Coronavirus

People, Not Politicians, Will Decide When the Coronavirus Shutdown Ends

It's not the politicians who have the power to reopen America, or at least the parts that are now closed. It's individuals, families, businesses, and religious congregations.

|

In the fight between the governors and President Trump over who has the authority to reopen America, the politicians have it wrong.

It's not the politicians who have the power to reopen America, or at least the parts that are now closed. It's individuals, families, businesses, and religious congregations.

The politicians can help by eventually lifting lockdown orders and school closures. That will make it easier for individuals, families, businesses, and religious congregations to resume more normal patterns of activity without the hassle of a legal challenge.

But when America reopens, it won't be the response to top-down orders from politicians. That's not how America works, not how the world works. If the president or governor says "open" and hospitals and funeral homes are clogged with Covid-19 critical cases and fatalities, plenty of people are going to remain in place based on the assessment that it's not worth risking death to comply with some politician's restart timeline. America is not a light switch or a sink faucet that can be turned on and off at will.

As Nate Silver, who has been an admirably level-headed guide to the pandemic throughout, put it, "people will vote with their feet."

What are the relevant motives?

Children want to see their parents. Parents want to see their children. Grandparents want to see their grandchildren. People who haven't yet started families want to go on in-person dates.

Business owners want to make money. They've invested labor, capital, and reputation in stores, restaurants, factories, and offices that are now empty or idle. The profit motive is a strong motive. The first restaurant or bar or theater or concert hall or museum to re-open, if it does so safely, will draw a crowd of paying customers.

The religious motive is also strong. The New Boston Post, in a memorable editorial, put it this way: "Christians need churches to tend to their souls….[C]hurch leaders need to begin the process of reopening their churches. By 'process' we mean series of steps that lead to churches eventually reopening their doors to anyone who wants to come….Each bishop or pastor or church council should come up with a plan today that sets forth a date certain when the church these people administer is going to open."

The editorial went on: "Church leaders should begin this process without any regard for the civil authorities. The civil authorities have their proper role, but it is limited. Our federal and state constitutions explicitly limit the role of government when it comes to religion. Can governors order churches to close? No."

Timothy P. Carney, writing in The Washington Examiner, makes a similar point: "Let the church close every other pew. Maybe allow only one family per pew. Pastors could bar socializing, hugging, and shaking hands and instruct every family or individual to stay at least 6 feet away from every other family or individual."

Carney writes, "A well-spaced mass, shul, or worship service in the church building could be far safer than it is currently to shop at Home Depot. Since we allow shopping at Home Depot, let's allow worshiping at church."

Against all these are the motives to stay alive and to avoid infecting others.

Who has the best information to weigh these risks, the costs and benefits of each trip out versus staying home? Not a governor or a president, but an individual. Different people may have different tolerances for risk. For some people that trip to a restaurant or a place of worship may be a risk worth taking. For others it is not. For sure, each individual decision can affect other people—one person who takes too much risk and gets sick means one fewer hospital slot available for someone else. But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.

The best plan for reopening America is one that sticks to American values—one that emphasizes freedom, competition, choice, and diversity, not one-size-fits-all compulsion or command-and-control authoritarianism. It's a conception, outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in which government's role is protecting natural or God-given freedoms of individuals, families, businesses and religions, rather than turning them off or on a schedule, even in the service of public health.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Family-Friendly Policies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s not even this — Joe Sixpack is p*ssed — the elites don’t realize this. Rush Limbaugh does, Rush Limbough who lives or dies on daily audience numbers in a way that politicians don’t.

    We’re not far from pitchforks and torches — petty bureaucrats have been twisting the knife in so many petty ways that this is going to end badly if it doesn’t end soon.

    1. Some parts of the economy are hosed by reality though.

      I work in commercial aerospace, no amount of restriction lifting is going to make the next year not-terrifying. The impact of just the previous month+ has been huge on the business. Which is true to the article’s point. People’s individual behaviors and decisions will determine which parts of the government can actually open back up.

      I’d bet people won’t be running to concerts in May (at least not up in the north east) even if the governors declared them essential businesses.

      1. “Some parts of the economy are hosed by reality though.”

        Yeah, it’s hard to, say, reopen a restaurant if your suppliers aren’t willing to join you in rebellion.

        1. suppliers are not the limiting factor. Go find Pete iuf gzeorge will not accomodate your needs. Or shop at HEB, WINCO, Costco….. yes, your margins will be somewhat smaller, but I guarantee you if folks WANT what you offer, even a price increase will be more than welcome.. HEY I can actually GET a fresh tasty cooked meal and a a bottle of something cold and liquid to pour down my throat to chase that burrito.
          Early starters will set a trend… I LOVE the way BATF was conerced to “allow” drive in gun and ammo sales.. folks can get their tools and not have to stand inside the Home Depot, er, I mean gun store. (most likely nowhere near as crowded or rowdy as the Home Cheapo)

        2. “Yeah, it’s hard to, say, reopen a restaurant if your suppliers aren’t willing to join you in rebellion.”

          No, the real problem is that most restaurants operate on very narrow margins with a perishable inventory and relatively high fixed costs.

          Fast food restaurants and the big national chains will probably be okay, but a high percentage of independent full service restaurants that weren’t already equipped to handle takeout orders are probably already bankrupt.

      2. ᴍʏ ʟᴀsᴛ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ᴘᴀʏᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴡᴀs ғᴏʀ ???????????????????? ᴅᴏʟʟᴀʀs… ᴀʟʟ ɪ ᴅɪᴅ ᴡᴀs sɪᴍᴘʟᴇ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴡᴏʀᴋ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴄᴏᴍғᴏʀᴛ ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ғᴏʀ ????-???? ʜᴏᴜʀs/ᴅᴀʏ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ɪ ɢᴏᴛ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴛʜɪs ᴀɢᴇɴᴄʏ ɪ ᴅɪsᴄᴏᴠᴇʀᴇᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴍᴇ ғᴏʀ ɪᴛ ???????? ʙᴜᴄᴋs ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ʜᴏᴜʀ… ᴛʀʏ ɪᴛ ʏᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ ..More here

      3. I would take that bet. Right now, in my area, if anyone opened up a bar, restaurant, coffee shop, or concert venue, it would be packed.

    2. Look at unreason. They think (1) that all Americans are locked down in every state and LOVING it (2) that the tyrannical lockdown attempts should continue until ????

      Some of us have told the government to fuck off and been doing almost our normal routine for weeks. I even had St Patty’s Day and Corona Parties in the last 30 days.

    3. I think Trump realizes this too, which is why he keeps saying he wants to open back up. Even if he can’t do anything physically, he can signal to his constituents that he agrees and avoid taking a popularity hit.

      But politics aside you’re right, especially in more rural areas, or states that have little to know infection, it doesn’t make sense to destroy jobs.

      1. Even if his “I can open up the economy” presser was ham-fisted, it will probably end up being effective in the long run because it puts the onus on the state governors to stop sitting around with their thumb up their ass, and figure out a plan with actual metrics on how to spin this thing down.

        People want to know that these cornballs have some sort of benchmark for when to ramp back and eventually end these things, and if they keep doing this “Stay inside stay safe we’re all in this together” happytalk, while increasing restrictions on people’s rights in the process, they’re going to get emulsified.

        One month to go to get people back to work. There’s going to be a spike afterwards, no matter what, because it’s literally impossible to 100% protect yourself. The question becomes, how will they react when the spike happens?

        1. It makes you wonder sometimes if Trump issued the “I will open this up” to force governors to admit they are solely responsible for the economic consequences of the shut down orders.

          1. Probably. Red Rocks is also right that it was hamfisted, but Trump has always had his #1 focus on the economy, and he’s not quite as dumb as CNN likes to believe. Clinton’s “it’s the economy stupid” is just as true now, and Trump knows it.

          2. You read him exactly correctly. He knows now to “seed the ground”, even if “ham fisted”. He is a master at putting an idea out there that many will” find” crazy, objectionable, etc…. loot at what he did when he first began to mutter about HydroxyChloroQuine…… I had only read about it two days earler, from a guy who has massive experience with the chemical and KNOWS it is safe. When the man on the trail in southern mountainous COlombia can go see the village apothecary and buy a month’s supply of the stuff to treat his own malaria, for about three dollars fifty and no “permission slip” from a Doc, and no one is scared of being hurt by the stuff, its gotta be a nothingburger.
            He caught lots of flak (Fauci: Trump is practicing medicine without a license….” (idiott) nw look. two weeks later thousands who were dead men walking got the HCQ treatment and are now completely well…..

            Watch.. he will pull this trick more and more. He seeds the pubilc airwaves with an idea, no matter HOW clumsily, some bigwigs take a look, or chime in becausethey already KNOW he is right… not long before it IS being done widely.

    4. Shit, I’m in Canada and a small-business owner and I’m PISSED.

      Pissed enough to go protest.

      Me. Who grew up upper-middle class, university degree, speaks three languages. Not exactly the profile for carrying a pitchfork but I’m there. I’m that angry.

      1. I’m waiting for Trudeau to say that speaking against the lockdown is hate speech against the “viral immunity-challenged”. Heaven knows the US isn’t exactly covering itself with glory right now, but it seems like something Trudeau would do.

      2. “Not exactly the profile for carrying a pitchfork”

        So carry a torch instead.

        1. Let your advanced technical capability and resources work for you. Instead of a pitchfork or torch, like some peasant, make your weapon something like an semi-autonomous drone with a Glock 18 or EFP.

          May the Tyrant hear the buzzing of our quadrotors, and tremble.

          1. lol. Would a hockey stick be a culturally correct replacement for a pitchfork?

            1. Maybe in Canada.

      3. wrap Koho in oily rag. torch.

    5. Do the people have access to the data in hospitals? How serious is it really is out there, they they know better than local government agencies? My daughter is a PA at a local hospital, believe me, it is serious. The author of this article is clueless, creating phony unnecessary friction just to score some clicks. He must be paid by the amount of clicks he gets. Pretty sad.

      Rush is the saint of the clueless, preaching to the masses of clueless. I listened to him a couple of times, he even makes up false historical facts to suit his tirades. His only purpose in life is keeping Americans divided, which is pretty much what the people he works for want and he is handsomely rewarded to do so. You see a people united is what the Wall Street vultures who run the federal government fear the most.

      If Rush really cared about the people, he would have admonished a long time ago, his rich buddies on Wall street for sending all Americans jobs to communist China, which is why we can’t deliver ventilators or simple face masks.

      1. maybe YOU live in an area where your concerns are valid. I would NOT be in NYC for all the gold you could pile inside my BIG truck. (I:ve carried fove tonnes inside it before….that’s a fair bit of gold, if stacked well). I live in an area where we don’t even know anything is going on until we try go into a market to buy some food, or even th Costco (I dropped my memberhsip but a friend got me in last week.. what a strange zoo with all this insanity). On the other hand I KNOW quite a few business owners who are hurting, lots off work with no paycheck, and there are places closed because of the stupid one size fits all lockdowns that are worthless amongst the normal healtny folks. Those wiht compromised immune systems, other “comorbidity factors” should be smart enough to stay home and have friends take care of thise things…. like the crazy did why went off on me as I left the wickets at the post office last week…. he stood there screaming at me to”stay six feet away from me!!!” (when I was eight foot four inches away….) oblivious to the FACT that his screming has HIS exhaled aerosol particles, aimed directly at ME, travelling four times the velocity of his normal breath or speech….. for six times the distance. The whole six foot rule is a little kid’s charade. And we’ve bought that lie as if it were gospel truth.

        Give people the individual liberty and responsibility to make their OWN decisions. I’ve never had any flu shot, don’t intend to, either. Nor have I ever gotten any of those annual flu bugs that have others laid out flat for two weeks at a stretch, Most I’ve been a little uder the weather for one, maybe one and a half days at a stretch. Nor do I get colds on any regular basis…. yet I’m around hundreds of others on a regulr basis… and still never get sick. One cold maybe once every three to five years… which I kick with some biological wisdom, never “down” for more than one day, maybe a bit slow for another one or two but fully functional. And I am in the age categry considered at HIGH risk for this corona charade.

    6. We’re not far from pitchforks and torches

      Remember Kent State.

      1. That’s like, half a century ago!

        More dead in O-hi-o.

        1. The point is that rifles beat pitchforks and torches. And no one should doubt that the police and National Guard WILL open fire on us if so ordered.

  2. “If the president or governor says “open” and hospitals and funeral homes are clogged with Covid-19 critical cases and fatalities, plenty of people are going to remain in place based on the assessment that it’s not worth risking death to comply with some politician’s restart timeline. ”

    The hospitals arent clogged with people. Some are even laying off workers as they are still not having non covid patients in some locales. Likewise you somehow missed the arrests of protestors seeking to re open the economy.

    A bit of a dishonest article here Ira. You could have pointed the protests that have started, empty hospitals etc. Instead you slanted it as a defense of the governors stay at home orders enforced by cops.

    1. In Ira’s defense, his hot-take, clickbait title is the most accurate, libertarian, and TDS-free and the article follows it pretty faithfully.

      Can governors order churches to close? No.

      Even though it’s not Stoll’s own words, it’s the most Reasonable/libertarian thing I’ve seen on the topic.

      1. I’ve seen on the topic.

        Here at Reason that is.

        1. Where else do you go for a libertarian point of view?

          1. Vicious Tyrant Trump Wants To Let People Leave Their Homes

            WASHINGTON, D.C.—By all accounts, President Donald Trump has now gone completely mad with power. In a press briefing, he laid out his insidious plan.

            “When I’m done with this country, everyone will be able to leave their houses whenever they want and do whatever they want,” Trump told the press with an evil grin. “They’ll be able to peaceably assemble in whatever size groups they desire! Muhahaha!”

            “You’re a mad man!” a CNN reporter cried. “You don’t have the power to let people have freedom! You’re a tyrant!”

            “My power is absolute!” Trump screamed. “No one can stop me! Soon everyone will be able to go back to work and buy whatever they feel like from the store even if bureaucrats don’t like it!”

            “Noooo!” cried an MSNBC reporter. “You have to arrest people who don’t do what the government tells them! Who do you think you are? Someone stop him!”

            But no one came to stop him, and Trump just laughed an evil laugh.

            It is unknown if anything can be done about Trump, but many hope that the Constitution has enough checks and balances to keep one man from giving out freedom by fiat.

            1. So, nowhere.

              1. god damn fuck man how are you STILL crying about people criticizing Reason JFC man

                1. As a matter of fact it was an honest question, with a dishonest answer.

                  1. It wasnt an honest question since you view libertarianism as only ideas you agree with. You refuse to admit libertarian perspectives such as welfare reform prior to immigration, game theory as a valid free trade response, etc. Youa accuse anyone you disagree with as being a trump cultist.

                    You’re not an intellectual libertarian, you’re a freshman year sophist whose view of libertarianism only works in an ideal authoritarian state where everyone thinks and acts the same.

                    1. You’re so amazing! You know everything that I think and believe! Quick, quick, what’s my favorite color? My favorite food? You’re so prescient that you have to know since you can define and then argue against everything else in my mind! Stupendous! Brilliant!

                    2. And you’re absolutely correct that basic principles don’t matter. The world is so complicated that those principles should be completely ignored, but only smart people like you can decide this because you understand all the complexities that mere mortals like myself will never know.

                    3. I’m holding a card! Quick, quick, what does it say?

                    4. sarcasmic is NOT Libertarian and never cared to learn what Libertarianism really is.

                      He wants it to be some pet of Anarchy.

                      Most people hate Anarchists, so it makes sense that Anarchists want to be fast and loose with definitions (just like murderous Socialists).

                    5. Yes attacking sarcasmic because he doesnt fit your brand of Libertarianism, thats the ticket.

                    6. Notice the sock troll DH calls it an “attack” when you point out that sarcasmic is a self-proscribed Anarchist.

                      Pointing out non-Libertarian views are WAR!

                    7. Ive posted under this handle since ive joined reason back in 2013?14? But whatever fits thg he narrative right.

                    8. LOL, did I hit a nerve sarcasmic. Sorry for pointing out your entire world views. It is obvious to anybody but yourself that your views are barely more developed than Chem Jeff.

                    9. unreason staff who created sock trolls years ago think we can’t tell the difference.

                    10. Yes, Im Welch’s. Not just a grape juice, Im also a secret troll. You got me.

                    11. Who cares who runs your sock troll.

                      Defend a known unreason sock troll like sarcasmic and there are only a few reasons to do that.

                    12. Sarc has been here for while. So if hes a sock, whos is he? Because you can find posts of him back at least to 2015. Maybe its someone else but i doubt it. Need to relax dude, just cause someone doesnt automatically agree with you doesnt make em a sock.

                    13. Sorry for pointing out your entire world views. It is obvious to anybody but yourself that your views are barely more developed than Chem Jeff.

                      Don’t get me wrong! I’m glad that there are all-knowing, super-educated, perfectly amazing people like you to set everyone straight! You’re the only one here who gets it! You know more than the Reason staff, than anyone on the forum, than college professors, than anyone! Your intellect is god-like! You point that out every day! You’re so brilliant you shine like the full moon on a dark night! All hail JesseAz! All hail JesseAz!

            2. haha, this isn’t even his final form?

          2. The federalist is far more libertarian, slanted to a federalist view. NRO often has more libertarian slants than this site.

            This site largely only cares about prostitutes, open borders, and unrealistic globalism in trade.

            They’ve blindly ignored the IC abuses the lat few years, quietly ignore national injunction abuse, etc.

            You’re a simple ideologue who doesnt see the issues, so you’re probably unaware.

            1. Is it possible for you to make a comment without a personal insult?

              That’s a rhetorical question. Everyone knows the answer.

              1. Sure, I make them all the time. Just not to people who accuse me of wanting to kill people instead of positing a rational response to my arguments.

                1. Yeah, keep pushing that lie. It’s all you got.

            2. “NRO”

              Um…ROFL.

              1. If you understood libertarian political theory beyond anarchy, you’d see it. But you don’t. So you fail to see the varying and differing shades of libertarian theory in other people’s arguments.

                Subsidiarity and constitutionalism, free trade economic theory, and Individualism Uber Alles. That’s basically NRO.

        2. That is really true…

    2. It’s funny how people rolled over and played dead when the government said to, but when the government says be undead they want to stay dead.

      That’s why if this goes on longer the media and health experts will only double down on their fears to the point of paralysis.

      1. Agreed.

        The media is NOT done with the scare tactics, and you better believe they WILL try and use any sort of re-opening against Trump. Every case hi-lighted. Every death on the news. Very Serious Epidemiologists™️ proclaiming mass death and destruction. We’ll be back at the start with unrealistic death estimates based on newly models. They’ll memory-hole original justifications for isolation (to give hospitals leeway) and scream about how quarantine SAVES LIVES and how that’s the only thing that matters.

        The machine will ramp up in any way possible to try and make Trump look bad, and they’ll use the population to do it.

  3. If this over reach of authority would get most people to be less depended on government and demand less interference in their lives that would be a plus. A small one compared to the damage to the economy. I’m not optimistic about it though. Too many want government to do something and solve all problems.

    1. Yes, I fear the effect will be the opposite of that.

    2. The tipping point of public opinion seems to be near, so of course the tyrant Governors will scale back the tyranny just enough that residents dont start their woodchippers.

      1. That will almost certainly be “feature” in gubernatorial decision making. They’ll roll back as slowly as they can.

  4. I look at this somewhat differently, I guess. To me, the synagogue is essential to my life. So much of my life is guided by the values I follow inside (and outside) the synagogue. I would wager there is a sizable number of congregants of many religions who feel exactly the same way. It seems somewhat arbitrary the way our governor defined ‘essential’.

    Now, in the People’s Republic of NJ, we are in the thick of it. It is quite bad here, particularly in the northern part of the state. So I can understand a temporary ban. That was put into place a month ago.

    Everybody ‘gets’ social distancing. We are not fools. We are not children who do not know better. And Rabbis are not stupid. They need congregants healthy and alive to sustain the synagogue. Religious laypeople don’t have a death wish. Quite the contrary; Torah commands us to choose life. Christians are no different.

    We also have a better handle on transmission, and how that happens. Now that the ‘curve’ is flattening, I think it is time to open synagogues, with concessions made to reality: space out people 10′ apart (not terribly difficult to do).

    My bottom line is that our 1A rights to freely exercise our religion is essential to our liberty, and what it means to be American.

    1. 1. My bottom line is that our 1A rights to freely exercise our religion is essential to our liberty, and what it means to be American.
      2. So I can understand a temporary ban.

      OK, my friend, which is it?

      1. Answer: Both

        I think I know where you are going. So let me address that directly.

        In the face of a global pandemic, with less than certain information, high contagion, thousands of deaths in a very compressed time period…these conditions to me justify a state enacting limited, temporary and time-bound restrictions on our civil liberties. These three conditions must be present (limited, temporary, time-bound) and only in response to a national emergency that makes it ‘kosher’ for me.

        Consider the People’s Republic of NJ, as an example. Our governor, Phailing Phil Murphy, enacted temporary restrictions starting on March 21st. Foolishly, the enabling legislation passed by our ‘Duma’ state legislature stated ‘for an indeterminate period of time’ which I think cannot be constitutional. Nobody here in the People’s Republic seems to want to sue about it, and the Courts are not open to hear the case, anyway. But I hope someone does, because it is a constitutional question that should be answered. If not for the present circumstance, then the future. Regardless, we are now approaching 30 days in a functional quarantine.

        At that 30-day point I would expect the Legislature to come back, and decide to modify and/or renew the functional quarantine for a specific period of time. The point is, our elected representatives must come back to discuss, debate and to vote on keeping these restrictions. And they must be limited, temporary, and time-bound. Whether our NJ Duma does this or not is up for debate. But I think they should, just to go on record.

        The other aspect I wanted to comment on was that I am Ok with this only at a state level, not Federal. Our state representatives are more directly accountable to voters, and to me, this is an absolute must have. Our elected leaders must know with certainty that they will be held accountable for their actions during this crisis at the ballot box. This should, in theory, restrain and moderate their actions. I guess we’ll see whether that theory is right or not. To me, this is the essence of how federalism and our Republic should work. The primary actors here should be state actors, not federal.

        Now I personally don’t care for, or agree with Phailing Phil Murphy’s politics. I think he has handled our testing issues incompetently (along with the NJ State Health Commissar). The People’s Republic of NJ currently has a 14-day backlog of tests to process. Not administer tests…I mean process tests; as in, give people results of their test. Put simply, Phil phucked up testing royally. For that alone, I will vote to dump his phat ass out of office. Nevermind the progressive idiocy he spews.

        Longtobefree, you asked a very fair question. I wanted to answer you with a complete (and respectful) answer.

        1. I have to respectfully agree to disagree. I think I understand your line of reasoning, but in our country, if the lawmakers have the ability to restrict rights in any way, no matter how narrow, then it opens the door to them being able to expand it over time via precedent. That’s just how our country is set up legally, and it’s how federal agencies and politicians get away with what they do. It’s also why I have problems with forbidding ex-felons from having 2A rights, and why while I detest pedos with a burning passion, I still don’t agree that after they’ve served their time, they deserve to be tracked for the rest of their lives and have their rights limited. If we compromise our rights on the little things, it opens up the door to bigger compromises.

          With regards to the virus, many companies self quarantined on their own prior to lockdowns being in place, as you said, people aren’t fools. But if I’m a small business owner and it’s between maybe catching a disease that has a very low chance of effecting me, and definitely losing my livelihood, I know what my choice is going to be.

          1. There’s no reason to ‘respectfully’ disagree.
            XY has been on the PANIC!! bandwagon for weeks and deserves to be called the cowardly piece of shit he is.

            1. come on man, if he’s willing to politely debate instead of trolling or just repeating CNN talking points verbatim, maybe return the respect and try to change some minds?

              Look, I know I’m not exactly perfect here, I throw insults all the time, but maybe try to reserve it for folks who aren’t presenting opinions in good faith? It’s the only way we get more people to consider us as a viable option.

              1. Yea, I disagree with XY on this issue, but he’s a good dude. No reason to tar him with the npcs/progs

                1. To both of you, I’ll simply point out that XY is more than willing to have YOU locked up in order to avoid a chance that HE gets sick.
                  And he’s willing to use the power of the government to do so.
                  Like being imprisoned at the point of a gun for that reason.
                  Nope, slack NOT given to thugs.

            2. Sevo, Sevo, Sevo….cut me some slack, please! 🙂

          2. darkflame….I understand your point. Basically, if we give them (our elected leaders) an inch, they’ll take a mile. Truthfully, I cannot dispute that, darkflame. You are right about this. That behavior has gone on since the founding of the Republic. Exhibit A is the People’s Republic of NJ stance on 2A. They basically did away with it, practically speaking. Months and months to get a license, which requires a justification they must ‘approve’, and you can forget concealed carry.

            Still though, I maintain that there are very, very limited circumstances where the state can restrict liberties, so long as the following conditions are met.

            1. There must be a bona fide national emergency
            2. Any restrictions must be limited, temporary and time-bound.

            I think all conditions are met in this case, and it is justified. Add to that, there was a very high degree of uncertainty as to just how bad this was. Remember, in late March, we did not have jack-shit with regard to testing, or patient data. Now we do. As an aside, I believe these would have also been met in the immediate aftermath of Superstorm Sandy some years ago. That was a bona fide national emergency with the entire Eastern Seaboard clobbered to shit. Especially here in the People’s Republic of NJ. I give you that additional example so you can see how I think of emergency.

            You might ask, what is my definition of limited. Also a fair question. To me, limited is the least amount of restriction to achieve a limited goal (e.g. slow the spread by a functional quarantine).

            WRT the present. I think the restrictions on religious gatherings is coming to the point where they need to be lifted. Certainly by May 1st. I would expect the ‘Duma’ of the People’s Republic of NJ to get their asses back to Trenton and vote on it.

            1. Superstorm Sandy some years ago. That was a bona fide national emergency with the entire Eastern Seaboard clobbered to shit

              How provincial! Local storms are not national emergencies.

  5. In other words, life is risky and most people know and accept that fact.

    1. Nobody gets out of life alive.

  6. Bullshit.

    People are stupid.

    During states of emergency where the irresponsible actions of one can lead to the suffering and death of many, dipshits need to be forced to act responsibly.

    1. Kneel, kneel before Zod. Dont worry everybody, Mr. Zod here says he has the answers.

        1. I never saw that skit. Thanks, I needed the laugh.

    2. Bad news my friend; irresponsible actions of one can lead to the suffering and death of many at all times.
      Please compare C19 deaths to drunk driving.

      1. Not only that, but this guy also needs to prove everyone is infected. If you aren’t infected (and the doomsday numbers I’ve seen put the high end at 3% of people), you are a danger to nobody.

        1. The doomers painted themselves into a corner with their virulency claims. If half of all infectees are asymptomatic, but never actually get the coofers, then it means COVID is not nearly as deadly as they’re claiming. If ten times as many people are getting sick as those who’ve been confirmed via testing, it means the vast majority will get infected and either never show symptoms, or not get sick enough to the point where they can recover at home just fine, and it means that the virus is not nearly as deadly as they’re claiming.

          Either way, given that nursing homes are the primary vector in all of this, with infection and mortality rates way out of proportion to their population numbers within the larger community, then it stands to reason that these are the places that really need to be locked down, not the rest of the country.

      2. If you drive your car when you’re drunk you’re a criminal and will be forced to stop.

        If you drive on closed roads putting the safety of others at risk, you’re a criminal and will be forced to stop.

        1. Just because a law exists doesnt mean its right.
          If you drink and drive and dont harm anyone then youre not a criminal. This same general bullshit idea has been applied to guns. Unless the government licenses you to carry a gun then youre a criminal.

    3. but… you’re the dipshit in every scenario guy

      1. He does love his tyranny.

    4. Most of us will never bow to the tyranny that you love.

      You know that government officials were scared of getting hanged by light poles, so they avoided using the term “Martial Law”.

      1. Blue State tyrants can hear the Woodchippers running around the USA.

      2. When you’re forced to act responsibly, how that makes you feel is irrelevant.

    5. If it is REALLY that much of an emergency for you, then you should be locked in your home with a vacuum bag over your head, planning how you will organize society when all the people too irresponsible to do likewise are dead and you can emerge as Lord of the Pants Shitters. That is an acceptable action to take, not force others to “protect” you (as you perceive protection). I don’t ever expect anyone to worry about me or protect me- that is the height of selfishness. You are ONLY responsible for yourself and, to an extent varying with relationship/age/competence, your loved ones. NO ONE should EVER expect anyone else to protect them- if you are incapable of rationally assessing threats and defending yourself and your family from those which pose legitimate risk, without anyone else’s help, then you are a failure and deserve what you get.

      1. The virus doesn’t follow your rules.

        That’s why dipshits like you are being forced to act responsibly.

        1. The responsible act would be putting a bullet in your head, misek.
          Or slitting your throat.
          Whatever stops you from breathing

          1. Your recommendation to others that it would be responsible to murder me specifically meets the legal definition of the crime of inciting violence.

            You are committing a crime here dipshit.

            The fact that you are too cowardly to personally threaten me doesn’t change the fact that you are inciting others to do violence simply in an effort to obstruct my freedom of speech.

            1. Hes probably talking about suicide. He never made a call to harm you. Remember thats just his opinion. So we’ll be irresponsible and not do harm to you.

              1. I expect nothing less.

            2. Your recommendation to others that it would be responsible to murder me specifically meets the legal definition of the crime of inciting violence.

              No, it specifically doesn’t. As a Holocaust denier, you should be more well-versed in free speech law than this. For shame!

        2. Someone hiding in his house in abject terror from a cold bug is in no position to be flexing on anyone, Rob.

    6. “During states of emergency where the irresponsible actions of one can lead to the suffering and death of many, dipshits need to be forced to act responsibly.”

      Or, dipshits like you can stuff your PANIC!! up your ass so your head has some company.

    7. Fuck off, slaver. We still have our Constitutionally protected rights, even during an “emergency”.

    8. “Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions (of the Bill of Rights), expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”—Supreme Court Justice David Davis, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

      1. In other words—even the fucking CIVIL WAR was not sufficient justification for suspending our rights.

  7. The shutdown must never end. There are dangers out there. We must be protected!

    1. you jest, but I saw some dipshit Limey arguing with a friend on Facebook the other day who tried to make the argument that everything needed to stay shut down here because people on the roads might result in traffic, and if there was traffic then there might be a chance that emergency vehicles couldn’t get to where they needed to in time…

      Every time I think we’ve reached peak stupidity, someone has to prove me wrong.

  8. “The politicians can help by”… self-immolation.

    1. Nuke them from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

      1. And let Zod sort them out?

        1. Its from aliens dude!

          1. Get away from her, you bitch!

            Sorry, got caught up in the moment

            1. Its stay away from her. Fucking scream 2.

          2. I’ve never heard of a movie titled “Aliens Dude”.

            1. Oh no, i forgots my comma. Dumbass

        2. No, I don’t believe in Zod.

          I follow Dogism (God is dog spelled backwards).

    2. I wish the MSM would do that = self-immolation. They have very poorly served the American people with their coverage.

  9. The difference is… the politicians have the guns.

    CB
    (Until the tipping point is reached… then it gets ugly).

    1. judging from the sales figures, so does everyone else, including California. The natives are restless.

    1. Lying fuckstick lies. Film at 11.

      Trump did praise Xi’s performance early on. He also tried instituting a travel ban from China, which immediately got calls of racism from the other members of Senator Murphy’s party, if not Murphy himself. Didn’t this magazine also have a bug up its ass about Trump trying to restrict travel from China early on?

      The tests fiasco came about in part because CDC took on responsibility for testing, then fucked up a good chunk of the tests. Not to mention testing doesn’t do much good unless you also trace contacts of the infected, and quarantine the sick.

      1. Impeachment didnt work so they have to try to peg something on Trump.

        1. Did you hear he wants his name on CHECKS! Certainly a high crime!

          1. Depends on where he wants his name on the check!

  10. Evidently the federal government took in more tax revenue than the last 4 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Federal Tax Collections Were Up in March—Despite COVID-19 Shutdown; Total Taxes Set Record in First Half of FY2020

    I think we will find the economy roar back to life.

    1. People want to get back to their lives. I think its just weve gotten use to this modern life of comfort, of not really having to deal with problems. This was a good taste of what world history has had to deal with. If this happens again in the near future hopefully more sensible responses are implemented instead of how we acted this time.

      1. Don’t count on it. Count on the opposite, in fact.

        1. I would hope the people would say no to alot of this shit, but i probabky put too much faith in that idea.

    2. I think we will find the economy government roar back to life.

      The Feds got the cash.

  11. Saying “the people will decide, not the politicians” is a nice-sounding platitude, but that’s all it is. What does that even mean?

    1. A “nice-sounding platitude”, or CRIMINAL HATE SPEECH?!

    2. Did you read the first part of the article?

    3. People will protest, peacefully disobey the law and defy these edicts, all with the hidden threat to state officials that, ‘November is coming, motherfucker.’ Even our dumbasses will still be able to remember how you lot screwed everyone over.

      So, in the face of that, remove a lot of the more senseless restrictions, get people back to work, and claim it was their idea all along.

      1. I think you reckon without the likes of CA’s tin-pot dictator:

        “Governor Newsom reveals roadmap for easing COVID-19 stay-at-home orders to reopen California”
        […]
        “As of Tuesday’s update from the governor, there are a total of 758 deaths in California.”
        https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/governor-newsom-reveals-roadmap-for-easing-covid-19-stay-at-home-orders-to-reopen-california/509-7a725394-5e68-4892-abae-66140d2d9e5e

        The dead-tree Chron this morning:
        “…Restaurants may have to remove half their tables. Office space may need to be redesigned to keep every desk 6 feet apart…”
        I’m guessing that there will be no restaurant industry, and offices will flee the Kingdom of California

      2. I think that, even if things get back to relative normalcy through the summer, no incumbent politician should really feel safe this November, especially if a new lockdown policy is promoted when the next spike comes this fall. We now have degraded supply chains thanks to these deliberate government decisions, and the probability is quite high this summer that people are going to start hoarding stuff in preparation for that.

      3. Respectfully, I don’t think it’s at all realistic to think the scenario would play out the way you believe it would.

        The junior little Hitlers who have put us under this soft martial law would almost certainly LOVE it if normal people actually did start protesting and engaging in mass civil disobedience. It would give them the exact excuse they’re looking for to turn into a hard martial law with the National Guard out on the streets.

        1. That could backfire on them if the members of the National Guard decide to join the protests.

          1. More dead in O-hi-o.

            1. “stay INside Cor-o-na’s comin’ … we’re all in this to-ge-ther.”

  12. Look, humans are congenitally incapable of nuanced thinking, and notoriously bad at understand and parsing risk. Right now, all the sheeple in panic mode see everything as a potential level 10 threat.

    If they do any discrimination, it is based on other criteria, like “things I approve of” and “things that annoy me”. So for some of them, shopping at Home Depot is acceptable while going to church is not. But this is not based on any assessment of infectious risk. This is just a reflection of their pre-pandemic norms.

  13. So, when do we start forcibly quarantining people with HIV? It would be far simpler to do as well as more effective and productive by just about any metric. At the very least, we should be enforcing social distancing against these people, preventing them from entering public bars and places of worship. Such a ban wouldn’t even affect very large areas or anything close to representing a majority of the population of the country.

    1. That seems like a bad example. HIV isn’t airborne and is pretty hard to catch if you avoid certain behaviors.

      1. I mean, you are right that it would be more effective in containing a particular virus than what we are doing with SARS Jr.
        Sorry if I ruined your joke.

  14. Since we allow shopping at Home Depot, let’s allow worshiping at church.

    This assumes that churches are being closed to stop the virus, and not other more nefarious reasons.

    1. Or, let’s worship at Home Depot.

  15. People who have been scared by the media, medical bureaucrats and politicians to hoard toilet paper are going to decide?

  16. as long as the roads remain mine, i’m good. there were cars in my way this morning … wtf Dallas?

  17. My guess is that, as the weather warms people will just say ‘screw it’ and start going outside.

  18. Nope. The state has the final word on that…

  19. Let the church close every other pew. Maybe allow only one family per pew. Pastors could bar socializing, hugging, and shaking hands and instruct every family or individual to stay at least 6 feet away from every other family or individual.”

    How about this: let each church (or other group) decide what THEY aare comforatable with. Each group know its own composition, strengths, weaknesses vulnerability. Let EACH group set THEIR standards. If I visit a friend in their house and we want to give ech other a big hug, we will. If I dont want one, or he does not, we can let each other know by “signals” that are easily understood. WHY mandate some one size fits all spacing standards? Let folks sit as close or as far apart as they wish. If Suzie does not want a stranger to sit next to her, plop her jacket on that seat. If someone askes “is this seat taken”< respnd "sorry but it is". The other will find a different lace to sit, maybe right next to someone who is fine with that.

    This everyone trying to boss everyone else about nonsense.. good grief, have we become a nation of nannies and infants? Nannieing or waiting =for someone to nanny us?
    GROW UP. Take responsibility for your OWN life. Stop trying to usurp responsibiilty for everyonie else's life.

  20. The goddamn churches don’t even pay taxes – they can be opened last. Dead last. We’ve got much bigger fish to fry than fucking 2000 years ago goat herder worshippers. It’s fucking pathetic.

  21. Did anyone catch this comment from NJ Gov. Phil Murphy:

    “The discussion then turned back to the restrictions on religious services. Host Tucker Carlson asked, “By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?”

    Murphy responded, “That’s above my pay grade, Tucker. So, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.” Murphy continued that he looked at science and data on social distancing.“

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.