you not get vaccinated?
* somebody tasing you and taking you to a mental hospital until you stop talking about getting it?
* losing your children and/or visitation because a judge doesn't agree with your vax position?
* your employer locking you in the office and forcibly denying you the vaccine?
* your employer terminating you because you got the vaccine?
* your family members shunning you because you got the vaccine?
* your spouse taking your shared children into hiding because you got vaccinated?
* your friends shunning you because you got the vaccine?
* people you know wherever you might worship shunning you because you got the vaccine?
* your neighbors shunning you because you got the vaccine?

Again, unless you're a masochist, none of the above would be acceptable.

And, those examples are exactly why "the greater good" can't be qualified or quantified.

It is different when we are talking about egregious acts in society as a whole because they can be qualified and quantified. It doesn't matter what someone's beliefs are about homicide. Murder is *always* wrong. It doesn't matter what someone believes about pedophilia. Pedophilia is *always* wrong. And on and on. And, that's simply not true for the debate between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers as we can see above.

WHO gets to define "good" that fairly respects everyone's right to choose what they put in or on their body?

 

They want us to surrender personal rights but in the U.S. they don't enforce our border laws and allow infected illegal aliens to come in a million a year. I would say that undoes anything surrendering our personal rights does so it is all in vain. Truth be known, they want to control us while bringing in future voters for their globalist/ socialist agenda!

 

and Hitler didn't immediately start gassing the Jews he just slowly started striping away their human rights and he justified it as "for the benefit of the community"

 

putting the "good of the community" over individual rights is the hallmark of communism and we all know how well communisms works with it mass murdering over 140 million and counting

 

The news organizations gave up their freedom to report the news on D Day to keep the Germans from knowing we were on our way to Liberate France.

They also stopped reporting on all the merchant ships sunk, as it was hurting recruiting getting people to sail on them.

 

they volunteered to do so it wasn't forced

 

Not just Americans. It's a function of First World hedonism and individualism.

You can find iterations of this same phenomena everywhere - from the entitled 'socialist' (ironically, the most likely to reject the idea of mutual obligation), to the '**** you, I got mine' set.

 

I'd have to disagree with that. I'm in a country which has had the strictest pandemic protocols on the planet, and our freedoms were restored to us (along with the consequences of doing so - galloping COVID).

 

Sadly, governments aren't equal. Nor is patriotism, self respect and many of the things that keeps governance honest and responsible in some countries.

 

Sure, but none of said countries are in the Democratic First World.

 

You forgot the links. Are you embarrassed by the source?

 

If you allow Dictators dictatorial powers for emergencies, they will never run out of emergencies.

UVA PROF PRAISES ‘AUTHORITARIAN ENVIRONMENTALISM:’ Believe the Leftists when they say they will enslave you because they will.

​

In our system, ALL legitimate power is derived from We The People. We speak through our elected legislatures.

We've seen how out of control Executives will abuse their power. Rioting is permitted, but not church? Your business cannot open but rioters can burn it down?

All Legislatures that have granted emergency power need add a 30 limit to grants of executive emergency power that expire if not renewed by our elected legislatures.

​

 

This is absolutely correct in theory- but of course, we don't really speak through our legislatures because they ignore the rules and terms of their positions-
AND, because we can't fire them for that. It's like a football game where there are no referees, and the players have no limitations other than each other- and that invariably deteriorated into a no-rules, no consequences chain of power and corruption.

I think we need more than a limit on certain powers- we need a civilian authority that can fire members of congress for violating the terms of their position- as in clean out your desk, you're done. We then call the governor of that state and have him sent a temporary representative. This would not be an action taken over political position, but one of violation of the rules that their job binds them too- which are adequate and would be powerful, IF THEY WERE ENFORCED. The power to fire a member of congress exists- but is in the hands of congress itself. They have seen fit to fire TWO members in the last 156 years.

There is a simple plan in the works to put that power in the hands of the citizens... not public yet, but soon.

 

What we have now works, we are the longest surviving democracy in existence today and possibly the longest surviving government, period. But, like weeds in a garden, our freedoms need constant tending.

I'm also a incrementalist and a great respecter of unforeseen consequences, so, I would move slowly and gradually.

I'd like to see the State Legislatures draft a Constitutional Amendment that restores some of the State Legislature's power in the Senate. The Senate was designed to be the House for the State Legislatures, and it no longer is.

The change I would like to see is a simple one: The State Legislature may recall their Senator. Vacancies would be handled like any other, generally an appointment by the Governor until the next scheduled election.

Give that some time to work, evaluate it for unforeseen consequences and then do more if more is needed.

 

The constitution was written in such a way to protect us because our founders knew the government CAN NOT be trusted to return your freedoms once the crisis is over.

 

Exactly. Which is why various State Legislatures are wising up.

Pennsylvania voters impose new limits on governor's powers ...
https://abcnews.go.com › Politics › wireStory › pennsylvania-voters-impose-limits-governors-powers-77781159

"Before Tuesday, the constitution required a two-thirds majority vote by lawmakers to end a governor's disaster declaration and, legally, the governor could issue an emergency declaration for up to 90 days and extend it without limit. Governors have no say in what proposals lawmakers put on ballots to amend the state constitution."

PA voters, wised up from some Dems abuse of COVID enable powers, put an end to that crap.

 

Is there ever a time when personal liberties should be suspended?

Generally speaking, NO, never. Governments can always come up with phony emergencies that require the suspension of personal liberties.

Having said that, if one commits a crime (a real crime not an invented crime based on a phony "law") that requires incarceration, then yes, within reason proportional to the crime committed.

 

We have been trying to "fix' the situation for a very long time- and it's progressively gotten worse. There are 10 million voices complaining- for every voice that advocates an effective change.
Complaints vent emotions, they do not fix problems. These are not superficial issues, they are fundamental ones. I don't think that a solution needs to be more than a way to put teeth into the rules we already have, but those teeth had better be totally functional and convincing. Empty threats, negotiable rules- results in a houseful of spoiled brats with no respect for anything. That, right now- is the congress of the United States. The time to be negotiable on these things has proved disastrous. It's simple- we enforce the basic rules for congress. IF a member breaks the rules- he's out of the game. Loses his position, permanently. Fired for cause- breaking the ethics and oath of office.

You don't have to change the game- you just have to solidly enforce the rules that are already there, but ignored by all. Once a half-dozen or so heads roll down the congressional aisle, there will be a sudden religious miracle happen, and hundred of congressmen will decide to come to Jesus, and sin no more....



Some friends and I are working on that now- a solution that has many years of development, but is soon to go public.

 

We have a real problem with US Prosecutors and an FBI that isn't enforcing rules against the politically connected. Congress seems loathe to curtail the spying power of the Deep State against US citizens, and we have to consider that a large number may be blackmailed.

We do. 2/3rds agreement on expulsion results in expulsion. In the House they go before the voters every two years, that's frequently. In the Senate, it's every six, but, with the State Legislature able to recall them, it's only six if they are on good behavior and responsive to the State Legislature.

 

in our system ALL power is derived from corporate money speaking through their paid for legislators. if it ever becomes profitable to protect the environment they will do so.

all states of emergency, and most laws, should have expiration dates.

 

Do you buy Chinese manufactured goods? Because they treat the environment and our oceans like it's their own personal toilet.

Same on expiration dates.

 

Is there ever a time when personal liberties should be suspended?

Government suspends personal liberties all the time and often for trivial reasons. So the question is easily answered with "any time."

 

Unfortunately, most people think the vote controls what will happen. It does not; it only controls who will be doing what. If you look at the existing rules for congress- rules they not only approved and are sworn to, but many that they themselves wrote- they are so much window dressing. Lipstick on the pig, that has no control at all.

The expulsion rule has only been used twice in the last 156 years. During that time, members of congress have been convicted and jailed for a host of crimes- but not thrown out by their colleagues over misconduct. Voting just can't do the job. Right now, many member of congress are admitting that congress' power is being steadily lost, and something different has got to happen soon if it is to be restored to a functional body, possible to an honorable one. Recalls and such are so complex and difficult as to be nearly impossible. The rules I'm talking about aren't political items, they are ethical items. You can recall someone whose political views have drifted out of popularity- but you should immediately fire someone who is cooking the books and breaking their own laws. That is happening right now- and in massive numbers. The people in office pretend it doesn't matter, because it's them instead of you. That cannot go on.

Congress make the rules- for everyone. They control the functions of the president, all the agencies of every kind. Even the supreme court must enforce the laws as congress writes them unless they are unconstitutional- and congress simply re-writes the wording of bills that get challenged. Even a change in the constitution starts in congress. IF congress was really doing it's job by the rules, you can bet they would be seeing to it that all the agencies they oversee also respected the rules. But when the rule makers won't enforce the rules- there are no real rules. Thus, the place to start must be in congress.

 

Actually our Framers were concerned that the day could come when Congress no longer listens and responds to the American People, so, they included in Article V a second means of drafting amendments that requires nothing from Congress and cannot be blocked by Congress.

In the meantime, I make sure I write my Congressman regularly, but, I don't know that it's effective, it's just the only thing available to me at the moment.

But, the movement for the State Legislatures, which requires 34 State Legislatures to agree to draft amendments now has passed 15 States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve...tes_Constitution#Convention_of_States_Project

 

Yes, when plane fly into buildings in NYC, then we take personal liberties away so we can spy on citizens to see if they are terrorists. AKA, the Patriot Act.