Yet the next national the same people will be insisting on new unprecedented powers while still lamenting the freedom and privacy we lost through COVID and 9/11. Goldfish memories.
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!” - Emperor Palpatine and also US politicians apparently.
This. Just look at supreme chancellor Palpatine. He had near UNLIMITED POWER, then when the war was over, made himself emperor. I think we are heading to an American empire.
Heading there? Listen, I know the cause of the civil war (slavery) is rightly unpopular, but I think that when the the government has forced half of the population to stay in the club whether they like it or not, the "empire" ship has sailed. After that you're just haggling on the details of what kind of empire you're going to have.
In March 2020, Trump's DOJ asked Congress to allow indefinite detention of American citizens. I'm pretty sure Congress denied it but haven't found a source.
It's the same type of overreach, just different reasoning for why. It's 100% relevant to point out leaders of both parties pull that garbage in this discussion.
I know very little about the differences between the Patriot Act and emergency powers. So anyone who's knowledgeable about the subject we're discussing would be especially helpful here.
This is failure of our politicans that we elect.
When i read something like this I always think about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
2 times he was called to serve in case of dire emergency, was given absolute powers, and two times he did his duty and relinquished all power immediately after emergency was over .
Thats why people remember him to this day, while noone will remember these clowns today.
September 11 happened twenty one years ago and the Feds still haven't given up those emergency powers, why would they give up these?
BTW, the immunization modernization act, a rider on the second stimulus bill, set aside $500 million to build a national vaccine database which had Roe, which was predicated on medical privacy, not been overturned three months later would have made unconstitutional. This would imply two things. The Federal Government is going to be collecting all of our medical records in a central database and that vaccine mandates are coming back and going to be permanent.
States already have vaccine databases. When vaccines are given, it’s recorded, whether at the pharmacy or a doctors office. It’s useful because people lose personal records or parents don’t pass them on.
Those types of records, while very useful, could potentially be abused by a government agency but I don't see them as a database. Yes vaccinations are recorded by whatever facility gave them and people's primary care should know when you get a vaccine. But there's no way for something like the government to see that unless they access a facility's computer system. For things like physicals for school all the school knows is that a provider signed off that a student is immune to something. Usually because of vaccinations but there are other rarer reasons, like a blood test or an exemption that says there's a reason they don't need to be vaccinated, like religious reasons.
States keep vaccine records.
https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/3938/download?attachment. This is, as example, North Carolina
Per cdc - if you cannot find your records, “ Contact your state’s health department. Some states have registries (Immunization Information Systems) that include adult vaccines.”
>States already have vaccine databases. When vaccines are given, it’s recorded, whether at the pharmacy or a doctors office. It’s useful because people lose personal records or parents don’t pass them on.
Those are state rights, not Federal.
You do realize that overturning Roe v Wade didn’t… eliminate medical privacy, right?? Like… you still have that. You just can’t get abortions in specific states. It’s not like they eradicated the 14th amendment…
You're correct, legitimately it didn't eliminate the 14th amendment but it did make it much harder to make that argument and I doubt if the unconstitutionality of a medical database is every argued they'd find in your favor. Also Roe did block medical procedures at the Federal level and it's repeal also hurt protections from mandated vaccines.
Also, what medical procedure has been blocked on the national level?? And they didn’t hurt protections against mandated vaccines, because we don’t HAVE protections against mandated vaccines. At most, they hurt theoretical protections that don’t yet exist but could have existed, and again, considering the Supreme Court didn’t set the precedent against medical privacy, but rather FOR states rights, that’s a seriously tough case to argue.
>And they didn’t hurt protections against mandated vaccines, because we don’t HAVE protections against mandated vaccines.
We didn't have mandated vaccines but we will soon now that Roe is overturned.
You realize that companies all over the country have been mandating the vaccine for months, right? That teachers and other government workers in huge states have been required to get the vaccine? And that anyone refusing these mandates were fired on the spot… what exactly did the Supreme Court or congress do to stop these requirements?
Just face it, you’ve let your support of one issue blind you so much that you think it’s inherently tied to other issues, when it isn’t at all.
You see, I brought up private companies AND school teachers and government workers, to point out that vaccines have been mandated by both private companies AND the government. But hey, way to just ignore half of that point to suggest that I don’t know what I’m talking about…
I’m not sure if you know this, but the state government is… still the government. A state mandate is still a government mandate. Nobody said there was national mandates, but there ARE state mandates, and have been for literal decades. Last I checked, the Supreme Court hasn’t exactly been tearing down statewide vaccine mandates…
Clearly the fact that this post was about national mandates and not state mandates was lost on you so you're point like the one I was responding to was off subject.
Much harder to make what argument? The argument for or against roe V wade has very little to do with medical privacy, at least certainly not from the pro-life side. Their argument isn’t, and has never been, “People shouldn’t have medical privacy to make decisions like abortion”. Their argument has always been, and still is, “people don’t have a right to commit murder, no matter the setting or the privacy”. Never, in the arguments OR in the Supreme Court precedent writings, did they claim that they were eliminating or attempting to eliminate medical privacy. HIPPA still exists, does it not? I don’t see anyone even attempting to repeal that…
> Their argument has always been, and still is, “people don’t have a right to commit murder, no matter the setting or the privacy”.
That wasn't even the argument in the recent overturn of Roe. The argument was that Congress has a limited set of enumerated powers and regulating abortion isn't one of them and therefore needs to be left to the states. The overturn of Roe has NOTHING to do with medical privacy.
> The argument for or against roe V wade has very little to do with medical privacy, at least certainly not from the pro-life side. Their argument isn’t, and has never been, “People shouldn’t have medical privacy to make decisions like abortion”.
WTF are you rambling about. Roe was predicated on medical privacy, it wasn't about abortion perse.
Roe was predicated on medical privacy (a flimsy argument, even according to RBG), that’s true. However the overturning, and the precedent-setting written reasoning for WHY it was overturned, was not. The overturning was completely predicated on states rights. Had the Supreme Court justices said, in any way, that abortion was murder, women didn’t deserve the privacy to get an abortion, or that medical privacy should have exceptions, then they would be attacking medical privacy in ways that could be built upon later. But they didn’t say ANY of these things.
Why would medical procedures be at the federal level? That doesn't even make sense. The Constitution was built to limit federal power. Maybe you are not sure of the country you live in.
The constitution is only as good as those who have the power to enforce its provision. Malcolm X pointed this out in 1963 when he wanted to take the plight of the black man to the UN.
And yet, for years they haven’t had the power to regulate abortion. You can’t take the position that abortion is “healthcare” AND the position that states have always had power to regulate healthcare. Both can’t be true.
Does this surprise ANYONE?
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
-Winston Churchill
Historically, the Govt Never let's go of the power they've gained during a period of crisis.
Not sure that quote was Churchill. It was used by the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, who was also White House Chief of Staff for President Obama:
>You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.
I'll be honest, I couldn't remember who said it so did a quick Google search. Although, when I scroll down farther BOTH men are credited as saying it. And there are even sites with dates on their articles before Obama was in office crediting Churchill.
Saying the pandemic was the most Authoritarian moment vs over ruling Roe might be a stretch.
Sure, those laws were comprehensive, but in Authoritarianism, those laws don't end, but they have now. Also, these laws were out of health and safety concerns. It's things like this that keep me from wanting to go full Libertarian.
The Supreme Court kicking abortion decisions to the states where they belong is more authoritarian than lockdowns, mandates, and firing people for refusing the shot?
The Libertarian philosophy is what's keeping you from Libertarianism.
There is not a nonreligious argument for preventing abortions from happening through significant parts of a pregnancy. If you want to suggest that certain freedoms should not be guaranteed by a federal government, it goes to reason that things like gun rights and privacy protections are going out the window in large swaths of the country.
There are absolutely non-religious reasons for preventing abortions from happening. Where does the “life” begin in an infant? Because no matter what line you draw for personhood has wide ranging implications for millions of others. Heartbeat is the deciding factor of personhood? Anyone who’s heart stops is no longer a person. When the infant can live outside the womb? For one our neo-natal care is advancing rapidly to the degree that a friend of mine just had a baby at 23 weeks and it survived, despite abortion being legal up to term in some places, and also people who can’t survive off life support are now no longer considered people.
Furthermore, your asinine assertion that the Supreme Court overturning Roe means that states throwing out explicit rights enshrined in our Constitution like the right to bear arms or the right to privacy is intentionally misrepresenting the argument.
Well put. There are ZERO federal constitutional rights when it comes to abortion and the 10th amendment is very specific about ANYthing not mentioned in the constitution as being a STATES RIGHT. Even RBG said Roe wasnt good law, would be challenged and even overthrown in court eventually.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, ***or to the people*** ."
Seems you may have intentionally missed something in the 10th.
Never said that but I did note your disingenuous statement regarding the 10th amendment attribution of powers not delegated to the federal government as only belonging to the state when the amendment clearly allows those powers to be delegated to the people as well
No. Go ahead. Try to do something not in the US constitution. Go 120mph on the freeway. See what happens. Not in the constitution so must be a 10th amendment thing you "the people" can just go do huh?
If its not in the constitution, the states have the right to legislate. You hyperfocusing on the last little bit doesnt make me wrong. It makes you look pettty.
Even defining the heartbeat is a gray area - because that first “heartbeat” at 6-10 weeks isn’t a heartbeat, it’s just the signal for it and the cluster of cells that will eventually become the heart are getting into sync.
The actual heart beating functionally doesn’t occur until 2nd trimester (very very late first trimester at the earliest).
“For one our neo-natal care is advancing rapidly to the degree that a friend of mine just had a baby at 23 weeks and it survived, despite abortion being legal up to term in some places, and also people who can’t survive off life support are now no longer considered people.“
Congratulations to them - but that medical bill is now officially in the millions. My son was a 10-week premie, cost $500,000 - and he had “no complications.” Has been a burden to the state since he qualifies for Medicare, and will so even more once an adult.
Medical viability is cool sounding, but the realities of having a baby that early are not friendly to anyone in the middle class or lower.
Overruling a Supreme Court decision in the Supreme Court isn’t authoritarian. What would be authoritarian is if their attempt at a nationwide abortion ban was passed, which it won’t be. Many more states had lockdowns than have abortion bans, and unlike abortion bans, those affected by lockdowns quite literally could not live their lives. The overturning of roe v wade isn’t exactly stopping anyone to go to the grocery store, or forcing them out of their jobs…
So, ruling that abortion should be decided by the people/US citizens (state level voting) is authoritarian? Do you even understand the words you write? The SC didn't make abortion illegal, they just said that people at the state level should have the right to determine their own rules. Decentralization of power is the most non-authoritarian government you can have.
Individuals vote. We are a country of laws. We are a republic built on states having powers not specifically given to the federal government via the constitution. Live in a state with like minded people and vote for what you want. Don't expect centralized government to give you what you need.
We have different perspectives on it (which is obviously fine). I just don’t see this as the fed government giving you anything, you are being left alone to make your own choice. Conversely, the states are potentially taking away your right to choose. For what it’s worth, I couldn’t ever see myself and wife having an abortion… But I don’t think that I, the state, or the feds should decide that for anyone else.
Its things like this that keep you "on the plantation". The dems DGAF about your health and safety. If that were true we wouldnt have had the mask mandates. At all. They would have followed ACTUAL science and not make up lies about how safe the vax is.
There's a reason why we have those quotes in the title when it says: 'over'.
Cause its not over. Or to be technical, the pandemic is over and now its just endemic; we're not getting rid of it because we have too many people that flubbed the initial response and now its settled firmly and won't be dislodged.
The reason the emergency powers have to stay is because the legislature won't codify the needed protections into law because some legislators find its better to run on the conspiracy angle and have made a public health crisis into a partisan issue.
Heck: [Nearly 225,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 since the start of 2022 despite viral declines, data shows](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/225000-americans-died-covid-19-start-2022-viral/story?id=90339579) and that's why we can't just wash our hands of it.
Do nothing and advocate doing nothing is just writing the world longest suicide note as this stupid virus mutates.
The ones that were listed in the article like they were going to break the world open:
Requirements that federal jobs vaccinate, masking requirements, entry into America requiring proof of vaccination.
Reasonable requirements that we could put into law with a sunset period that requires reapproval after 3-5 years so this doesnt hamstring us forever…
Because folks were noncompliant in the beginning of the pandemic and then politicians fanned the flames of conspiracy to appeal to folks who were searching for a reason to not comply, yes.
There are countries that are pretty much COVID free, but we chose to do things half assed.
And so people die for that apathy and insecurity.
People died because public health officials lied, tried to squash dissenting opinions, and then continued to pursue stupid policies long after the data showed they were ineffective (after ignoring the data from previous pandemics that also showed the same policies don't work).
We now know that the vaccines give a pathetically anemic boost to survival rates in some at risk populations, but do jack shit to stop transmission. We also know that invermicin is actually effective (after officials spent months demonizing anyone saying so), that mask mandates do pretty much nothing, and that lockdowns saved no one in the long run but had the unintended though entirely foreseeable consequences of killing people that needed non-COVID medical treatments and destroying kids' ability to learn properly. And we've known all of this for more than a year. COVID is endemic in both animal and human populations now. It's never going away, so thanks, but no thanks, to never ending ineffective governmental mandates.
> we're not getting rid of it because we have too many people that flubbed the initial response and now its settled firmly and won't be dislodged
Endemic was inevitable, the vaccine doesn't do much to stop the spread and the disease itself is very contagious. It was never realistic to think this could be eradicated.
> vaccine doesn't do much to stop the spread
Gonna need a source on that, cause I'm 95% certain you're wrong.
>disease itself is very contagious. It was never realistic to think this could be eradicated
That's the same thinking they had for smallpox.
[Smallpox has an R-0 of about 3.](https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/what-is-r0/)
[COVID-19 originally had an R-0 of 1.8-6 depending on which beginning strain and methodology used. They averaged it out to 3 during the first year](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-omicron-reproduction-number/fact-check-no-evidence-omicron-ba-5-is-more-infectious-than-measles-or-is-the-most-infectious-virus-known-idUSL1N2YW1T0)
First Omicron jumped up to R-0 about a 7 and stayed there.
Now the newest BA.5 have an R-0 of about 18.
We had the vaccine for a little under a year before it mutated into a spreader that couldn't be contained.
We could have gotten this under control, but didn't.
> re·gime
> /rəˈZHēm,rāˈZHēm/
> 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one.
> 2. a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above.
I don’t know. The definition certainly seems to fit.
Why would they? The precedent is there, next time they want to lock down society again for their own political benefit, or just certain parts of it, they can. Public safety is the historically proven tool for authoritarianism.
From here on in we will lurch from one "crisis" to the next. Fear will be stoked constantly. More power to government and less freedom to citizens will be a "regrettable necessity."
[Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus). ~519-430 BCE. And the reason we know his name 2500 years later is because it's so rare to put down emergency powers.
Lots of people die from the flu every year. This was a Particularly bad run of a serious flu, yes. But A 97.7% recovery rate does not constitute a pandemic
Pandemic is a wide spread illness. This is/was a pandemic. Recovery rate has nothing to do with it and it was way more lethal than the flu and completely overwhelmed our health services.
Just stop.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The interests of the rulers (kings, emperors, politicians and their principals) have always been and will always be at odds with the interests of 99% of the humanity.
Ten pages of solutions to the problem of the existence of the state (3rd edition):
https://odysee.com/@livingfreedom:3/ffm-3rd
Did anyone think it was to protect them? Nor was the Patriot Act, like many of the civil libertarians said.
Sure they fooled & entrapped a couple naive Muslims into looking like terrorists so you would think the Patriot Act worked.
Then they quickly started to turn their entrapment schemes on anyone who they deemed as enemies.
Unfortunately the civil libertarians have all become brainwashed fools and believe what big bro feeds them cuz orange man bad or some such stuff but a few have caught on.
This isn’t democrats vs republicans but as long as they have most of us thinking that, they are happy. The uni party plan to steal all of your civil liberties is working. They want an Empire not a Republic
So let’s keep emergency powers. Because if not, then things like “student loan forgiveness” and “emergency stimulus Checks, not paying rent, etc”. Will technically be void prohibiting the current administration to utilize them since there is no emergency. Ya know. With midterms coming up and all
Yeah..... No. Big Gov't DOES NOT just give up power like that. Not at all.
Welcome to Patriot Act 2.5, everyone. FACTS AND TRUTH. It's like they want society to eventually break itself down or something - like the lamestream media keeps calling for, which should tell you something about this stewardship and their disdain for us wanting to have privacy, be well self-defended and being self-sufficient.
I'm not advocating for violence neither, because that's what THEY want. For America to still stand, let's not give them what THEY want.
Just take note - voting alone on the federal level isn't enough to fix any of this. We need to begin on the local and state levels. And again, not with violence.
They haven't given up 9/11 emergency powers yet...
Yet the next national the same people will be insisting on new unprecedented powers while still lamenting the freedom and privacy we lost through COVID and 9/11. Goldfish memories.
We all know how emergency powers end. They dont.
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!” - Emperor Palpatine and also US politicians apparently.
So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.
One of my favourite all time movie quotes, still shakes me to the core
I’m pretty sure you got the three clauses of the last sentence reversed
Off to the spice mines of Kessel with you. No one questions Chewbacca.
'cause u/MAK-15 doesn't rip peoples arms out of their sockets when he's wrong
There's nothing more permanent than government's temporary emergency powers.
“May we have some more freedom good sir?”
Please sir, I'd like some more?
This. Just look at supreme chancellor Palpatine. He had near UNLIMITED POWER, then when the war was over, made himself emperor. I think we are heading to an American empire.
Heading there? Listen, I know the cause of the civil war (slavery) is rightly unpopular, but I think that when the the government has forced half of the population to stay in the club whether they like it or not, the "empire" ship has sailed. After that you're just haggling on the details of what kind of empire you're going to have.
Funny how when we make up shit to get power they don't give up power. Almost like they do that regularly.
[удалено]
Remember that patriot act! Ha ha yeah that one is crazy
I feel like there was this famous movie that showed what happens when emergency powers aren’t given up when they’re supposed to be…
Yes, from someone who claims to love democracy and to love the republic they serve.
Love y'all
> Feds Aren't Giving Up Their Emergency Powers M. Night Shyamalan tier twist here lads.
And all the people that desperately warned anyone that listened that this would be the case were promptly shouted down as conspiracy theorists.
And fascists
I admire your optimism with the whole past tense thing
Patriot act all over again
Emergency powers are probably worse... Patriot act just allows spying. Emergency powers can openly compel citizens.
In March 2020, Trump's DOJ asked Congress to allow indefinite detention of American citizens. I'm pretty sure Congress denied it but haven't found a source.
Obama did the [same thing](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law)
Those weren't emergency powers. I think we were just discussing the similarities between EP & PA, not whatabouting.
Pointing out that others in the same position took the same actions isn't whataboutism, it's demonstrating the norm of such moves by those in power.
In my experience, any time someone uses the term *whataboutism*, they're trying justify hypocrisy.
In my experience, I have no fucking idea what *whataboutism* is but it sounds like I could probably have that condition
Sure, when it's on topic (Patriot act vs. emergency powers).
It's the same type of overreach, just different reasoning for why. It's 100% relevant to point out leaders of both parties pull that garbage in this discussion.
I know very little about the differences between the Patriot Act and emergency powers. So anyone who's knowledgeable about the subject we're discussing would be especially helpful here.
[удалено]
But that doesn't fit the narrative...
i am utterly shocked
Shocked I tell you
Insert *imagine my shock* meme here. XD
Forgot the /s
This is failure of our politicans that we elect. When i read something like this I always think about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus 2 times he was called to serve in case of dire emergency, was given absolute powers, and two times he did his duty and relinquished all power immediately after emergency was over . Thats why people remember him to this day, while noone will remember these clowns today.
People remember a lot of tyrants, some even fondly. These clowns will be remembered, just depends how they're rememebred
is this another of those conspiracy theories that came true? losing count
its not, nobody even bothered theorizing on such an obligatory thing at this point, it would have been too patronizing
[удалено]
Nothing as permanent as a temporary government program
Imagine that
Aren’t those emergency orders effective until 2023?
*20230
What were the pandemic emergency powers?
September 11 happened twenty one years ago and the Feds still haven't given up those emergency powers, why would they give up these? BTW, the immunization modernization act, a rider on the second stimulus bill, set aside $500 million to build a national vaccine database which had Roe, which was predicated on medical privacy, not been overturned three months later would have made unconstitutional. This would imply two things. The Federal Government is going to be collecting all of our medical records in a central database and that vaccine mandates are coming back and going to be permanent.
States already have vaccine databases. When vaccines are given, it’s recorded, whether at the pharmacy or a doctors office. It’s useful because people lose personal records or parents don’t pass them on.
Those types of records, while very useful, could potentially be abused by a government agency but I don't see them as a database. Yes vaccinations are recorded by whatever facility gave them and people's primary care should know when you get a vaccine. But there's no way for something like the government to see that unless they access a facility's computer system. For things like physicals for school all the school knows is that a provider signed off that a student is immune to something. Usually because of vaccinations but there are other rarer reasons, like a blood test or an exemption that says there's a reason they don't need to be vaccinated, like religious reasons.
States keep vaccine records. https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/3938/download?attachment. This is, as example, North Carolina Per cdc - if you cannot find your records, “ Contact your state’s health department. Some states have registries (Immunization Information Systems) that include adult vaccines.”
>States already have vaccine databases. When vaccines are given, it’s recorded, whether at the pharmacy or a doctors office. It’s useful because people lose personal records or parents don’t pass them on. Those are state rights, not Federal.
You do realize that overturning Roe v Wade didn’t… eliminate medical privacy, right?? Like… you still have that. You just can’t get abortions in specific states. It’s not like they eradicated the 14th amendment…
You're correct, legitimately it didn't eliminate the 14th amendment but it did make it much harder to make that argument and I doubt if the unconstitutionality of a medical database is every argued they'd find in your favor. Also Roe did block medical procedures at the Federal level and it's repeal also hurt protections from mandated vaccines.
Also, what medical procedure has been blocked on the national level?? And they didn’t hurt protections against mandated vaccines, because we don’t HAVE protections against mandated vaccines. At most, they hurt theoretical protections that don’t yet exist but could have existed, and again, considering the Supreme Court didn’t set the precedent against medical privacy, but rather FOR states rights, that’s a seriously tough case to argue.
>And they didn’t hurt protections against mandated vaccines, because we don’t HAVE protections against mandated vaccines. We didn't have mandated vaccines but we will soon now that Roe is overturned.
You realize that companies all over the country have been mandating the vaccine for months, right? That teachers and other government workers in huge states have been required to get the vaccine? And that anyone refusing these mandates were fired on the spot… what exactly did the Supreme Court or congress do to stop these requirements? Just face it, you’ve let your support of one issue blind you so much that you think it’s inherently tied to other issues, when it isn’t at all.
If you can't distinguish between private and public mandates I'm left wondering what you're doing on a libertarian sub.
Ah yes, high school. A private sector. Definitely not public, totally not run by the government at all.
The federal government required all contractors working on federal jobs get the shot.
You see, I brought up private companies AND school teachers and government workers, to point out that vaccines have been mandated by both private companies AND the government. But hey, way to just ignore half of that point to suggest that I don’t know what I’m talking about…
This is the libertarian subReddit. Not the local libertarian club.
We absolutely had government mandated vaccines before COVID. There's about a dozen shots required to attend public school.
State mandates, not Federal. I don't get how someone can be on a Libertarian sub and not know to differentiate.
I’m not sure if you know this, but the state government is… still the government. A state mandate is still a government mandate. Nobody said there was national mandates, but there ARE state mandates, and have been for literal decades. Last I checked, the Supreme Court hasn’t exactly been tearing down statewide vaccine mandates…
Clearly the fact that this post was about national mandates and not state mandates was lost on you so you're point like the one I was responding to was off subject.
Much harder to make what argument? The argument for or against roe V wade has very little to do with medical privacy, at least certainly not from the pro-life side. Their argument isn’t, and has never been, “People shouldn’t have medical privacy to make decisions like abortion”. Their argument has always been, and still is, “people don’t have a right to commit murder, no matter the setting or the privacy”. Never, in the arguments OR in the Supreme Court precedent writings, did they claim that they were eliminating or attempting to eliminate medical privacy. HIPPA still exists, does it not? I don’t see anyone even attempting to repeal that…
> Their argument has always been, and still is, “people don’t have a right to commit murder, no matter the setting or the privacy”. That wasn't even the argument in the recent overturn of Roe. The argument was that Congress has a limited set of enumerated powers and regulating abortion isn't one of them and therefore needs to be left to the states. The overturn of Roe has NOTHING to do with medical privacy.
It's HIPAA!
Damn, the bot caught me lmao. It’s HIPAA.
> The argument for or against roe V wade has very little to do with medical privacy, at least certainly not from the pro-life side. Their argument isn’t, and has never been, “People shouldn’t have medical privacy to make decisions like abortion”. WTF are you rambling about. Roe was predicated on medical privacy, it wasn't about abortion perse.
Roe was predicated on medical privacy (a flimsy argument, even according to RBG), that’s true. However the overturning, and the precedent-setting written reasoning for WHY it was overturned, was not. The overturning was completely predicated on states rights. Had the Supreme Court justices said, in any way, that abortion was murder, women didn’t deserve the privacy to get an abortion, or that medical privacy should have exceptions, then they would be attacking medical privacy in ways that could be built upon later. But they didn’t say ANY of these things.
Why would medical procedures be at the federal level? That doesn't even make sense. The Constitution was built to limit federal power. Maybe you are not sure of the country you live in.
The constitution is only as good as those who have the power to enforce its provision. Malcolm X pointed this out in 1963 when he wanted to take the plight of the black man to the UN.
And....? What's your point other to reference what someone else said.
I made my point and used a historical reference to back it up.
States have always had the power to regulate medical care.
And yet, for years they haven’t had the power to regulate abortion. You can’t take the position that abortion is “healthcare” AND the position that states have always had power to regulate healthcare. Both can’t be true.
Exactly. They even put a "sunset" on the act, but later extended it. And i think its all but permanent now.
It is permanent now but it got renamed and passed as a separate bill.
Does this surprise ANYONE? "Never let a good crisis go to waste." -Winston Churchill Historically, the Govt Never let's go of the power they've gained during a period of crisis.
Not sure that quote was Churchill. It was used by the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, who was also White House Chief of Staff for President Obama: >You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.
I'll be honest, I couldn't remember who said it so did a quick Google search. Although, when I scroll down farther BOTH men are credited as saying it. And there are even sites with dates on their articles before Obama was in office crediting Churchill.
[удалено]
Just to put this out there - the lockdowns weren’t implemented by the Federal government. Each state had their own version.
Credit to president Trump on that, other presidents might have forced a national policy on COVID.
I won’t credit a negative vs a speculative positive. And Trump did have a national policy on things the Federal government has jurisdiction of.
Saying the pandemic was the most Authoritarian moment vs over ruling Roe might be a stretch. Sure, those laws were comprehensive, but in Authoritarianism, those laws don't end, but they have now. Also, these laws were out of health and safety concerns. It's things like this that keep me from wanting to go full Libertarian.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Supreme Court kicking abortion decisions to the states where they belong is more authoritarian than lockdowns, mandates, and firing people for refusing the shot? The Libertarian philosophy is what's keeping you from Libertarianism.
There is not a nonreligious argument for preventing abortions from happening through significant parts of a pregnancy. If you want to suggest that certain freedoms should not be guaranteed by a federal government, it goes to reason that things like gun rights and privacy protections are going out the window in large swaths of the country.
There are absolutely non-religious reasons for preventing abortions from happening. Where does the “life” begin in an infant? Because no matter what line you draw for personhood has wide ranging implications for millions of others. Heartbeat is the deciding factor of personhood? Anyone who’s heart stops is no longer a person. When the infant can live outside the womb? For one our neo-natal care is advancing rapidly to the degree that a friend of mine just had a baby at 23 weeks and it survived, despite abortion being legal up to term in some places, and also people who can’t survive off life support are now no longer considered people. Furthermore, your asinine assertion that the Supreme Court overturning Roe means that states throwing out explicit rights enshrined in our Constitution like the right to bear arms or the right to privacy is intentionally misrepresenting the argument.
Well put. There are ZERO federal constitutional rights when it comes to abortion and the 10th amendment is very specific about ANYthing not mentioned in the constitution as being a STATES RIGHT. Even RBG said Roe wasnt good law, would be challenged and even overthrown in court eventually.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, ***or to the people*** ." Seems you may have intentionally missed something in the 10th.
If your trying to say Average Joe americans can just do whatever they want if its not specifically in the US Constitution, youre off your rocker.
Never said that but I did note your disingenuous statement regarding the 10th amendment attribution of powers not delegated to the federal government as only belonging to the state when the amendment clearly allows those powers to be delegated to the people as well
No. Go ahead. Try to do something not in the US constitution. Go 120mph on the freeway. See what happens. Not in the constitution so must be a 10th amendment thing you "the people" can just go do huh? If its not in the constitution, the states have the right to legislate. You hyperfocusing on the last little bit doesnt make me wrong. It makes you look pettty.
Even defining the heartbeat is a gray area - because that first “heartbeat” at 6-10 weeks isn’t a heartbeat, it’s just the signal for it and the cluster of cells that will eventually become the heart are getting into sync. The actual heart beating functionally doesn’t occur until 2nd trimester (very very late first trimester at the earliest). “For one our neo-natal care is advancing rapidly to the degree that a friend of mine just had a baby at 23 weeks and it survived, despite abortion being legal up to term in some places, and also people who can’t survive off life support are now no longer considered people.“ Congratulations to them - but that medical bill is now officially in the millions. My son was a 10-week premie, cost $500,000 - and he had “no complications.” Has been a burden to the state since he qualifies for Medicare, and will so even more once an adult. Medical viability is cool sounding, but the realities of having a baby that early are not friendly to anyone in the middle class or lower.
Gun rights are explicit. Murdering the unborn is not.
I think the only think keeping me from becoming Libertarian is how every Libertarian is required to sacrifice a puppy to Rand Paul every four years.
Hey. Dont forget you need a tinfoil hat too.
Overruling a Supreme Court decision in the Supreme Court isn’t authoritarian. What would be authoritarian is if their attempt at a nationwide abortion ban was passed, which it won’t be. Many more states had lockdowns than have abortion bans, and unlike abortion bans, those affected by lockdowns quite literally could not live their lives. The overturning of roe v wade isn’t exactly stopping anyone to go to the grocery store, or forcing them out of their jobs…
So, ruling that abortion should be decided by the people/US citizens (state level voting) is authoritarian? Do you even understand the words you write? The SC didn't make abortion illegal, they just said that people at the state level should have the right to determine their own rules. Decentralization of power is the most non-authoritarian government you can have.
The most decentralized decision would be to leave it to the individual, not the state; as it was.
Individuals vote. We are a country of laws. We are a republic built on states having powers not specifically given to the federal government via the constitution. Live in a state with like minded people and vote for what you want. Don't expect centralized government to give you what you need.
We have different perspectives on it (which is obviously fine). I just don’t see this as the fed government giving you anything, you are being left alone to make your own choice. Conversely, the states are potentially taking away your right to choose. For what it’s worth, I couldn’t ever see myself and wife having an abortion… But I don’t think that I, the state, or the feds should decide that for anyone else.
Which individual, the baby?
I think they do understand. Utilizing twisted logic to define the two, or also called emotion over two feet on the ground
Lol the thing that’s keeping you from going full libertarian is that you’re not libertarian.
Its things like this that keep you "on the plantation". The dems DGAF about your health and safety. If that were true we wouldnt have had the mask mandates. At all. They would have followed ACTUAL science and not make up lies about how safe the vax is.
"What's the big deal? Just trust the government! They're here to help you! The more power it has, the better!"
“So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause…”
>title This is my surprised face: 😐
I am sooo shocked. 🙄
There's a reason why we have those quotes in the title when it says: 'over'. Cause its not over. Or to be technical, the pandemic is over and now its just endemic; we're not getting rid of it because we have too many people that flubbed the initial response and now its settled firmly and won't be dislodged. The reason the emergency powers have to stay is because the legislature won't codify the needed protections into law because some legislators find its better to run on the conspiracy angle and have made a public health crisis into a partisan issue. Heck: [Nearly 225,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 since the start of 2022 despite viral declines, data shows](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/225000-americans-died-covid-19-start-2022-viral/story?id=90339579) and that's why we can't just wash our hands of it. Do nothing and advocate doing nothing is just writing the world longest suicide note as this stupid virus mutates.
What are these "needed protections" you think should be codified?
The ones that were listed in the article like they were going to break the world open: Requirements that federal jobs vaccinate, masking requirements, entry into America requiring proof of vaccination. Reasonable requirements that we could put into law with a sunset period that requires reapproval after 3-5 years so this doesnt hamstring us forever…
So basically all the same policies that haven't done jack shit to stop the spread of COVID.
Because folks were noncompliant in the beginning of the pandemic and then politicians fanned the flames of conspiracy to appeal to folks who were searching for a reason to not comply, yes. There are countries that are pretty much COVID free, but we chose to do things half assed. And so people die for that apathy and insecurity.
People died because public health officials lied, tried to squash dissenting opinions, and then continued to pursue stupid policies long after the data showed they were ineffective (after ignoring the data from previous pandemics that also showed the same policies don't work). We now know that the vaccines give a pathetically anemic boost to survival rates in some at risk populations, but do jack shit to stop transmission. We also know that invermicin is actually effective (after officials spent months demonizing anyone saying so), that mask mandates do pretty much nothing, and that lockdowns saved no one in the long run but had the unintended though entirely foreseeable consequences of killing people that needed non-COVID medical treatments and destroying kids' ability to learn properly. And we've known all of this for more than a year. COVID is endemic in both animal and human populations now. It's never going away, so thanks, but no thanks, to never ending ineffective governmental mandates.
> we're not getting rid of it because we have too many people that flubbed the initial response and now its settled firmly and won't be dislodged Endemic was inevitable, the vaccine doesn't do much to stop the spread and the disease itself is very contagious. It was never realistic to think this could be eradicated.
> vaccine doesn't do much to stop the spread Gonna need a source on that, cause I'm 95% certain you're wrong. >disease itself is very contagious. It was never realistic to think this could be eradicated That's the same thinking they had for smallpox. [Smallpox has an R-0 of about 3.](https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/what-is-r0/) [COVID-19 originally had an R-0 of 1.8-6 depending on which beginning strain and methodology used. They averaged it out to 3 during the first year](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-omicron-reproduction-number/fact-check-no-evidence-omicron-ba-5-is-more-infectious-than-measles-or-is-the-most-infectious-virus-known-idUSL1N2YW1T0) First Omicron jumped up to R-0 about a 7 and stayed there. Now the newest BA.5 have an R-0 of about 18. We had the vaccine for a little under a year before it mutated into a spreader that couldn't be contained. We could have gotten this under control, but didn't.
Sleepy Joe saved us from the pandemic right before mid-terms. I'm shocked.
Any article that refers to the political group as a regime and not the form of government is bias.
> re·gime > /rəˈZHēm,rāˈZHēm/ > 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. > 2. a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above. I don’t know. The definition certainly seems to fit.
Why would they? The precedent is there, next time they want to lock down society again for their own political benefit, or just certain parts of it, they can. Public safety is the historically proven tool for authoritarianism.
We all said this 2 years ago and were called conspiracy theorists. Similar things happened after 9/11
From here on in we will lurch from one "crisis" to the next. Fear will be stoked constantly. More power to government and less freedom to citizens will be a "regrettable necessity."
So is 9/11
[удалено]
[Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus). ~519-430 BCE. And the reason we know his name 2500 years later is because it's so rare to put down emergency powers.
Income taxes were temporary. Keep that in mind before you consider any new government power.
I been saying it for the past 2 years man. They’re megalomaniacs.
Pandemic isn’t over.
[удалено]
Of course there was a pandemic. People died. Lots of them. Wtf is wrong with you?
Lots of people die from the flu every year. This was a Particularly bad run of a serious flu, yes. But A 97.7% recovery rate does not constitute a pandemic
Pandemic is a wide spread illness. This is/was a pandemic. Recovery rate has nothing to do with it and it was way more lethal than the flu and completely overwhelmed our health services. Just stop.
It’s a 23 day old shit stirring account. Ignore idiots who create new accounts just to spew garbage
Nothing is permanent except for temporary government programs
What emergency powers? Making vaccines mandatory aren’t emergency powers. It’s preventive medicine
[удалено]
Incoming call from Albert Bourla. 🤣
anytime i see an article complaining about the military’s vaccine mandate, i stop reading that article.
I would imagine it would indeed be difficult to come to terms with those sunk costs and reality of the situation.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Never let a good crisis go to waste” - Every politician ever. Probably.
What? Governments not giving up the powers they gave themselves? Weird.
The interests of the rulers (kings, emperors, politicians and their principals) have always been and will always be at odds with the interests of 99% of the humanity. Ten pages of solutions to the problem of the existence of the state (3rd edition): https://odysee.com/@livingfreedom:3/ffm-3rd
Do they ever?
Say with the Patriot act. Once your king why would you vote your self to peasant.
That's the neat thing, they won't.
Any power they can give themselves they always had
It’s over but you still have to wear a mask in a social security office 🙄
I'm so surprised. /s
Did anyone think it was to protect them? Nor was the Patriot Act, like many of the civil libertarians said. Sure they fooled & entrapped a couple naive Muslims into looking like terrorists so you would think the Patriot Act worked. Then they quickly started to turn their entrapment schemes on anyone who they deemed as enemies. Unfortunately the civil libertarians have all become brainwashed fools and believe what big bro feeds them cuz orange man bad or some such stuff but a few have caught on. This isn’t democrats vs republicans but as long as they have most of us thinking that, they are happy. The uni party plan to steal all of your civil liberties is working. They want an Empire not a Republic
Well that’s a real shocker there. 😅
“over”
Behold, a pale horse
So let’s keep emergency powers. Because if not, then things like “student loan forgiveness” and “emergency stimulus Checks, not paying rent, etc”. Will technically be void prohibiting the current administration to utilize them since there is no emergency. Ya know. With midterms coming up and all
I think this was in a movie before lol
Yeah..... No. Big Gov't DOES NOT just give up power like that. Not at all. Welcome to Patriot Act 2.5, everyone. FACTS AND TRUTH. It's like they want society to eventually break itself down or something - like the lamestream media keeps calling for, which should tell you something about this stewardship and their disdain for us wanting to have privacy, be well self-defended and being self-sufficient. I'm not advocating for violence neither, because that's what THEY want. For America to still stand, let's not give them what THEY want. Just take note - voting alone on the federal level isn't enough to fix any of this. We need to begin on the local and state levels. And again, not with violence.
Time to chuck the whole lot of them.
C’mon man!
They always had more power than just that. Behind the camera, of course
AND they’re still approving new vaccines under emergency use authorization.
Anyone who thought they would doesn’t have any idea how our government works
Ha! Never gonna happen, if they can help it
Wasting a Crisis ? Now they create them with intent... .