On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:02 PM Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mark:
I think we’re in broad agreement on this.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Mark
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is the judge slipping?
Thanks Walter, not disappointed at all, enjoy the debate. A couple things:
First: If you click on the link I included in the prior email that is when he said it. See the link, here again copied, which includes a video interview of him I am referencing:
Next: I obviously support the government quarantining typhoid Mary. I think that sort of makes my point for me in this case, though. Maybe I did not communicate my concern well enough:
In this case, there has now been so much data and research that seems to point to Covid 19 being no more than a flu.
The flu can be deadly to some people, (as can the common cold, if they are immuno-compromised, etc). There are stats that show some people contract the flue and pass away, sadly.
So my point is, what is the benchmark here and who sets it? the Judge stated “if someone is known to be contagious…” obviously, in that statement he made, he mean’t contagious with Covid, so maybe that is actually a good point (coming in line with my point): I have not seen anything conclusive about how to determine if someone is contagious. First they “suggested” asymptomatic carriers could pass it on, but since then that claim has been undermined. Same thing with younger individuals.
All in a free society can agree that if I am coughing and wheezing and runny nose I should not be out and about mingling with the public. And I would not be, as you wouldn’t either. Common sense.
What I am getting at here, and I think you and others of like mind can see the concern, is that they are wanting to mandate quarantining, masks, whatever, for everyone “just in case you have covid and don’t know it”. I suppose the Judge’s point protects in that case, because he would not agree that a mandate such as that were constitutionally sound, because the burden of proof is on the government to prove they have a “typhoid Mary” on their hands, I am sure you get what I mean.
If you follow what’s been going on with covid, studies now are showing that as many as 80 times more people actually had covid (but were fine) in the testing they were doing in March – April.
See here:
That means the fatality rate is much much lower (again, think of what happens year in – year out with the flue, some percentage do die, but there is noone talking about government mandated quarantines).
So do you agree, Dr. B, that the burden of proof that someone is contagious is on the government, and the person in question they are trying to quarantine is allowed due process as per the 5th and 14th Amendments?
I would love it if you would also forward this to Judge Napolitano as well. I would love to meet you and he at a coffee shop someday and have this talk in person (outside and 6 feet apart lol), I’ll pay for the coffee, and muffins!!
You guys both mean a ton to me. Having a libertarian streak in me can be a lonely undertaking lol, you both know that better than I.
Thank you again –
Mark
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:14 PM Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mark:
I am sorry to disappoint you, but, I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano, and enthusiastically so.
You attribute this to him: “the states can force someone to wear a mask IF they are known to be contagious” (my emphasis).
Now, obviously, the common cold is contagious, but it is not serious; no quarantine justified there. Either the Judge stated this in the … material, or, he thought it so obvious that it need not even be mentioned.
What’s your view on Typhoid Mary? Typhoid is both very serious, and contagious. Surely, the government was justified in compelling her to isolate. Well, IF covid is that serious, it was certainly widely thought to be in March of this year (you don’t say when the Judge made this statement), in my view the govt would be justified in quarantining people.
I am BCCing the Judge on this. He’ll respond if he wishes to do so.
On another unrelated matter, see below.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 8:06 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>; walter block <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Is the judge slipping?
Hi Walter, I hope you are staying sane these days. See below, maybe you can help. I sent the below to Lew, but mailbox is full:
Would love to reach Judge Nap directly and get him to further elaborate.
Would love to see your responses to this posted as well:
– mwd
From: Mark
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:04 AM
Subject: Is the judge slipping?
To: Lew Rockwell
Hi Lew; I’m hoping someone among your crowd of luminaries can talk to the judge for me. I have no way to reach him. Below is a link to an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano on “America’s Newsroom” hosted by Fox News’ Melissa Francis. Ms. Francis starts by showing the clip of Nancy Pelosi saying a federal face mask mandate is long overdue. She then questions our favorite judge regarding whether the government has the authority to do this.
Napolitano starts with stating the Federal Government has no authority to issue laws regarding public health / safety, because of the 10th amendment language reserving all matters not enumerated in the Constitution to the States, or to the People.
Then, Napolitano says that the states can force someone to wear a mask “if they are known to be contagious”, …. But this would (paraphrased) require the state legislature to first pass a law… because a governor does not have the authority to make laws.
Where does he come up with the legal underpinnings that if someone is “known to be contagious” the state can (assuming that legislature passes a law) mandate the mask or maybe even quarantine that person?
The 5th Amendment restricts the Fed Gov, stating that no one can be deprived of their liberty without due process of law, which to me means liberty to freely move about and conduct their life, whether that be going to the library, going to the grocery store, going for a walk, working your job, or conducting the operations of one’s business, and on down the line. The 14th Amendment further states that same language, restricting State governments.
Supposing he is right and I don’t understand my laws, I am guessing that the burden of proof is on the government to prove this person that they want to mandate mask-wearing is contagious. But again, contagious with what? If this is the case, the government could then mandate someone for having the flu “because they are contagious” as Napolitano claims:
“if a person is known to be contagious, the state could require that person to be quarantined or wear a mask”.
The coronavirus and the flu, and even the common cold, (among many other things for which one can be contagious) has been known to lead to death in certain individuals.
Napolitano mentions that Fed/State Gov’s can mandate mask-wearing on their property (like at the Post Office, or in a Federal Court Building etc). The host Ms. Francis then brings up the obvious point, that if this is in fact true, then a City Council could just pass a law saying “no one can walk on our sidewalks or streets without a mask”. When questioned, the city council could state they reviewed medical guidance by the CDC and determined it was required because “the coronavirus is dangerous, has shown to be contagious leading to death” etc…
My point here is I think that Napolitano is going down a very, very slippery slope. I was a bit shocked, and very disappointed to hear him say that.
If what he is saying is true, then it seems libertarians have nothing left to argue about. We are cooked.
All responses welcome, and you have my permission to post this on your site if you find it useful (please do not share my email address on your site).
Thank you,
Mark
4:23 am on November 23, 2020
