Mayors Trying to Outdo One Another

 

First, it was DeBlasio threatening to permanently close synagogues if New York Jews held services. Not to be outdone, the mayor of Washington DC says, “You’re not so tough on your citizens. Look at what I’m doing!”

Hopefully, the DC police will ignore this civil rights violation, but what I can see are governors and mayors running for re-election on platforms of “Look how tough I fought the virus.” Let’s hope their citizens “thank” them for their efforts by selecting someone else.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. NickP Coolidge
    NickP
    @NickP

    Stad (View Comment):

    NickP (View Comment):

    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-los-angeles-eric-garcetti-snitches-get-rewards/

    And not to be outdone…

    The Stasi is alive and well in LA . . .

    Autocrats revert to type. To paraphrase my patron saint Milton Friedman, people generally get what they vote for. Never truer than in LA specifically and California generally. 

    • #31
  2. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    This is completely missing the point. The role of government is to protect the public. Not to protect the citizen from himself. The legitimate role of government in an epidemic is the same as at any other time: protect the public. Our medical institutions would be overwhelmed by the sudden influx of masses of seriously ill patients. It’s the government’s responsibility to try to prevent that.

    The known risks and rewards of a person’s actions to himself and his family are not the government’s concern.

    When personal choices have the potential to hurt people well beyond oneself and one’s family then of course the government can step in.

    • #32
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    This is completely missing the point. The role of government is to protect the public. Not to protect the citizen from himself. The legitimate role of government in an epidemic is the same as at any other time: protect the public. Our medical institutions would be overwhelmed by the sudden influx of masses of seriously ill patients. It’s the government’s responsibility to try to prevent that.

    The known risks and rewards of a person’s actions to himself and his family are not the government’s concern.

    When personal choices have the potential to hurt people well beyond oneself and one’s family then of course the government can step in.

    No, not really, not in our system of government. In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes.  

    You need to think through that last statement of yours a lot more carefully and add some modifiers.  

    • #33
  4. Tree Rat Inactive
    Tree Rat
    @RichardFinlay

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    This is completely missing the point. The role of government is to protect the public. Not to protect the citizen from himself. The legitimate role of government in an epidemic is the same as at any other time: protect the public. Our medical institutions would be overwhelmed by the sudden influx of masses of seriously ill patients. It’s the government’s responsibility to try to prevent that.

    The known risks and rewards of a person’s actions to himself and his family are not the government’s concern.

    When personal choices have the potential to hurt people well beyond oneself and one’s family then of course the government can step in.

    No, not really, not in our system of government. In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes.

    You need to think through that last statement of yours a lot more carefully and add some modifiers.

    This has been the justification for seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws.

    • #34
  5. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Almost anything that anyone does can be construed as a danger to the public. For example, the concept of “harm” has been used as a justification for proposals to curtail the right to engage in deadnaming. I can make a case that your choice of beverages constitutes a danger to the public. In fact, I can make a case that the comment I’m replying to is a danger to the public.

    Judgment is required to balance rights against the public interest.   There’s a mechanism in place to correct officials who go too far in one way or the other — the ballot box.  Or, in some cases, the courts.

     

    • #35
  6. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    No, not really, not in our system of government. In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes.

    You need to think through that last statement of yours a lot more carefully and add some modifiers.

    Yes, in our American system of government plenary powers are granted to the state and local government.  That means that those governments have the authority to do just about anything they deem necessary in the public interest.   They aren’t allowed to restrict rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so, but in the case of a rampaging, deadly disease there is a compelling reason to restrict some rights temporarily.

    That’s obviously a good reason to be aware of local politics and who is elected to state and local offices.

    .

    • #36
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Tree Rat (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    This is completely missing the point. The role of government is to protect the public. Not to protect the citizen from himself. The legitimate role of government in an epidemic is the same as at any other time: protect the public. Our medical institutions would be overwhelmed by the sudden influx of masses of seriously ill patients. It’s the government’s responsibility to try to prevent that.

    The known risks and rewards of a person’s actions to himself and his family are not the government’s concern.

    When personal choices have the potential to hurt people well beyond oneself and one’s family then of course the government can step in.

    No, not really, not in our system of government. In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes.

    You need to think through that last statement of yours a lot more carefully and add some modifiers.

    This has been the justification for seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws.

    Yes, and it has also been the justification for KGB surveillance and detainment of citizens. There is nothing that can’t be justified if that argument is allowed to rule all others. 

    • #37
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Roderic (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Almost anything that anyone does can be construed as a danger to the public. For example, the concept of “harm” has been used as a justification for proposals to curtail the right to engage in deadnaming. I can make a case that your choice of beverages constitutes a danger to the public. In fact, I can make a case that the comment I’m replying to is a danger to the public.

    Judgment is required to balance rights against the public interest. There’s a mechanism in place to correct officials who go too far in one way or the other — the ballot box. Or, in some cases, the courts.

    Judgment and ballot boxes are far from the only mechanism to correct officials who go too far, as was recognized by our founders.  If we relied only on judgment and majority rule, any amount of tyranny would be allowed. And the courts do not step in to protect rights; they sit in judgment when people bring their cases to the courts. 

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Roderic (View Comment):
    That means that those governments have the authority to do just about anything they deem necessary in the public interest.

    So not true.

    Roderic (View Comment):
    They aren’t allowed to restrict rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so, but in the case of a rampaging, deadly disease there is a compelling reason to restrict some rights temporarily.

    I agree, but this is not the case.  Ebola was a significantly more deadly disease, but we came nowhere near the restrictions on it than we have for the Chinese flu . . .

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.