Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

Quote Corrector wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”

^ Fake quote. The actual words are:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

And the way it is now used by empty headed pseudolibertarians is almost the opposite of what Franklin meant. The quote is believed to be from a letter Franklin wrote the governor of Pennsylvania. The western most settlements in Pennsylvania were under attack from the French and Indians. Pennsylvania wanted to raise funds for the defense of these settlements by taxing land belonging to the Penn family. The Penn family bought off the governor, who blocked the efforts to tax the Penn land. Thus, "purchase a little temporary safety" refers to the Penns buying off the governor to keep from being taxed. "Essential liberty" refers to the ability to defend the citizens of Pennsylvania from attack by the French and Indians. So, the phrase actually would apply to those who seek to protect their economic interests by limiting lockdowns (temporary safety) against those who need the government to protect them from the spread of the virus (essential liberty).

Coronavirus is the biggest overreaction in my 32 years of living. Time to buy guns.

Could? I estimate that it will kill only 50,000 in the US, mostly people who would have died in the next year or two anyway. We know that 3 million will die in the US from other mostly preventable causes though. And how about the 9 million blacks who will die of starvation in the world this year? Why don't we divert all resources to saving them? Added to our death count from the virus will be many suicides, murders, hunger and hunger/disease related deaths, and alcohol/drug deaths caused by the Government's actions of putting people in isolation and out of work and in financial ruin. All lives should matter, not just those at risk from this virus.

Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Did we lose both when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus?

Did we ever regain either of them?

True - Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and implemented martial law because the Union was at war with the Confederacy. First, he was worried about spies from the CSA infiltrating the Union. Secondly, he didn't want any protesting to distract from the war effort. The U.S.A. isn't engaged in a Civil War right now. 750,000 died in that war.

Covid-19 would kill more Americans if we did not try to contain it.

Or maybe you don't believe Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx

We all believe them. But they are focused only on saving those lives without considering how many additional lives will be lost due to financial ruin and isolation. Anybody seeing the big picture can see that we don't ruin our country to save every life in the world, but we will do it if it means saving Tom Hanks and your Grandparents.

Corona con wrote:

Coronavirus is the biggest overreaction in my 32 years of living. Time to buy guns.

Hahaha thanks for the irony - I needed a laugh!

stats guru wrote:

We all believe them. But they are focused only on saving those lives without considering how many additional lives will be lost due to financial ruin and isolation. Anybody seeing the big picture can see that we don't ruin our country to save every life in the world, but we will do it if it means saving Tom Hanks and your Grandparents.

Why are you acting like businesses wouldn't have been adversely impacted had the government not implemented stay-at-home orders? As if there would be no financial ruin from the virus spreading through companies like wildfire?

Kvothe wrote:

Spitting quotes blindly, but ignoring the fact that a communicable disease which is easily transmitted in close contact with others and wrecks havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised is ravaging the world. This isn't some political situation, its literally the only chance we have of our hospitals not being overburdened with tens of thousands dead. Without social distancing, even little cities look like new york now. I guess its too much to ask that you give up track practice and drinking at the bar though, can't violate your sacred freedoms when your parents and grandparents lives are at stake.

I think the OP was a spot on consideration on the choice we have to make. At what point do we accept certain risks and consequences knowing that the tradeoffs result in loss of freedoms and also carry negative consequences.

There will be deaths and negative result to public health due to our countries reaction to Corona virus. This includes through loss of job, medical treatments getting delayed, financial hardship, disruption in the supply chain. As cold as it sounds there needs to be some calculus into actual deaths if we do nothing and life expectancy of those who be victims vs the impact of these measures we are going to have to take probably on and off for the next year to continue to slow the virus.

The TV talking head and politicians have already shown to be crap at any real analysis into this. There is risks to everyone's well being every single day. There needs to be real consideration if the tradeoffs of what we are sacrificing here is worth it and what the impact will be if there is this type of situation again.

Supposedly, people have been looking very deeply into this since the 1990s ("Contagion: epidemiological models and financial crises" - 2014). Just because we (the public) don't see the abstraction layers doesn't mean people haven't done incredible amounts of analysis on the back end. It's difficult for me right now, but I'm trusting the govt to do their job.

If one expects a long war with multiple fronts and significant expected casualties, do you round up all of your best soldiers / leaders and send them to the front lines to die first? If you infect all of our good and best (and "aged" experienced) doctors and nurses and end up losing a fair amount of them (or just taking them out of commission due to quarantine / long illness / etc), replacing them will take longer than a difficult 13-week program. Hospitals around the world are closing (and 200 rural ones in the US as of an AP article a few hours ago).

What's going to be crucial is that antibody test. That will allow us to get back to normal more quickly.

2/3 of the country is sitting at home right now. Many companies will never reopen. Small colleges will close. Left unchecked, a few people would have been out sick because the majority of those with major symptoms are the elderly who are not in the workforce. It probably would have been a gain for our economy sort of like wartime.

stats guru wrote:

2/3 of the country is sitting at home right now. Many companies will never reopen. Small colleges will close. Left unchecked, a few people would have been out sick because the majority of those with major symptoms are the elderly who are not in the workforce. It probably would have been a gain for our economy sort of like wartime.

Would love to see support for any of those claims. Namely that 1) 2/3 of the labor force isn't working right now and 2) that left unchecked, only a few people would have been out sick.

rando odnar wrote:

It's difficult for me right now, but I'm trusting the govt to do their job.

Well, this is where we disagree. I do not trust the government to handle this well at all and have seen nothing to this point to suggest otherwise. I also do not trust them to make a decision based on facts and actual analysis. Their decision will be based on what will make each candidate most re electable come November and public opinion.

I think this is universal across the board in our political system. None of the politicians on either side are competent.

When 50 million get the flu, it goes unnoticed so why would 5 million getting this who would be asymptomatic if young, impact the labor force? You can read the stats to see who is dying and being hospitalized. Worst case for most 60 year olds would like Tom Hanks who felt the blahs and would have been fine working.

So no support, then? Just opinions?

Here's a thread to help you understand why resources are short now compared to a normal flu season:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9921803

That is quite a stretcher there, Roy.

—Benjamin Franklin

Trump basically handed the country over to liberal mentality. He capitulated, threw the Constitution and any last semblance of conservative philosophy in the trash. He is a coward who will go down in history as ending American exceptionalism.

The fact that the lockdown in Italy isn't working should clue everyone on this board in that a national lockdown here won't work either.

moran112312 wrote:

The fact that the lockdown in Italy isn't working should clue everyone on this board in that a national lockdown here won't work either.

No. It is working. Lombardy has finally starting to show a consistent decline after being very hard hit. Compliance with lockdown in southern Italy is a growing problem and could reverse progress. But the pattern in Italy is supporting the efficacy of lockdown measures.