This post will probably get zero traction and I'll be bombarded with attacks but I dont understand why being a Trump loving Republican requires us all to not want to not get sick or get others sick. Why cant we wear masks even if the mitigation is marginal its still something. I dont necessarily believe in lockdowns but restrictions on gatherings isn't that illogical is it? I understand we dont want to lose our freedoms so how about this do it willingly and you lose no freedom. I dont know I feel like there must be a way for both freedom and the ability to stop this virus to coexist. I'm a pede doing my part to slow the spread and I hope you all are too.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Lets deconstruct this ::
(1) I’ll be bombarded with attacks.
You’re setting yourself up as the victim if people disagree with you. Stop doing that. Just state your opinion.
(2) Why can’t I love Trump and believe in Covid?
You can. We’re not a monolith. You’re in control of yourself.
(3) Why can’t we wear masks?
You can and in some cases are legally required to. Evidence supporting mask efficacy relative to other methods of prevention are suspect at best.
(4) “I don’t necessarily believe in lockdowns...”
They exist and they’re clearly detrimental on many fronts for individuals and our communities. There is a time and a place for a lockdown but this isn’t, hasn’t, and almost certainly won’t be that time. They have been ineffective at preventing any spread of Covid even when enforced with draconian laws (Italy) relative to countries that did not lock down.
Allowing the state executive to arbitrarily suspend our constitutional rights is just asking for other authoritarian policies. Supporting, or being neutral in regards to, lockdowns means implicitly valuing the potential infections prevented more than the increase in death and human suffering from an increase in alcoholism, drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, and food insecurity.
Not to mention the emasculation of breadwinners in a household, the social fabric facilitated by churches and non-profits tearing due to lack of funding, and the further centralization of wealth into corporate hands as citizens are forced to liquidate assets and appeal to the mercy of the corporations who were bailed out with federal money’s while small business were left to close at a rate we’ve never experienced before.
(5) “do it willingly and you don’t lose any freedom”
Think about what you wrote there and then never construct an argument using that bullshit again.
(6) There has to be a way for liberty and necessary centralized control to co-exist.
Yes, it’s called state and federal constitutions along with the democratic process that has carried us through every other crisis our country has experienced. When it’s illegal to have people dining inside of your restaurant, but it is legal for you to construct a tent on the sidewalk and have people dine in it there’s a pretty clear indication that the intent, even accepting the efficacy of the methods of prevention, is just to exercise control over the populace.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Can the government force a Jewish man to remove his Yamaka when he enters a public building? No. Can the government force a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab outside situations where visibility of the face is required? No. Should a governor be able to force every citizen in their state to wear a mask? Should a governor be able to mandate that business make substantive changes to their business models without providing evidence as to the efficacy of proposed prevention methods or any form of assistance? Should a president be able to force every American to lockdown in every state?
Look to the constitution for guidance. Clothing is an expression of free speech. There’s no constitutional basis for an executive to have the power to make these mandates. Many people would be responsive to pleas for compliance with regulations based on evidence and necessity. What people are not receptive to and will actively oppose is authoritarianism.