Rules regarding Thanksgiving

[The Xl]

These governors have no right to issue any of these edicts because they all very clearly violate the 1st amendment.

[EvilCat Breath]

One of the major difficulties, if not the worst, is that so much of what we are told about this kung flu isn't true. What is true is being overblown. People tend to just throw the whole mess out and ignore it all.

[Ethereal]

Would people be so rebellious if the pandemic was foot and mouth disease ?

Having Thanksgiving with your family is now considered "rebellious"?

Jesus H. Christ... what has happened to the world?

[EvilCat Breath]

All outdoor dining is prohibited. All bars are closed. Churches are closed but strip clubs are open. All visiting is prohibited. The police and sheriff's offices have told the governor that they will not cite or arrest anyone for violating these rules. The governor is threatening to cut power to any areas that he feels is having visiting.

[jet57]

It's about both. Civil rights don't magically disappear because there is a new virus in the world.


If they want to take the risk - which is very, very small - then that's their decision. Not sure why you think you have the right to tell other people what to do in the privacy of their own homes.

Nobody's civil rights have been injured here. What we have is a national security issue and I wonder how your crowd would have gone over in WWII with all the restrictions placed on society then.

I'm not telling anybody what to do. It's simple, if you want to be callus and contrarian about this, just remember your thinking if someone you're close to winds up in the hospital.

[Peter1469]

Some governors are telling their citizens that they must not gather in large groups for Thanksgiving.

But many people are simply ignoring these edicts.

There are, therefore, really three separate questions here, viz.:

(1) Are such directives, if followed, efficacious?

(2) Do governors have the inherent right to order such matters?

And (3) Should rules which are widely ignored even be set forth in the first place?

Questions #1 and #2 are certainly quite important. But for the moment, let us set those aside, and concentrate exclusively upon question #3.

I would argue that any rule that is generally ignored is actually worse than no rule at all, since any such rule tends to breed contempt for rules in general.

Comments?

1. Perhaps if you have family members and friends who are high risk, but those can self-isolate while the healthy family members and friends live life.

2. Most likely yes, unless a state constitution removes some of the state's organic police powers.

3. I don't like the question. The rule is made by power hungry Statists. Many people will ignore it. If you don't want the rule made in the first place don't elect Statists to office.

[pjohns]

It's about a viral pandemic, not civil rights. When yourself, a family or friend is laying in a hospital because you or they chose to protest instead of being safe, you might think about the pandemic.

That may be a pertinent response to Question #1 and Question #2; but it ignores Question #3.

And that is precisely the opposite of what I asked.

So, with total disregard for the first two questions--they are entirely irrelevant to this post--would you say that a rule that is widely ignored is better set in the first place, or better left unset?

That is the only question that I wish to address here.

[jet57]

That may be a pertinent response to Question #1 and Question #2; but it ignores Question #3.

And that is precisely the opposite of what I asked.

So, with total disregard for the first two questions--they are entirely irrelevant to this post--would you say that a rule that is widely ignored is better set in the first place, or better left unset?

That is the only question that I wish to address here.

Rules that are set forth are widely ignored every day: that's why we have speeding tickets and criminals. The rules are there as models for a peaceful society. IN WWII, very harsh rules were put out there in order that we might survive the war and they came with very harsh penalties, so not many if at all ignored the rules... In times of national crisis, as we learned in WWII, it's one for all and all for one. The rules for this pandemic are set forth to elicit the same response and to help keep our peaceful society[ as healthy as possible until we coral this thing. In other words it's the American thing to do. The pandemic has been politicized by questions and actions that are exactly like yours and our counter to our country's need for cooperation until this ting gets beat. THAT agenda is part of the underlying agenda of splitting this country.

[Peter1469]

Rules that are set forth are widely ignored every day: that's why we have speeding tickets and criminals. The rules are there as models for a peaceful society. IN WWII, very harsh rules were put out there in order that we might survive the war and they came with very harsh penalties, so not many if at all ignored the rules... In times of national crisis, as we learned in WWII, it's one for all and all for one. The rules for this pandemic are set forth to elicit the same response and to help keep our peaceful society[ as healthy as possible until we coral this thing. In other words it's the American thing to do. The pandemic has been politicized by questions and actions that are exactly like yours and our counter to our country's need for cooperation until this ting gets beat. THAT agenda is part of the underlying agenda of splitting this country.

Except the federal government is empowered to mobilize the nation for war under the Constitution.

But for life, health, and safety matters (police powers), the Constitution looks to the states to act. Federalism. It has a real meaning.

[Tahuyaman]

Some governors are telling their citizens that they must not gather in large groups for Thanksgiving.

But many people are simply ignoring these edicts.

There are, therefore, really three separate questions here, viz.:

(1) Are such directives, if followed, efficacious?

(2) Do governors have the inherent right to order such matters?

And (3) Should rules which are widely ignored even be set forth in the first place?

Questions #1 and #2 are certainly quite important. But for the moment, let us set those aside, and concentrate exclusively upon question #3.

I would argue that any rule that is generally ignored is actually worse than no rule at all, since any such rule tends to breed contempt for rules in general.

Comments?

When governors created these restrictions, their mindset was that they restrictions were for thee, not me.