Richard,
To be clear, you're saying you want the officers to vote and approve this resolution in the name of the LPSF now, rather than waiting for the general membership to weigh in at the next regular local party meeting?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
We agreed the newsletter should be sent out before the next regular
meeting. We currently don't have much content for the newsletter. I have
already posted this language for membership review. There was no objection
and only one comment. I appreciated the feedback, but was skeptical of its
suggestion. In addition, another concern I had is time at our meeting. We
will have at least one guest speaker (DecrimCA), maybe more, and
consideration of bylaws amendments/proposals. I suspect those will take a
considerable amount of time, probably more than we have alotted when
reports already on the agenda are factored in. Because there was no express
objection from the membership, I believe the committee can consider this
via email ballot and ensure a more robust and timely newsletter.
Richard
I think the resolution is incomplete as it stands.
There is an implied and unstated assumption.
You need to add another whereas clause as follows:
Whereas: We do not believe that people who are infected with the Covid-19 virus who do not take any measures to prevent its transmission to others are violating the rights of other people.
All the rights listed under the Whereas clauses are valid rights, but …… they are constrained by the duty to avoid violating other people’s rights. This is sort of vaguely hinted at in the first resolved clause. But you ought to make it explicit.
Les Mangus
I think the resolution is incomplete as it stands.
There is an implied and unstated assumption.
You need to add another whereas clause as follows:
Whereas: We do not believe that people who are infected with the Covid-19 virus who do not take any measures to prevent its transmission to others are violating the rights of other people.
All the rights listed under the Whereas clauses are valid rights, but …… they are constrained by the duty to avoid violating other people’s rights. This is sort of vaguely hinted at in the first resolved clause. But you ought to make it explicit.
Les Mangus
Les,
Your proposed language below appears to suggest that we don't think infected people who knowingly spread the disease to others without those others' consent are violating their rights, but I don't think that's what you wanted to say.
How about this language:
People have an individual obligation not to put others at significant risk without their consent, such as by knowingly spreading a harmful virus to non-consenting persons as a result of failing to take reasonable precautions.
I'd also suggest adding the following additional statements:
• Medical experts and others are divided on whether government lockdown measures are actually saving lives, with some stating that isolating people weakens their immune systems, and that increased deaths from suicides of people who have lost their jobs or businesses as a result of the lockdown will outnumber those caused by the virus itself.
• Covid-19 may be less deadly than is being reported, due to many people being reported as dying from the virus who in fact simply tested positive for the virus, as the Trump administration's Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx acknowledged in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=655&v=k1trzdmwR2M&feature=emb_logo (relevant portion from 45:00 to 46:18), or in some cases even were merely assumed to have had the virus, when they were actually killed by other pre-existing health conditions.
These could be written as "whereas" statements similar to those in the resolution passed by the Santa Clara county LP. I have a slight preference for not using that format for this type of a general "press release" type statement, which I think could be more likely to be picked up or quoted by media outlets if written in plain English, but would be okay with it either way..
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Les,
Good catch on the suicide claim, which I agree is probably untrue as written – I had meant to add more examples of other causes of death but forgot.. Regarding the weakened immune system claim, what I was getting at is what you stated more clearly: If your body is inhibited from developing natural immunity, your immune system will be weaker.
Here's a revised version of that bullet point:
• Medical experts and others are divided on whether government lockdown measures are actually saving lives, with some stating that isolating people results in their having weaker immune systems, and that increased deaths related to effects of the lockdowns such as suicides of people who have lost their jobs or businesses, people not getting other needed health care treatment, higher rates of domestic violence, etc. will outnumber those caused by the virus itself.
Regarding the authority of local government, I don't think the current wording precludes the possibility of any government officials or body having legal authority to order lockdowns; it can be read as simply saying that the Constitution guarantees certain rights upon which they do not have the authority to infringe.
Stating that we support voluntary quarantine efforts seems useful to me, because it highlights the fact that there is an alternative – a widely supported one, as you note – to the coercive government measures that we oppose, as well as the fact that those measures are coercive and violence-based (which is something that "everybody knows" yet too few people really think about).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
If after 24 hours this motion does not receive a second, I'll consider it
dead.
Paragraph 1
This is much better than the original draft. I don’t recall any experts saying that deaths from the other causes will outnumber deaths from Covid-19, but, if you can support it, so be it.
Paragraph 2
What? I am not sure I understand your explanation. In any case I would still be opposed to this paragraph as I think it wades into general ethical consideration. The motion ought to stick to the immediate problem of ending the lockdowns.
Paragraph 3
I agree with your statement below. The statement on the original motion doesn’t say anything about coercive mandates. Furthermore a great many people would think that spreading the virus around, with knowingly or unknowingly IS violating someone else’s person. Maybe you don’t believe this, but it is in fact what a majority believe.
Les