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

Lately I've been saying we need NO party in this country. They all will become dysfunctional at some point and serve only themselves.

 

Speed limits in school zones are communist?

 

What gov't shut down schools? Besides the local ones? And they have ZERO to do with immigrants.
Don't think all gov't is the fed gov't.

 

driving isn't a constitutional right

 

I'll just remind you what you wrote.

My right to drive at 100 mph in a school zone shall not be infringed.
Nor shall my right to spread a deadly virus.

 

On an individual basis, yes. On a mass basis, NO.

 

Where in the Constitution or legal court cases is there a Right to go 100mph?

 

What he apparently doesn't understand is that in those protests that block people from accessing a work site those protestors can be arrested for doing such.

 

You see the bad thing about giving up your rights is that once you have done so you aren't going to get them back.

Can anyone name one time that they've given up rights to the government and the government has granted them back to you?

I have an inherently deep-seated mistrust of the government. I only trust them to accumulate power and wealth at the cost of my rights.

 

Where does it give you the right to spread a deadly disease through refusal to wear a mask, social distance or get vaccinated.

 

you have no right to drive 100 mph show me in the constitution that you do

 

The courts have ruled that what you wear or don't wear is a part of free speech. Hence why public schools are no longer allowed to impose uniforms on students.
Right to association means that you can associate with anyone in any way that you wish provided they allow it as they too have the same Right.
My Body, My choice. (just so you know in advance...I'm pro-choice...)

 

the same right that gives women the right to an abortion gives one the right to refuse a vaccine

 

The use of the word "good" mean in this case, benefit.
My own definition of "benefit" is proof that "doing it" is more beneficial to MOST people than not "doing "it". A crude example...a river in your town where people live is flooded. At the same time, you have planned a weekend away. Do you go away or cancel the trip and help the flooded victims?
As for the right to be vaccinated, I personally don't have a view. I only asked the question.

 

Heavens!
Are you equating humanitarian response with communism??

 

Marine1 said: ↑
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.

But the OP was not about force.
It was about personally giving up.
From what you wrote above, the news agencies, in giving up their coverage, was communism.

 

Interesting. I didn't know you can't "fire" a congressman.
Right now the UK is wondering whether to fire its Prime Minister for breaking his own rules. The decision is in the hands of the objective civil service which investigates wrong-doing. The other way is for enough elected representatives to hand in letters of no confidence, usually prompted by their constituents.
Elected representatives can be sacked if enough constituents register a vote of no confidence too.

 

Do you not feel safer...given that the government can now find terrorists more easily?

Very interesting set of replies. Thank you.

 

i got one of those camera speeding tickets in the mail this week - 24 in a school zone 20. my poor wife must have thought i was being disappeared by communists as i ranted for a few minutes.

 

Indeed.
The conflict of interest is in the state having no right to impose speed limits, while the individual has the right to drive at any speed they want...and the general "good" is therefore sacrificed.
The state is supposed to have the prime responsibility of protecting you from harm, either internally or externally. How on earth is that communist?
I have to take that comment as unreliable and prompted by some incident where the author was constrained in doing something.

Sorry. I'll shut up now and read the really interesting contributions.

 

sorry for the less than interesting contribution. i actually support traffic safety, proving that we are all capable of occasional lapses.

 

In fact it was a good example of the conflict between state law and personal freedom.
My own position is that given so many individuals are reluctant to give up some freedoms in order to better ensure the safety/success of the community, the state ends up having to impose more controls if it wants to fulfill its responsibility of protecting that community. Or, if "you" won't do it, "we" will have to. Which generates resentment and further division between individual and state, and further erosion of the " general common good".
I have no idea how to square that circle.

 

You know as well as I do that is the Teachers Union that shuts down the schools and they finance Democrat, Big Government agendas. Only in blue states are schools shut down. Contracts are violated but Democrat Politicians will not call in the cards. This is good in the sense home schooling is on the rise and citizens are seeing the need fo tax dollars to "follow the children" rather than to follow the teachers union. Public Schools will be on the decline until they learn to compete.

 

Our constitution makes the provision where any member of congress can be removed by a 2/3 vote of all congressmen. The problem is that they are all on equal grounds in that respect, so attempting to eject someone can trigger a sort of internal war. What we lack is a supervisory authority, similar to a referee or official at a procedure who is not part of the game itself.

The issues I address aren't the political choices a politician makes, but the ethical actions. I see these as totally separate. The ethical actions are the equal obligation of all members, they constitute the honorable code which makes people keep their word, enables true discussion and resolution of issues- as opposed to back-door dealing and deceit. Unfortunately, those characteristics are rampant in our congress and doing great damage. Imagine a mayor who endorses ideas for public projects as opposed to one who plans to create projects to profit his family and friends. Or- a priest, who solicits your contributions for the church but them diverts them to his personal off-shore bank. It's like a poker game where all the players are cheating, thus a new elect has no choice but to learn to cheat as well- or lose all the time.
Aside from the political choices, we must find a way to make the actions of congress ethical. Since nobody has the power to force another to become ethical, the only way is to make being ethical the only way you can keep the job. That can be within our power. The means to do that is what my group is working on.

 

What these Union School Teachers taught us through this experience is that they are not essential, but the parents are.

From CA

Will parents help? 670 volunteer in Palo Alto.

"Teachers insisted they weren’t essential workers — and they were right!"