Were/are we being lied to?

[army judge]

The populace is being scammed with many hard working citizens being forced into poverty, mental illness, alcohol abuse, drug abuse and even suicide.

Stupidity is contagious and can cause the death of innocents.

 

[cbg]

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

This would be easier if it weren't meme.

Shop: That is private property and the store owner is free to make rules as they wish.

Traffic Laws: Personally I think the seat belt laws are overreaching by the state. I can understand the federal rule that car makers must install them but it is my ass if I don't use them.

OSHA: That is a workplace issue which was voted into being by Congress because stupid employers didn't take care of their employees. Though it should be a state issue and would be if it weren't for the over expanded commerce clause.

Airlines: Again voted on federal law but at least this time it was in a case where the feds have jurisdiction 99.99% of the time. And both the seat belt and tray table is also for the safety of others that have no choice but being next to you.

TSA: Please don't get me started on that particular bit of Security Theater.

Grocery Stores: If it is the store requiring it see shop above. If it is the government show me the law.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I have to disagree. Do you think a requirement to wear a red jacket or say a six pointed star on yourself would stand up to court scrutiny at the state or federal level?

Whether it would or not depends on the reason for the requirement. For example, a state certainly could require, say, a bicyclist to wear bright or reflective clothing at night while on the bike as a safety measure. Or a state may require the wearing of a hardhats in a construction site as a worker safety rule. Similarly a state could require the public to wears masks during a pandemic as a public health measure.

However, requiring a person to wear a Star of David simply to identify them as Jews would of course violate the Constitution as there is no legitimate public purpose for that.

Just because you evidently strongly oppose wearing a mask and think that the state should not be able to require it does not change that under the law a state may require it on the basis of public health since it has long been established that one of the powers of the state is to protect public health.

Again, the reason for the requirement matters a great deal. So trying to draw parallels to situations in which the justification for the requirement is different doesn't work. Not all requirements to wear a particular type of clothing are equal, despite your attempt to make them so.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Just because you evidently strongly oppose wearing a mask and think that the state should not be able to require it does not change that under the law a state may require it on the basis of public health since it has long been established that one of the powers of the state is to protect public health.

Actually I don't have a strong feeling on the issue. I do have a strong feeling about government overreach. Especially since the same states that have been so strict about masks have been pretty much OK with people destroying things while not wearing masks.

 

[cbg]

You have completely (and probably deliberately) missed the point.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

You have completely (and probably deliberately) missed the point.

I got the point that you didn't want to discuss the issue so instead used a meme.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I do have a strong feeling about government overreach.

I don't like government overreach either, though I suspect you and I would disagree somewhat on what constitutes overreach.

But we have to draw a distinction between what the Constitution forbids states to do and what states are permitted to do but that the public agrees it should not do. Both are forms of overreach.

The former the state may not do as the Constitution forbids it. A court may thus restrain the state from those actions.

However, the latter is a political issue. The state legislators may enact laws that the public thinks are overreach at the risk of wrath of the voters at the next election. Most things a state does falls into that political category: the state has the power to do it, the issue then is (1) whether it is wise to do it and (2) whether the public will support it. A requirement to wear masks to protect public health does not violate the Constitution. It thus is in that latter political category. While it may be overreach (at least to you) for the state to do it, the legislature may do it and the legislators then have to face the voters at the next election and if the voters are sufficiently outraged over it they'll get booted out of office.

It's like dealing with employees at work. As an HR person you have surely dealt with employees outraged over what a manager has done, and dead sure that because the employee thinks its wrong it must be illegal. You have then had to explain that while it might have been mean or stupid for the manager to do it, it was not illegal, however outraged the employee may feel about it. An employer might overreach and do things it should not do, but that does not necessarily mean that the employer has done anything illegal. A state might overreach and do things it should not do, but that does not necessarily mean the state has has done anything illegal.

 

[cbg]

I got the point that you didn't want to discuss the issue so instead used a meme.

That actually was not the point at all.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

TM I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. My biggest problem is the hypocrisy of many state governments over the past few months. The damage it has done to the economy is staggering.

I truly fear that what is happening is being used as a gateway to socialism and a significantly less free country. With the exception of firearms issues, I wouldn't have believed that last Christmas.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That actually was not the point at all.

Then I guess you are going to have to explain, or not.

 

[cbg]

There are governmental safety regulations imposed every day that we accept without question There might be some grumbling but none of the other regulations included in that meme create anything like the level of outrage that the last one does. All of them are in the interest of public safely, but most are accepted without question, one or two occasionally rate a mutter but are still accepted and complied with.

Yet the final one listed has become a political issue that is dividing the country. For some reason THIS is an example of "government overreach" so-called that is worth risking catching, or transmitting, a disease that can be deadly, has no vaccine, no cure, and very limited immunity.

That is simply unreasonable.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The damage it has done to the economy is staggering.

Damage done because of a virus that nobody expected and nobody wanted. But it's here and the government has the responsibility to protect public health. The tough part is balancing protecting health and still keeping the economy going as much as possible. That's not an easy balance to achieve. It raises the issue of what a life is worth. How far will we go to save one life? How far will we go to save a thousand lives? As the stakes get higher, the more we're likely to be willing to do and take the economic hit for it. As the last several months have clearly shown, the public has widely differing views of how much sacrifice they are willing to make to save the lives of others.

I truly fear that what is happening is being used as a gateway to socialism and a significantly less free country.

Then you are, IMO, overreacting. I don't see such a threat here. It's easy to invoke the slippery slope argument. But in most cases the predicted slippery slope never actually materializes. We have to be vigilant to prevent unwarranted grabs for power, socialist or otherwise, but we also have to recognize that extraordinary threats may require extraordinary measures that absent the threat would not be acceptable.

What the government is doing right now is temporary to combat the spread of a known deadly disease. When the danger subsides, so will the restrictions that went along with it. You may not realize it if you didn't live through it and haven't studied it, but the government was far more regulatory during World War II doing things that ordinarily you and I would both agree would be overreach but for the need to mobilize to defeat the military threat we faced. We saw some of that in the Civil War and World War I, too. In each case, when the war ended, so did the wartime regulations. I have no reason to think that it will be any different with this.

 

[justblue]

Texas Mandates Face Coverings as Coronavirus Cases Surge

 

[army judge]

Texas Mandates Face Coverings as Coronavirus Cases Surge

There are always exceptions, one of which I'll be using.

The only two places I wear a mask is when I visit the commissary or the PX on Fort Hood and when I visit my medical provider's clinic or hospital.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

CBG & TM, I'm combining this response simply because I know I'm not going to change either of your minds but I'd like to get my point across.

We have at least two internal attacks on our freedom going on at the moment. The virus or more importantly the government's reaction to it and the BLM/SJ uprising. Both are being used by various factions to fundamentally change the nation. In both cases, we aren't dealing with what actually happens to people but their feelings about what they think has or will happen to them.

There has been no evidence that the chances of getting the virus are helped by a person wearing a mask. And while wearing one properly and doing everything else that is required may well help one not spread the virus I've seen too many people not even wearing the mask properly and it is impossible to tell if those people are doing any of the other things needed to not get the virus.

And yes, not wearing the mask has become a symbol of not following the government line. Just as the protests have become a symbol. And BOTH CAN CAUSE THE VIRUS TO SPREAD. The difference between the two is simply the political position of the protesters is in line with the currently politically correct narrative.

When armed people showed up to protest masks the media and they were uniformly called racist whites even though the protest had ZERO to do with race. When armed blacks showed up to protest with BLM little was said and when it was reported it certainly wasn't condemned.

There were several murders in CHAZ/CHOP that will go unsolved. And the worse part is that it too multiple incidents for the mayor to finally shut it down.

 

[army judge]

I'm wondering when the armbands will appear?

Will you be issued the APPROVED armband, or will you be required to purchase one from the official gubmint store?

When will the public beatings for non-compliance begin?

 

[cbg]

The problem is that I disagree with your basic premise; that there is no scientific evidence that wearing a mask combats the virus. I say there is; that wearing a mask protects both the wearer and the people the wearer comes in contact with. Particularly if they are wearing them as well.

As long as you continue to insist otherwise, we're never going to get anywhere because I continue to see the anti-maskers as a bunch of five year olds throwing tantrums. The protests don't even enter into it.

 

[army judge]

The problem is that I disagree with your basic premise; that there is no scientific evidence that wearing a mask combats the virus.

Nothing improper with people disagreeing.

I say there is; that wearing a mask protects both the wearer and the people the wearer comes in contact with.

I'm not only a lawyer, I'm also a physician (a DO).

I never practiced medicine, other than to complete my internship.

I am licensed in three states, should I ever choose to hang my DO shingle.

There is no scientific evidence that suggests wearing a mask protects the wearer, other than minimally.

As far as protecting yourself, the best approach is to distance yourself from others (I try to stay at least 10 feet away), don't touch others, and avoid crowds.

A mask is worn by surgeons (and the operating room team) to prevent infecting the patient during surgery.

No ethical surgeon would operate on a patient if she were infected with a communicable diseases, even if she wore a mask and protective garb.

If you wish to take precautions, buy a gas mask or respirator.

I wore a gas mask yesterday on our outing to a nearby Walmart.

A piece of unsanitized cloth or paper over your nose, mouth, and chin does very little (if anything) to keep you from ingesting germs.

A mask does nothing to protect your eyes or ear canals.

To add additional layers of protection you might wish to consider ear plugs, ear muffs, and goggles to protect your eyes.

A mask will not protect you if your skin has cuts, abrasions, or sores.

 

[cbg]

Minimally is better than none at all, don't you think?