Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I wanted to add on that the key point of the story wasn't the appointing of a defender and the honor of public service. But that the and I'm going off of memory, the last one appointed himself as Cesar and didn't give up his powers.
That's a large part of this debate, is it ok to suspend rights in the face of a crisis if there's no solid mechanism to remove those power when the crisis abides. We've seen it in the fictional world (ie Star Wars, you knew I would go there, with Palpatine gaining emergency powers and not giving them up when Dooku and Grievous were dead).
The other part of the debate with the current climate. We know the path to reducing the waves, especially with the possibility of varients is vaccines. So would the government be wrong in either rounding up and isolating people that refuse to get the vaccines and leaving them there til they agree to get a vaccines? Does this suspend the my body my choice right, and what happens if after the government does this, vaccinates everything possible and there's no mechanism for removal, can that law be simply twisted with no recourse.
I mean the argument of doing something like this is that you would hope that the courts would protect our guaranteed rights, but if the government gains the ability through government decree, does it realistically abolish the courts ability to strike it down, if the government can prove an ongoing continuous emergency.
We'll Covid is gone, but now there's the threat of whatever which is kind of the same thing, so we have direct control over the fates of a certain group of people.
I'm not writing this as a conspiracy theory, I'm writing this from a standpoint of diving deeper into the idea of how far can the government go.
|
I'm going to push back a little on this. No one is being forced to get the vaccine. There's far to much belief that freedom means freedom from repercussions on the decisions we make. You're free to deny the vaccine if your job depends on you getting it, but that doesn't mean you're free from repercussions. Nowhere in our charter of rights and freedoms does it say the government can't ensure safety in a restaurant. I would agree there's some grey area with freedom of assembly, but restrictions on patronage of business has always been regulated based on safety and this is a slope that just ain't slippery
Same with "cancel culture". Complain about the asymmetrical response with social media gangs is fine, but don't claim censorship when you say things that are bound to elicit the response you're asking for.
Freedom means freedom to do as you please, but not without consequence.