I’m a huge proponent of natural selection as well.

With a growing list of Democrat politicians who are not following their own lockdown rules, that is making some rather indignant. As I mentioned to the guy below, can't say I agree with the partying part, but I am for the citizens being able to make their own choices.

@SpikeTalon
Any thoughts on my question?
Is this disease just not deadly enough, or is the right to assemble more precious than life? There is no “right” answer - just wondering what yours is.

(I don’t know if you can access my linked post.)

@BlurtReynolds Exactly what I said above, each citizen should have the right to make their own choices as opposed to Government mandates. My main concern with mandates is, how exactly will they be enforced should someone disregard them, and what will any punishments be for not following? I was under the impression that Democrats are looking for ways to minimize police involvement in our lives, but the police would be the ones called in though if and when someone violates the lockdown restrictions. That in turn could lead to more deadly encounters with police, and not sure we would want that.

As for if the virus is deadly enough or not, I don't doubt it is serious (which is why I have opted to take certain precautions like physical distancing etc), but this wouldn't be the first time in history mankind has faced such dilemmas, and probably not the last either.

@SpikeTalon
So no future situation could be so dangerous that we would be better off to respond in concert, even if failing to do so meant we all die? (I don’t see any visitors to the linked post. Maybe it’s not visible?)

@BlurtReynolds Why not try to reach a happy medium among ourselves instead of having Government force us? Even when the Government mandates something (as is with Covid), there will always be some who resist, why turn folks like that into criminals? Can't remember the site now, but awhile back I was reading an article that made a Libertarian case for mask wearing, and it made a good point. Being forceful with everyone will usually equal some resisting, and that in turn equals less than desired results. I get the feeling more folks would adhere to safety precautions if a less forceful approach were used.

@SpikeTalon

Can you see the post that I linked?

@BlurtReynolds I visited that post, but for some reason it doesn't appear to be logging visitors.

@SpikeTalon
“Why not try to reach a happy medium among ourselves instead of having Government force us?”

Do you think this way about other public safety issues?
Will voluntary compliance work for traffic lights, speed limits, etc.? Do we need law enforcement at all? Why turn school shooters into criminals?

@BlurtReynolds School shootings are a serious crime, not wearing a mask while out and about or not staying at least six feet away from others are not true crimes. We do need LE for serious crimes like murder. As for voluntary compliance when it comes to other public safety issues, we should be questioning just how effective such laws are?

Since you brought up traffic concerns, there are some really strict laws on the books against reckless and or drunk driving, but do/have such laws work? No one drives around drunk or high these days, right? Not sure if voluntaryism would work or not as our society never gave it a chance, but I do know that alot of the laws are questionable in the sense they do not prevent people from violating them regardless of the consequences.

@SpikeTalon
“I do know that alot of the laws are questionable in the sense they do not prevent people from violating them regardless of the consequences.”

It’s an interesting question, and there are probably angles I have not considered that would be interesting to look at. Some of the articles about “abolishing the police” have made some interesting points.

I don’t know if such an experiment has been tried in modern times. It would be interesting to see. I have a hard time believing criminal behavior would cease to exist if you just stop policing people.

The test isn’t whether crime can be totally eliminated by law enforcement. It’s whether LE reduces crime. In a perfect world maybe it wouldn’t, but we don’t live in that world.

The “serious” crime of mass shootings killed fewer than 500 people in the US in 2020.
The “not true” crime of willfully spreading a deadly disease has killed 275,386 and counting.

@BlurtReynolds In an ideal world we wouldn't need police, but the world as we know it is far from ideal, so while I'd prefer each individual be able to police themselves that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In short, mankind has yet to find that ideal system in which everything runs smoothly and crime does not exist. That topic may make for an interesting post in the future...

A mass shooting is usually a planned incident based on malicious intentions, intentions to inflict serious harm on others. Unintentionally (or in some cases perhaps not so) spreading a disease due to not taking certain measures like wearing a face mask however is not a direct act of malice. You could maybe label such acts that of selfishness. This is just my personal opinion, but I think many people were bound to die from Covid regardless if Government had intervened or not. I'm just not convinced Government mandated lockdowns were the solution to the problem, as it is not possible to completely lockdown society as we know it, some things would still have to be kept open and running, which means human interactions would still be taking place. I think about some of these states as a whole or even just cities that put in place strict measures, and yet somehow too many people still died from Covid. With that said, I don't think such a complex issue as Covid-19 has a simplistic solution though. Each side on the matter offered their solutions, and none of them were ideal, in my opinion anyway. I do know this much... in the months since Covid hit America I've been doing my part to minimize contamination and continue doing so. I do that however because it is the best approach and considerate to my fellow citizens, and not because the Government or any politician stated so, guess that's what I was trying to say above.

@SpikeTalon
I see where you’re coming from. Glad to hear you’re taking that approach. Would be wonderful if everyone did.

Most likely not.

Can't say I agree with the party part, but point is citizens should be resisting the lockdown mandates as they conceivably can cause far more harm than good.

As long as you are peaceably assembled, do what ever you want whithout infringing upon the rights of others.

@Mechanic I do not wear a mask, I will not let them vaccinate me, I say what I please. My problem with the article is that it complains about not being able to party when of all things the human being does that is the least important. It seems the writer was just short of something intelligent to write about.

@TheMiddleWay Indeed. No solution that everyone would go along with. Mankind has yet to think up a system in which virtually everyone could agree on.

@SpikeTalon A majority of Americans seems to have agreed on one thing in the last couple of years, especially in the last 11 months, they want to be ruled by "experts," climate experts and medical experts.

All I hear is The Beastie Boys