So, whenever the subject gets brought up, and someone starts explaining to me about how wearing masks is "infringing my personal freedom" or whatnot, I ask them this question.
Do you have the freedom to drive on both sides of the road?
When they say no, I ask why not. And usually the response is, "I could kill someone, or die myself." So, I explain: When behaving as we choose endangers the lives of ourselves or others, it's wise not to exercise these so-called personal liberties. Instead, we need to estab
(Note: I completely agree with you that the government has the power to shut down business or private party gatherings like it's doing. It's right there in the Constitution - providing for the general welfare of the people is one of the power given to government.)
You are free to drive on both sides of the road if it's a private road. The reason you can't do it on public roads is that they're built by the government, so the government sets the rules on how you can use them. So any "my rights are more important than the government's powers" person is going to tear your argument a hole big enough to drive a truck through. When you walk into a business, you're a private citizen walking into property owned by another private citizen. When you meet with friends, you're a private citizen meeting with a private citizen. None of these things are owned or created by the government, so under normal circumstances the government has no power to control these things.
In hindsight, we probably should have treated this like an actual shooting war. Have Congress pass a resolution empowering the Federal, state, and local governments to set requirements like stay at home orders and mask wearing, for the duration of the pandemic. I don't think it was actually necessary in order for these things to be legal. But at least that way we'd have a democratic vote we could point to which empowered the government specifically to do these things, so we could just tell these people "we had a vote on it, and decided to let the government do it."
An analogy I use when explaining this to others (Score:2)
So, whenever the subject gets brought up, and someone starts explaining to me about how wearing masks is "infringing my personal freedom" or whatnot, I ask them this question.
Do you have the freedom to drive on both sides of the road?
When they say no, I ask why not. And usually the response is, "I could kill someone, or die myself." So, I explain: When behaving as we choose endangers the lives of ourselves or others, it's wise not to exercise these so-called personal liberties. Instead, we need to estab
Re:An analogy I use when explaining this to others (Score:2)
You are free to drive on both sides of the road if it's a private road. The reason you can't do it on public roads is that they're built by the government, so the government sets the rules on how you can use them. So any "my rights are more important than the government's powers" person is going to tear your argument a hole big enough to drive a truck through. When you walk into a business, you're a private citizen walking into property owned by another private citizen. When you meet with friends, you're a private citizen meeting with a private citizen. None of these things are owned or created by the government, so under normal circumstances the government has no power to control these things.
In hindsight, we probably should have treated this like an actual shooting war. Have Congress pass a resolution empowering the Federal, state, and local governments to set requirements like stay at home orders and mask wearing, for the duration of the pandemic. I don't think it was actually necessary in order for these things to be legal. But at least that way we'd have a democratic vote we could point to which empowered the government specifically to do these things, so we could just tell these people "we had a vote on it, and decided to let the government do it."