Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rush Caller Prompted a Question
Every morning, I read the transcripts from Rush’s show of the previous day. One caller on Tuesday’s show raised a question in my mind. First, the setup to the question.
A lady from Illinois called and talked to Rush about how she thought the extraordinary restrictions put in place to fight the Chinese flu are a massive power grab. She used her own state as an example. She started with citing 101 murders to date in Chicago alone, compared to 73 coronavirus deaths statewide to date. (Note: I have been unable to verify these numbers. The statistics are all over the place.)
Now, the conversation didn’t go in what to me was the obvious direction. My question is, “Why did Illinois go into lockdown for the virus when it didn’t go into a targeted lockdown in Chicago?” Of course, we know the governor wants to stop the spread of the virus, and unfortunately, most governors think the only way to do it is a lockdown, regardless of the economies destroyed. I’ll ask another question:
If a lockdown is effective in stopping the spread of the virus, why didn’t the Mayor of Chicago direct lockdowns in those neighborhoods where 99% of the murders take place? Wouldn’t that stop the gun violence “epidemic” there?
Power corrupts, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. Although I cannot find a source to cite other than Rush, Andrew Cuomo said, “Sometimes you need an emergency to force change.” Even not knowing the context, people should recognize 1) the truth of those words, and 2) the reason we should take note and be very concerned. The concern is that once this virus blows over and governors (hopefully) relinquish their powers, how many will miss that taste so much, the next time anything resembling a crisis appears, the yoke is put back on their citizens? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Rush also brought up a comparison of our country’s response to the Spanish flu epidemic (very little), and Sweden’s current approach to the Chinese flu (business as usual, individuals take their own responsibility).
It will be interesting to compare our two countries’ statistics when this epidemic blows over.
Some of my fellow Ricochetti have stated that rights are not absolute. Tell that to God, because natural rights were given to us by Him. However, natural rights can be suspended if exercising those rights violates someone else’s rights. This is where government needs to strike a reasonable balance of civil rights curtailment vs. freedom, not a near-total elimination. We can discuss this while we follow whatever guidelines or dictates our “masters” have directed. But when this thing is over, I expect reviews and discussions at the federal and state levels to find that balance so future actions aren’t so disproportionately severe.
Published in Politics
Sweden’s approach would be better for me economically, but that is only because I am semi-retired and work from home anyway. My wife and I would and could continue to self isolate.
I am not sure it would be better for our younger relatives who would go into a category of likely getting exposed and risking serious illness or death. I am quite sure it would not be good for anyone needing hospitalization for any reason as the hospitals get jammed up. I am also quite sure that it would be bad for the medical professionals who would have to deal with more cases with less personal protective gear (because of increased demand using up supply all over) and fewer available respirators as a percentage of the increased numbers of sick people.
Going the other way, I think the question is how many voters want freedom versus how many want security at a given time. With all the unknowns about the virulence of COVID-19, you’re in a current climate where the vast majority are demanding security, which gives government the power to impose measures that would be considered draconian otherwise. But as time goes on, you’re going to have a cabin fever effect, to where maintaining those draconian controls if the public isn’t seeing the worst-case scenarios in deaths play out, is going to be tougher and tougher to sell.
Even normally liberal people are going to be wanting some of their quality-of-life freedoms restored, to where instead of politicians facing blowback for not acting strong enough, pols will get blowback for trying to maintain their overreach on control, based on trying to continue to use the worst-case scenario outcomes (liberals want the government to be there to do things for them and pay for it, but they also tend to want to do their own thing, and just want a safety net to cover the negative results of their decisions; the COVID-19 limitations are more than just a $2 trillion safety net, but are telling those people, mostly urbanites, that they can’t engage in their normal lifestyles. Security fears will make that work up to a point, but sooner or later the desire for freedom — even if it’s freedom to be decadent — is going to start to take over).
They should be delegating authority to the lowest common denominator.
If it’s only a handful of counties or cities in a state with issues, state wide measure are not needed… most cities and counties in the state don’t have a problem… delegate to the lowest authority of county or city authority.
If it begins to effect more cities and counties, in a state, the state takes over the authority. The federal government need not get involved at all except where it concerns spread coming from outside the US – lock down international travel.
Where I disagree with the vast majority here, I see nothing wrong with states curtailing interstate travel during a pandemic if that helps keep their citizens free. If NYC has a problem with a disease, FL should absolutely be able to say “stay out”. It protects our freedoms being curtailed by state wide quarantine if we keep people from traveling from a hot bed to a low incidence location.
I feel the same way about state elections. States should be able to set their own rules on who votes in state wide elections.
Sorry, I don’t see this. People are demanding action, but many disagree with the severity of the action.
The problem is Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Since they’ve made it an unwritten rule that anything can involve interstate commerce, they are the ones who should take action in this area, not the states. However, the Executive Branch may have this authority during a declared emergency, but not the states. Definitely not the states.
I’m out in a relatively sparsely-populated area of West Texas, which has seen some limitations — schools, restaurants and banks indoor areas closed, hours curtailed on shopping, etc., but not at the same level as in some of the bigger cities (Lubbock’s the only place out here seeing any concerning COVID-19 spike). And for the most part, the public is willing to accept those levels of restrictions for now, because there are still unknowns about coronavirus. That’s going to become less and less as the new month goes on, and the same people would like to have their regular summer activities, or they’d like to not have a drive-up high school graduation for the senior students. So the freedom desire is going to start to gain more support among the public, unless we see more New Yorks from other metro areas in April, and my guess is even people in the urban areas that normally vote deep Blue are going to have their fill of certain parts of government control if it’s cramping their lifestyles for too long (whether those people will figure out the cramping of their lifestyles is the inevitable end result of the big government they’re always voting for is another question entirely).
This is a mere re-phrasing of “Never let a crisis go to waste”.
You are referencing a reliance on Constitutional interpretation of the ‘commerce clause’ but totally ignoring Constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights for individuals. The problem for the federal action is the lack of police power. How do you suggest such federal power be enforced?
From today’s WSJ:
When he said that, my blood ran cold. And you should see the people on my local Next Door. One guy posted that he doubts the constitutionality of forcing him to stay indoors, and people replied with “it’s for the greater good” and that its worth it to “keep us safe” etc.
It difficult to understand any denial of tests for medical workers. The administration announced numerous deliveries of the latest Abbott Labs testing capability that yields positive or negative results in fifteen minutes on-site. ??
I think that the commerce clause was an incredible breech on states rights. Again, decisions should be made as locally as possible.
If a state is concerned about how it affects economic issues, they can make their own exceptions and adjustments.
In Illinois and heard on the radio this AM Chicago is quarantining a certain high crime area. And this article says the ACLU has an issue with it.
https://m.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Chicago-cops-restrict-access-to-4-blocks-to-bar-15170349.php
I use this site to track Chicago murders, and it does show 101 murders YTD in Chicago
https://heyjackass.com/
Right now, JHU is showing 100 COVID deaths in IL statewide, but that number would have gone up from yesterday.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
So true. But prolonged restrictions will eventually wear thin, and people will start to grumble, eventually rebel.
I’m not ignoring the protections. I’m merely pointing out the commerce clause is what Congress uses to enact laws that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. However, this interpretation by Congress implies they have the authority, not the states.
They will ignore posse comitatus and use the military. Or, they could nationize the National Guard which does have the authority in spite of posse comitatus . . .
Three words: Catastrophic Climate Change.
AOC has laid the groundwork with her claim that the world will end in 12 years. If an AOC-type comes to power, that will be enough justification for the ultimate power grab.
The urban density in New York City, with its close living and high speed rail for movement from place to place, is exactly the prescription for living favored by AOC. Or maybe it is the prescription for dying.
I agree. We live in terrible uncertain times, and they’ll get worse.
We are living in the opening days of a global depression – not a down turn or recession – the damage done to western economies is frankly incalculable. However our trials pale in comparison to what could come next.
Just as the Nazi’s burned the Reichstag to give themselves a crisis to inflict totalitarianism on the German people, modern totalitarians dont have to damage any buildings – only create a virtual threat with biased computer models and seize power when elected. As much as the nazi’s have been vilified in history, in 1933 they did manage to get elected. Adolf Hitler was appointed to be Chancellor. It only took them only a month. Hitler formed the government on Jan 30 1933, and fire was on Feb 27.
Hey Jackass and CWBChicago.com are excellent sources of information–far better than the Chicago Tribune.
Obamessiah chimed in on this too.