The problem with some political debates (especially on Facebook) is that some people really don't move past square one (or have any sense of nuance).
Okay, some of my previous blogs have been relatively well taken, here's one where it won't be. I mentioned in my last blog (click here) Since the world has been introduced to the coronavirus, or COVID-19, various methods of responding to the pandemic have been proposed from all over the political spectrum. The debate over how to respond has been mostly emotional, partisan and rather unproductive over the powers of the state, in terms of "keeping the public safe" versus "blatantly violating civil rights" "sacrificing some civil rights". Before I go further, let me state for the record:
I support having the people choose to wear masks.
I support having the people choose to social distance.
I support having the people choose to do the right thing.
I support having the people choose to stay home.
Here's the problem: You cannot legislate it, or sign an executive order. You cannot legislate morality. You cannot legislate people into doing the right thing. It may sound disappointing to hear, but you cannot bully people into doing something you want. And no amount of public shaming, or partisan rhetoric can change the facts of history, or of present circumstances.
Yes, it may be cheesy to say that you cannot curtail human freedom because you want security, but there is no refuation to the point. We tried something really stupid trading civil rights for security with President George "Dubya" W. Bush's insanely unconstitutional real life version of "Enemy of the State", a great movie, "P.A.T.R.I.O.T A.C.T". It did not make us safer, but it betrayed the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and already reinforced the powers of the state to trash our rights because some people got scared. Yes, the tragedies that prompted those responses should have never happened, but trashing human rights will not undo the tragedy, or prevent another one.
It's easy to just screech "👏WEAR👏YOUR👏MASK👏", or "STAY👏AT👏HOME, 👏SAVE👏LIVES👏", etc, but it's only showing how bad you are at arguing for what you want not productive. You will not convince a single person to do the right thing that way. The best you can do at this point, is to follow your own advice. If the people who refuse to follow those guidelines get sick, no one should feel sorry for them. They knew the risks, and threw all caution to the wind.
Here's where the opponents of the orders are coming from:
Even if the Governors or Mayors are not necessarily overstepping legally established powers (despite the law not being the final arbiter of right and wrong), they are still infringing on civil rights since the law doesn't always fit the current times. If you disagree with that, tell that to the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement, or the protesters who rose up against police brutality, time and time again. The law isn't infallible. Slavery was once legal (the 13th amendment allows penal laborers but that is a whole other problem).
The holocaust was legal. Same sex marriage bans were legal (in the U.S). State mandated segregation was legal. The law is not -and has never been- the arbiter of morality. Chances are, that at a greater that 4-1 ratio, those adovacting for the executive orders by the various Mayors and Governors agree that the law isn't infalliable, and that some terrible actions were legal, and that the law does not always catch up to current times (that's why originalism is a joke, but again, that's a whole different problem).
Those who advocate these orders are expecting a deeply divided, polarized Country to be unanimous on this issue are stuck in a pipe dream. It's unrealistic to expect people to do the right thing just because you say so.
The hypocrisy of *some* of the S.A.H.O (stay at home order) advocates.
Some of those who argue for the S.A.H.O also have supported abolishing the police (which I support), and/or gun control (which I oppose). If you are one of those people, here's a reality check the problem:
Without law enforcement, you can't enforce the S.A.H.O. The same applies to gun control. The point is, that some of the S.A.H.O advocates have other views that defeat this particular one. And in the end, that's not going to go well if those go into practice. The same law enforcement some of you deride, would be "necessary" to enforce such orders or regulations.
Some of you may mock hearing statements about "civil rights", "civil liberties", or "freedoms". And you are well within your right to make a fool of yourself do so. But, then you cannot complain about losing some civil rights when you were all too happy to surrender others. Grifting on human rights is a privilege that many do not enjoy in some parts of the world. Remember that.
Now, to address the other side. Some of the opponents believe the incredibly stupid outrageous lie, that the coronavirus was a "hoax", to derail the orange orangutan President's campaign that's already dying due to his stupidity, and are thus refusing to wear a mask. For context, there are those who are really stupid of the opinion that the coronavirus is just like the flu, or an outright hoax. Sadly, there are those that listen to these lowest common denominators people, and give them credibility. And here's the kicker:
Something seems off to claim that it's an elaborate hoax, when half a million people died from it. Then again, anti semitic trash (aka holocaust deniers) exist. People suck, and it's hard to not forget that.
The Mayors and Governors may think that they are doing is right, but ultimately people will understand that while those executive actions have not led to a second civil war mass incarceration (which is already a problem, that neither Donald Trump or Democratic Donald Trump Joe Biden will fix, JSYK). But it will give (as it always has) the excuse for power hungry chief executives to further desecrate a stillborn document constitution, and to claim that they are doing it for the "greater good". For the record, it's an excuse, not a real justification. There is a lot of gray in this world, and very few things are black and white. Some actions which some criticize or defend, do have their pros and cons.
But in some cases, a cigar is just a cigar. There is ultimately little gray in terms of stating that the various chief executives in this country have gone too far (even if not legally overstepping their authority) when they issue certain orders. Consider this: In the United States, healthcare is not considered a human right. So, in the eyes of the law, a chief executive blocking medicaid expansion, or signing a bill repealing a healthcare law, is not a violation of rights established by the law. However, depending on who you ask, it is or is not a human rights violation for said chief executive taking such an action.
So if it is not a human rights violation for force someone to wear a mask, is it not a human rights violation to deny them healthcare, just because the law doesn't explicitly protect them from that?
And once again for those in the back:
I want people to do the right thing. Where we split, is on the understanding of being incapable of legislating them into doing it. People have tried legislating their morality into law before (different legal standards for LGBT people, same sex marriage bans, and bans on same sex relationships), and it was struck down as unconstitutional. Words printed on tax payer provided money don't automatically mean that they are just or enforceable.
I social distance, I wear masks, and I do everything I can to keep myself safe, and I especially social distance from people who either don't wear masks, or wear them improperly. If you're only response to this is to just respond with memes, mockery, or insults, it proves that you have no critical thinking skills. Take that for what it's worth. Chao.
Succeeded by: "Racism Still Exists."
Follow my Twitter: @SkylerSatterfi1
Support the blog: http://paypal.me/smanspeaks
Comments
Post a Comment