> so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting millions out of work?
Who knows? That's a pretty overbroad corpus of material you're citing. That said, I'm pretty comfortable with the state-level responses so far, given the federal government response has been so inept that it required such drastic corrective measures from the states. It would be insane to knowingly choose to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands on the altar of the economy.
> Do [you] believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do?
There are, but those limits also cannot be understood to require a dysfunctional response to a crisis. Ultimately, the government has to be able to do the reasonable thing. And yes, "reasonable" is something that requires judgement and often cannot be mechanically predefined.
> I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual.
It's pretty clear that we haven't been talking about some fantasy unchecked majoritarian direct democracy, so it's a bit of a straw man to start injecting that in.
> In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights
Eh, I disagree. Also those arguments that the government should only be able to order confirmed cases to stay home are pretty unreasonable, given the fact of asymptomatic carriers and woefully inadequate testing capability.
> But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges
See that's where you're misunderstanding things. Those rights are meaningless if the system that secures them is so rigid that it invites total rejection. You're right that a crisis can be a risky time, but fundamentalism is not necessarily the safest response.
Well that tells me some of my earlier assumption are infact going to end up being correct in that your political and economic positions lean pretty close to Authoritarian Socialism vs my Libertarian Free Market views
I completely reject this idea that the economy should be ignored in a time of crisis, and I also believe that if the lock down extends beyond the 2nd week of may the actual death rate due to economic loss will be higher than that of the virus. Unemployment does direct cause death, both due to increase rates of suscide, property crime, homelessness and other conditions.
This idea that the economy is some religion that we want to " sacrifice people lives on" is a completely disingenuous comment and appears you are the one making assumptions now about my beliefs
I think there was and is a better way to handle pandemics. Better than simply shutting down the entire economy, locking people in their homes, putting millions out for work, shutting permanently thousands of business, destroying Families, etc all the while expecting fiat currency printing and debt to get us through.
The economy does matter, livelihoods do matter, that is not a alter for people to be sacrifice on, it is reality. Ignore it at your own peril. I suspect given the general user base on HN, that your job (like mine) is insulated from the economic effects of this, I may see a 4-8% reduction in income this year over last. Where we differ is I recognize that not everyone is as lucky as I am, I am not about to scream "let me eat cake" and ignore their economic hardship like you seem to be able to do easily
> Well that tells me some of my earlier assumption are infact going to end up being correct in that your political and economic positions lean pretty close to Authoritarian Socialism vs my Libertarian Free Market views
LOL! You're funny!
> I think there was and is a better way to handle pandemics. Better than simply shutting down the entire economy, locking people in their homes, putting millions out for work, shutting permanently thousands of business, destroying Families, etc all the while expecting fiat currency printing and debt to get us through.
There could have been, but many groups without foresight worked to fuck it up. You can thank them for your stay at home order, which is now necessary and reasonable:
> Government officials and executives at rival ventilator companies said they suspected that Covidien had acquired Newport to prevent it from building a cheaper product that would undermine Covidien’s profits from its existing ventilator business.... In 2014 ... Covidien executives told officials at the biomedical research agency that they wanted to get out of the contract, according to three former federal officials. The executives complained that it was not sufficiently profitable for the company.
Not to mention the inept response and denialism at the federal level that wasted the lead time the US could have used to prepare for this pandemic, and that have continued to the present.
Who knows? That's a pretty overbroad corpus of material you're citing. That said, I'm pretty comfortable with the state-level responses so far, given the federal government response has been so inept that it required such drastic corrective measures from the states. It would be insane to knowingly choose to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands on the altar of the economy.
> Do [you] believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do?
There are, but those limits also cannot be understood to require a dysfunctional response to a crisis. Ultimately, the government has to be able to do the reasonable thing. And yes, "reasonable" is something that requires judgement and often cannot be mechanically predefined.
> I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual.
It's pretty clear that we haven't been talking about some fantasy unchecked majoritarian direct democracy, so it's a bit of a straw man to start injecting that in.
> In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights
Eh, I disagree. Also those arguments that the government should only be able to order confirmed cases to stay home are pretty unreasonable, given the fact of asymptomatic carriers and woefully inadequate testing capability.
> But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges
See that's where you're misunderstanding things. Those rights are meaningless if the system that secures them is so rigid that it invites total rejection. You're right that a crisis can be a risky time, but fundamentalism is not necessarily the safest response.