Gotta love it. Apparently, small government only gets lip service until the rubber meets the road.

http://fox8.com/2014/10/18/ebola-concerns-in-northeast-ohio-governor-kasich-to-meet-with-the-cdc-today/

????Not sure I get what you are trying to say here.

Whether or not one thinks such restrictions make sense (I personally don't at this point), I would argue that they completely fit as an appropriate function of the federal government.

Disallowing something to all based on the circumstances of a handful is:
(a) probably not necessary at this point, and
(b) a prime example of a governing entity (not necessarily a federal one, to be fair) not permitting people to decide for themselves what precautions are best to keep themselves safe.

I just find it astounding that many within his party get so upset at the thought of being told how they can or cannot spend their money (allegedly motivated by the best interests of the public), but they think it's good leadership to be told how they can or cannot travel (again, allegedly motivated by the best interests of the public).

Needless to say, I'm not automatically suggesting that anyone on the thread thus far fits within this group, but the logical inconsistency when the parallels are there just seems so odd.

I think it is well within the proper role of government ( from a conservative's view) to protect the citizens of the United States from invasion, including the microbial kind. This has been voiced recently by no less than Bobby Jindal whose conservative card is beyond question. Whether it is necessary to impose a travel ban is beyond the common man's capabilities of ascertaining, and that said, I see no problem with a temporary travel ban or restrictions if that is what knowledgable authorities charged with making that determination see fit to do to protect the general public of the United States.

HitsRus;1665411 wrote:I think it is well within the proper role of government ( from a conservative's view) to protect the citizens of the United States from invasion, including the microbial kind. This has been voiced recently by no less than Bobby Jindal whose conservative card is beyond question. Whether it is necessary to impose a travel ban is beyond the common man's capabilities of ascertaining, and that said, I see no problem with a temporary travel ban or restrictions if that is what knowledgable authorities charged with making that determination see fit to do to protect the general public of the United States.

I believe the official verbiage is that government is to protect against enemies. Enemies require will. Taking such a loose interpretation of "invasion" sets a precedent to use it as loosely in other areas (increasing funding to social programs to stave off the "invasion of poverty" for example).

Might the government, then, be justified by restricting travel yearly, based on influenza outbreaks? It certainly stands as a proven killer of Americans each year.

As for Jindal, what he deems is appropriate for governmental force is his business. But I would submit that this would at least demonstrate that his "conservative card" is not beyond question (as if there were some metric by which we might evaluate this, anyway).

Finally, I don't see why there exists a belief in a disparity in capability between the "common man" and the "knowledgeable authorities." I would submit that those in governance possess no special cognitive faculties or deductive powers in comparison to their non-public servant counterparts. Intelligence? One might guess so, though that's all it would be. But given the relatively sound scientific knowledge about what Ebola is, and I'm somewhat willing to guess that there are no great mysteries between the transferability of a disease and air travel, it certainly doesn't seem that the intelligence to which they'd have access would matter..

But assuming that authorities do hold some special knowledge that does give them a sort of carte blanche in crisis control, why does that same logic not apply to the degree that we trust authority to take care of us and make decisions for us in any crisis? The recent economic troubles we've faced could easily have qualified as a crisis. Is that a matter where we ought to permit governance to take control of our finances in an effort to fix any money problems?

There is a difference between "conservative" and "libertarian" and I think you touch on that. Disease absolutely can be an invasion, and Jindal differentiates that (i'll try to find a link to his comments)...again, we are talking about temporary restrictions until there is at least reasonable control of the invader. Most certainly in this case, the inability of health authorities to control a single case of ebola points out and justifies that more extreme measures might need to be taken temporarly until such protocols among health care providers are in place.

here is the link
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-facts-about-ebola-funding-111820.html#.VDyIxvmwiWM

Most of the time I have the philosophy of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of medicine".

HitsRus;1665435 wrote:There is a difference between "conservative" and "libertarian" and I think you touch on that. Disease absolutely can be an invasion, and Jindal differentiates that (i'll try to find a link to his comments)...again, we are talking about temporary restrictions until there is at least reasonable control of the invader. Most certainly in this case, the inability of health authorities to control a single case of ebola points out and justifies that more extreme measures might need to be taken temporarly until such protocols among health care providers are in place.

here is the link
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-facts-about-ebola-funding-111820.html#.VDyIxvmwiWM

I didn't necessarily suggest that disease cannot be an invasion (not technically, anyway). I merely demonstrated that if we can treat something without a will as an invasion, it stands to reason that we could treat the flu as an invasion during flu season. We could even treat poverty, fear, unemployment, etc. as "invasions" as well.

Whether temporary or permanent isn't really a distinction that I see for the reach of governmental protection. The oath taken by federal employees is not that they will support and defend against all invasions, but all enemies. An entity, whether it be physical or conceptual, is not an enemy if it doesn't have a will. An enemy requires a will. Ebola has no will.

In theory, a governing body could require all constituents into their own isolated rooms for a month in order to prevent the spread as well. More extreme in the case of Ebola, to be sure. However, given the justification here, it could certainly be done with much the same justification for something more contagious, all under the auspices of "keeping us safe."

Moreover, given the inability of said authorities under what they previously thought were justifiable to calm a nervous population, I can't say I'm confident in authorities saying, "Okay, we're sure we've got it right this time." That isn't to say that this is a tipping point as to whether or not government should be permitted to do this. It only speaks to the potential futility of the actions.

The whole issue, however, is that it seems to fly in the face of a group (not all within the party, to be sure) that pays lip service to minimal governance. It seems that, practically speaking, the actual party line is "minimal governance ... until something scares me, and then government should take over."

CenterBHSFan;1665630 wrote:Most of the time I have the philosophy of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of medicine".

Seriously, if we all just hole up in our own homes for 30 days and don't go anywhere, I'm certain that few ounces of prevention would work. I daresay people wouldn't stand for it, though, and rightfully so.

The whole issue, however, is that it seems to fly in the face of a group (not all within the party, to be sure) that pays lip service to minimal governance. It seems that, practically speaking, the actual party line is "minimal governance ... until something scares me, and then government should take over."

It's not about "minimal government".... it is about the proper role of government....and protection of the citizenry falls within that.

I don't follow the need to split hairs about "will", for most certainly a treacherous government could use an enemy with a "will" for usurpation also. Really.... Do we want to play semantics? Protection is protection. Defense is defense....in a situation where the individual cannot necessarily defend himself. Being unprepared for disease can be just as deadly as invasion by a 'willed" invader. I would think the Aztecs, and the Mayans could testify to that.

...and the analogy of the flu isn't valid. We know how to handle the flu. Until such time as our medical institutions and medical providers are up to speed in the handling and protocol for ebola, I see nothing wrong if the government doing whatever is reasonably necessary to minimize the threat.

HitsRus;1665647 wrote:It's not about "minimal government".... it is about the proper role of government....and protection of the citizenry falls within that.

I would submit that, based on the setup of the Constitution, even dealing with the maximum would be dealing with those responsibilities outlined in the founding documents, which is doesn't include denying otherwise conventional freedoms because of a fear, particularly one that is yet to be substantiated as an actual problem.

HitsRus;1665647 wrote: I don't follow the need to split hairs about "will", for most certainly a treacherous government could use an enemy with a "will" for usurpation also.

Oh, I agree. They most certainly could ... and potentially have. However, I don't think the distinction of a will is splitting hairs at all. It's the difference between finding a single solution and having to constantly update solutions.

One will respond the same way to the same defense nearly every time, barring freak accidental mutations sufficient for immunity to that defense prior to eradication. It is predictable and based entirely in science. Government is not needed for something the general population can know just as much about. There's no special knowledge about a scientifically predictable virus.

The other, an enemy, will not respond the same way to the same defense for very long. It will adapt quickly, because it wants to. It can want to because it has a will. Hard sciences do not apply, and so constantly adapting defenses and resources able to study the changing patterns of the enemy are going to be far more intricate and resource-intense.

HitsRus;1665647 wrote:Really.... Do we want to play semantics? Protection is protection. Defense is defense....in a situation where the individual cannot necessarily defend himself. Being unprepared for disease can be just as deadly as invasion by a 'willed" invader. I would think the Aztecs, and the Mayans could testify to that.

Protection isn't protection. There is personal protection, which is different from protection of the homeland or nation state. We have the right to protect ourselves when it comes to personal protection. When it comes to intruders or those who would do our person harm, we're permitted to own and use firearms. We aren't forced to simply rely on authorities.

HitsRus;1665647 wrote: ...and the analogy of the flu isn't valid. We know how to handle the flu.

We know just as much about preventing infection from Ebola as governing bodies do, as well. The science behind the virus is no secret.

And ultimately, I don't think it matters, either. There's a difference between knowing how to handle it and having the responsibility of executing it. Whether or know "government knows best," that doesn't dictate that government needs to be the one to execute any solution.

HitsRus;1665647 wrote:Until such time as our medical institutions and medical providers are up to speed in the handling and protocol for ebola, I see nothing wrong if the government doing whatever is reasonably necessary to minimize the threat.

The problem with trying to decide what is "reasonable" is that everyone's determination of what it means might be different. However, let me pose a couple of thoughts on this anyway:

1. We have no evidence that our current measures aren't sufficient to prevent this from being a threat, and that is without government intervention. To date, zero Americans have died from the disease, and in the few instances where Americans have contracted it, it sounds as though all are getting better.

2. There is no proof that this measure would actually minimize whatever small threat there is, anyway. Odds are, people who legitimately have to fly for work or family will drive to another state or to Canada. Otherwise, they'll have to make the drive, but if the trip is important enough, people will travel by other means anyway. When all is said and done, there exists no evidence that this would be fruitful at all in preventing a spread.

Which is, of course, assuming they have the right to do so anyway, which I submit they don't.

And which is, of course, assuming there would be a threat of spreading anyway.

O-Trap;1665640 wrote:Seriously, if we all just hole up in our own homes for 30 days and don't go anywhere, I'm certain that few ounces of prevention would work. I daresay people wouldn't stand for it, though, and rightfully so.

Oh I don't think we should hole up in our homes, nor did I imply that. But I wouldn't fly to/from western Africa at this time. To me, that's a no-brainer.

CenterBHSFan;1665730 wrote:Oh I don't think we should hole up in our homes, nor did I imply that. But I wouldn't fly to/from western Africa at this time. To me, that's a no-brainer.

Personally, I agree with you. However, I should have the right to weigh the risks of any of these actions and make whatever changes to my life that I see as fit.

There are, in fact, people who believe we SHOULD be preparing like it's Y2K. They've gone out and bought canned goods and bottled water, and they're staying holed up.

Now, I'm certainly thankful those people aren't making sweeping decisions about forcibly obligating me to "take appropriate precautions" according to their standard of what is appropriate. I would imagine you are as well.

However, enacting this kind of legislation means Kasich is doing precisely that. He's taking his own (and perhaps that of those working with him) speculation as to what is an appropriate precaution and applying it to everyone by way of force.

I don't follow the need to split hairs about "will", for most certainly a treacherous government could use an enemy with a "will" for usurpation also.Oh, I agree. They most certainly could ... and potentially have. However, I don't think the distinction of a will is splitting hairs at all. It's the difference between finding a single solution and having to constantly update solutions.

First, let's define what we are in disagreement about..... I agree with you that travel bans are not justified at THIS point in time. What I dispute is your thinking that the government does not have the constitutional authority to impose such bans, and your chiding republicans supporting such bans as hypocrites.

Protection isn't protection

????Sorry, A=A
....Logical rules of equvalence aside, your right to personal protection does not invalidate the government's authority to provide national defense, and personal firearms don't protect very well against microbes. At worst, your interpretation that an enemy has to have a "will" is no more valid than the assertion that the government's duty to protect citizenry and provide for national defense extends to disease as well.

One will respond the same way to the same defense nearly every time, barring freak accidental mutations sufficient for immunity to that defense prior to eradication. It is predictable and based entirely in science. Government is not needed for something the general population can know just as much about. There's no special knowledge about a scientifically predictable virus.

Any microbiologist will attest to bacteria and virus constantly adapting to our "defensive" measures employed against them, and they are not sentient.

We know just as much about preventing infection from Ebola as governing bodies do, as well. The science behind the virus is no secret.

And ultimately, I don't think it matters, either. There's a difference between knowing how to handle it and having the responsibility of executing it. Whether or know "government knows best," that doesn't dictate that government needs to be the one to execute any solution.

I don't see any problem with a temporary travel ban if knowledgable authorites think it would be necessary....at least until every healthcare institution and provider is properly equipped and trained to handle to handle a disease with such a high mortality rate. I think it was painfully obvious last week that this is/was not the case. A travel ban until such time would be reasonable way to buy time IF IT WERE DEEMED NECESSARY. To this date the CDC has not recommended that, but if it did the government would certainly have the authority and the duty to act in such a way.

HitsRus;1665834 wrote:First, let's define what we are in disagreement about..... I agree with you that travel bans are not justified at THIS point in time. What I dispute is your thinking that the government does not have the constitutional authority to impose such bans, and your chiding republicans supporting such bans as hypocrites.

Inasmuch as this is indeed our disagreement, I'd be interested in hearing where the Constitution does provision the governmental bodies to protect us against just anything they can define as a "threat."

HitsRus;1665834 wrote:????Sorry, A=A
....Logical rules of equvalence aside, your right to personal protection does not invalidate the government's authority to provide national defense, and personal firearms don't protect very well against microbes. At worst, your interpretation that an enemy has to have a "will" is no more valid than the assertion that the government's duty to protect citizenry and provide for national defense extends to disease as well.

My apologies on the seeming violation of Aristotelian logic. I was meaning each instance in a different respect, and as the logical law of identity states, A can only be said to absolutely be A if we are comparing it (a) at the same time, and (b) in the same respect. The respects to which I was referring were different.

I'm curious where you note the hierarchy that defaults the government's attempt at defense as trumping my individual right to defend.

Personal firearms don't. But medicine and proper hygiene tend to go a long way against many of them, and I daresay that government restriction is not necessary for those things.

If protection against microbes is a viable reason for use of force by governing entities, it would seem they have something close to carte blanche in regulating even more minutia ... how often we shower and brush our teeth, how often we wash our hands, etc. I'm of course not saying they WOULD, as that would be ludicrous, but I don't think they should be able to, anyway.

IF the act of flying was an action that directly (not indirectly) contributes to spreading a disease (similarly to a person knowingly engaging in sexual contact with the knowledge that he or she has AIDS), then perhaps I would see your point. We'd be working with a sentient agent, of course.

However, legislating "just in case" tends to be fairly open-ended as far as what is in bounds as far as restriction goes.

HitsRus;1665834 wrote:Any microbiologist will attest to bacteria and virus constantly adapting to our "defensive" measures employed against them, and they are not sentient.

Adapting, yes. However, the adaptations are neither quick nor intentional. They are, in essence, freak accidental mutations or already-existing traits becoming more prevalent. Survival of the fittest does allow for extinction when adaptation doesn't happen quickly enough. As such, a sentient defense will virtually always have an ace in the hole if they've so much as caught up to a non-sentient microbe. You and I can adapt our prevention strategy at the drop of a hat. A non-sentient microbe has to (excuse the anthropomorphism) wait around for nature to do its thing with no guarantee that it will, or that it will be fast enough in doing so.

You and I do know that organisms can adapt. However, we're also aware that one organism isn't suddenly borne with an entirely new skill set or behavior. The adaptations happen over time and only by random chance, and their effectivenesses exist on a growing scale.

To be fair, a virus like ebola is able to adapt more quickly (like a lot of viruses, as I recall) because they technically replicate through a host's cells, which can introduce changes, thus allowing for a faster rate of evolution. However, even these changes require more time than a sentient being.

HitsRus;1665834 wrote: I don't see any problem with a temporary travel ban if knowledgable authorites think it would be necessary....at least until every healthcare institution and provider is properly equipped and trained to handle to handle a disease with such a high mortality rate. I think it was painfully obvious last week that this is/was not the case. A travel ban until such time would be reasonable way to buy time IF IT WERE DEEMED NECESSARY. To this date the CDC has not recommended that, but if it did the government would certainly have the authority and the duty to act in such a way.

But why are we assuming that those making these decisions are "knowledgeable authorities?" Or more appropriately, why are we assuming that those making these decisions are more knowledgeable than the citizenry?

I would also have to point out that the mortality rate numbers are largely influenced by the fact that the majority of cases come from areas with sub-standard sanitation, inferior medical resources, and close living quarters (often without the same kinds of surface space provided by sky rise apartments that inflate population density in large US cities).

As it stands, zero US citizens have died from the virus during this recent discovery of it. Moreover, the only person who did die from it did not contract it here. This has all been maintained while people have gone about their daily lives without such restriction. But again, we're now getting into whether or not it would even provide results at the moment, something which we've both agreed is unlikely.

Again, I'm curious where you find such authority and duty of the government to keep people from getting sick, particularly when they would also get to define the terms of what is necessary, hence the "carte blanche" statement above. What you're suggesting is that, at the end of the day, government gets to decide:
1. what "threat" means (and have the authority to augment the definition)
2. what is and isn't a threat
3. when they want to consider it "serious"
4. what they will force the population to do about it
5. how long the population will have to comply
6. how much they're going to spend on it (regardless of budget, seemingly)
7. what the penalty is for noncompliance

This seems awfully similar to the argument to indefinitely ban or significantly restrict civilian gun-ownership. Hell, or the argument to further fund social programs (if they determine "poverty" is a threat, and there might be a case to be made).

What is the above if not a precedent for an unbridled government?

I'm curious where you note the hierarchy that defaults the government's attempt at defense as trumping my individual right to defend.

It is you that have the hierarchy out of order. Your right to personal defense does not trump the government's duty to defend the nation.

But why are we assuming that those making these decisions are "knowledgeable authorities?" Or more appropriately, why are we assuming that those making these decisions are more knowledgeable than the citizenry?

I'm not buying your slippery slope argument that because the government might act to prevent a plague, that it justifies other actions. We have leaders that we elect, and they are accountable to the people for making decisions including threat assesments, whether it is ISIS or a microbe. Theoretically at least, they are privy to information that the common man does not have ready access to. So, in a sense, we trust our leaders to make decisions for us all the time, and they in turn are accountable for those decisions.

I would consider the epidemiologists at the CDC(a government agency) to be experts in their field, and hence trustworthy, knowledgeable authorities. If they were to recommend a travel ban, it would be a dereliction of duty if our leaders failed to act. Note that the converse is not necessarily true....that leaders acting beyond recommendation are not necessarily derelict...especially with a narrow scoped temporary ban to assure that all the ducks are in a row. Please note, that leaders who do this are accountable via the election process, so it is doubtful that the electorate would tolerate gross inconveniences that weren't absolutely necessary. Please note that this in no way affects your 'right to defend yourself.' You are perfectly free (and encouraged) to continue your hygiene and whatever other measures you want to employ for your personal safety.

Inasmuch as this is indeed our disagreement, I'd be interested in hearing where the Constitution does provision the governmental bodies to protect us against just anything they can define as a "threat."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/a-constitutional-basis-for-defense

The very purpose of government is distinctly spelled out both in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble of the Constitution, and from that all else is derived.

2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.

the Preamble of the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Further the Constitution gives certain powers to the government to achieve the above in article 1 section 8....enumerating several powers to "provide for the common defense" in response to the common threat of the day. There is nothing to suggest that these enumerated powers are exclusive and there is no obvious attempt to make these soley the only powers used to provide for the common defense. The notion of the primary purpose of government securing our rights and providing for the defense of those rights and of the nation is implied at the highest level.


Please do not attempt to argue that the protection of the nation against disease is not specifically enumerated. There is no way that 18th century men could envision or conceive of a government having the capability to act in defense against disease....but the idea of common defense and general welfare is clear. Indeed, since such capability has existed, disease, pandemics and most recently, bioterrorism is considered a matter of national security going back several administrations.

After a flurry of activity last week spurred by a Dallas nurse testing positive and travelling home to Akron, Ohio has 164 people under quarantine. The Dept. of Health says all Ohio hospitals have completed training and ebola preparedness drills.

http://www.the-daily-record.com/latest%20headlines/2014/10/24/ohio-says-all-hospitals-conducted-ebola-drills