Save the sanctimony for somebody less pragmatic. I tell my clients they can’t get acquitted because they drove around with dank weed in their car with no taillights. That doesn’t mean I believe fourth amendment jurisprudence is perfect. Doesn’t even mean I believe drugs should be illegal. I understand and operate within the system that we have. You should try it.
Oh wait, when you did, the best you could come up with was that 30,000 deaths is worth a marginal uptick in the economy. And even that argument rests on the flawed assertion that zero intervention in America would be proportionate in result to zero intervention in Sweden. That’s a prudential argument. A bad one. One you didn’t realize was bad when you were throwing out Fox News talking points about Sweden, a few days ago. When you realized it was bad is when you derailed into virtue signaling and trying to shame me about not sharing your ideals.
Which, btw, is incredibly typical of you. Get caught talking out your ass about what is so you turn all sanctimonious about what should be.
It's the governments job to curtail people behaving irresponsibly? To the extent that they punish everyone? To the extent that it justifies future suffering? To me that is irresponsible of the government.
In America? When the consequences of those irresponsible choices affect other people? When they create a public health crisis? When they spread a deadly virus? Um... YES. Where have you been for the last 240 years? The constitution doesn’t prohibit it so it’s a prudential question.
The same concept was raised yesterday (without any objection or lack of understanding from the peanut gallery), in reference to the availability of ammonium nitrate. It’s not uncommon for consequential actions, be they negligent, reckless, or intentional, to be regulated. What the hell do you think tort law is? Pollution regs? Medical certifications? Fraud prevention?
Just ask this guy, he understands:
When there is already a standard it should be applied equally across the board. Especially when it comes to a professional practice like MDs. If they are accredited doctors this is the standard they signed up for.
It's the governments job to maintain the law, not babysit individuals.
Ok, and “the law” says they can regulate commerce and the law gives the government broad power to regulate all manner of things during an acute public health situation, like the one going on now. That’s what the law is: it’s just a bunch of rules and consequences that prevent people from doing harm to each other.
Hell, in America, it doesn’t even have to directly affect other people. See: drug crimes.
Don’t like it? Do what you can to end the public health crisis and remove the justification for expanded government.
But the mere suggestion that you lift a finger to rectify the inconsistency between your stated ideals and actions provokes histrionics. Why?
It’s obvious.
The lifting of the finger is the common denominator. Behaving in a conscientious manner would change your status quo. The government mandates have affected your status quo. You’re all a bunch of selfish ***** who don’t want to change your lifestyle. You know you’ll get judged for admitting it, so you virtue signal about liberties that never even existed. It doesn’t even register that our response has been less constraining (and less effective) than almost every westernized country.
You’re no better than Costco Karen bitching about “constitutional freedom“ from privately mandated mask requirements. Your whole argument is devoid of any nexus to reality.