FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[SagatagSam]

It's not about having to wear masks. It's about being told I can't accept the risk of going here or going there if I so choose.

The IL Governor issued orders for Kane and DuPage counties last week (more announced for this weekend)- restaurants and bars could not serve customers indoors (curbside pick up and delivery are allowed). The people dying in Kane and DuPage counties aren't the same people going to the restaurants and bars. Just as with political rallies and BLM protests, nobody is being forced to go out. As jknezek said, those that don't want the risk can certainly isolate themselves.

Of course the deaths are sad and I hate feeling I need to even say that. We don't know how many people have died with/from COVID that willingly put themselves in a situation where they could contract COVID. I have no idea on the number, but I have no doubt there is some number of people, knowing they had serious comorbidities associated w higher chances of death, that elected to go here or go there because that's how they choose to live their lives. 


   

I don't  know how to say this, but you get told that all the time. Bars have to close at a certain time, lots of states have blue laws still about when and where you can buy alcohol or what time stores can open on Sundays. There are age restrictions on alcohol and cigarrettes and marijuana.  You can't drive without a license or car insurance. There are occupancy limits on EVERY commercial building all the time.

These freedoms that have been taken away? You NEVER had them. You have ALWAYS been limited. They have just tightened the limits lately for the common good. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

As someone who views rights/freedoms through a Natural Law Theory lens, I reject this notion that we have never had certain freedoms as it is wrong on a couple of fronts:

1) Natural Law Theory suggests that our rights come from our creator (or our humanity for you humanists out there) not the government. The government does not grant rights. We, by virtue of our humanity, begin with all of the rights and grant a few to government, not the other way around. Under a best-case scenario, government (through its legislatures) discerns those natural rights and codifies them. At its worst, government squarely contradicts and crushes the people's natural rights. It doesn't take an exhaustive search of history to find examples of the latter.

2) Its incorrect to say even from a 20th century historical perspective that we have never had certain freedoms. For example, occupancy laws were not largely adopted until the early to mid 1900s. Prior to that you actually did have the freedom to pack as many people into a room as you wanted--whether it be a residential space or commercial establishment. The first asbestos lawsuits originated in the 1920s and 1930s, long before the substance was banned in the 1970s. There are a plethora of examples where there were no proscriptive rules imposed upon the people, but rather the law of nuisance and negligence governed.

None of this is to say that packing 1,000 people into a tiny garage or wearing or not wearing a mask is smart, but I tend to bristle when I hear people make arguments that state, more or less, "the government has always imposed upon you, so take on this new small burden and shut up."

[jknezek]

If those rights were granted to the government before you were born, then YOU never had them. Maybe your grandparents did, but you didn't. I've never lived in a time when no shoes, no shirt, no service wasn't a rule. Or when someone could overpack a bar. So I will still laugh when people think these are their rights being taken away instead of long standing rules and laws being tweaked.

[GoldandBlueBU]

Can we not?

[SagatagSam]

If those rights were granted to the government before you were born, then YOU never had them. Maybe your grandparents did, but you didn't. I've never lived in a time when no shoes, no shirt, no service wasn't a rule. Or when someone could overpack a bar. So I will still laugh when people think these are their rights being taken away instead of long standing rules and laws being tweaked.

That's a misunderstanding of Natural Law Theory ("NLT"). If rights are derived from one's humanity, as NLT argues, a previous generation may not grant the current generation's rights to the government. In the same way, I can't sell your house to OzJohnnie for the benefit of housing the homeless because it's not my house to sell. I have no claim of right in your house to have authority to sell it no matter what kind of common good that is serving. That would be theft if I tried to do that. You and you alone have that right.

Now, I can acknowledge that we live in nearly an entirely Positivist legal society--Positivism defines the law as whatever the "law giver" (i.e., the government) says the law is, so long as said "law giver" followed its own rules in legislating the law. If the "law giver" says the earth is flat, the law of the land is that the earth is flat. But, we can all see in this example the error in Positivism, namely it may legislate things that are untrue and run afoul of the Natural Law.

Now, back to the matter at hand, if the government tells you, "thou shalt wear a mask," the government is depriving you of a previously held right--that being to wear a mask nor not wear a mask. That is a decision a person in a mandatory mask community no longer has the freedom to make. The "law giver" has now made the decision for you.

[SagatagSam]

Can we not?

Sorry, not much else to talk about. Unless we want to go through the Gophers being crushed by Michigan, or Wisconsin's QB testing positive for COVID--but there again we manage to find an inevitable U-turn back into talking about COVID.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If those rights were granted to the government before you were born, then YOU never had them. Maybe your grandparents did, but you didn't. I've never lived in a time when no shoes, no shirt, no service wasn't a rule. Or when someone could overpack a bar. So I will still laugh when people think these are their rights being taken away instead of long standing rules and laws being tweaked.

That's a misunderstanding of Natural Law Theory ("NLT"). If rights are derived from one's humanity, as NLT argues, a previous generation may not grant the current generation's rights to the government. In the same way, I can't sell your house to OzJohnnie for the benefit of housing the homeless because it's not my house to sell. I have no claim of right in your house to have authority to sell it no matter what kind of common good that is serving. That would be theft if I tried to do that. You and you alone have that right.

Now, I can acknowledge that we live in nearly an entirely Positivist legal society--Positivism defines the law as whatever the "law giver" (i.e., the government) says the law is, so long as said "law giver" followed its own rules in legislating the law. If the "law giver" says the earth is flat, the law of the land is that the earth is flat. But, we can all see in this example the error in Positivism, namely it may legislate things that are untrue and run afoul of the Natural Law.

Now, back to the matter at hand, if the government tells you, "thou shalt wear a mask," the government is depriving you of a previously held right--that being to wear a mask nor not wear a mask. That is a decision a person in a mandatory mask community no longer has the freedom to make. The "law giver" has now made the decision for you.

One HUGE flaw in your reasoning: masks primarily protect OTHER people from your emisisions, in case you are unknowingly infectious (only secondarily do they protect the mask wearer).  So a mask-wearing mandate is like a law prohibiting drunk driving.  If you are contending that Natural Law Theory says you have an inborn right to endanger other people, then I say either you are misunderstanding the theory, or "F**K NLT"!

[BDB]

Only a handful of trick and treaters tonight. Way less than normal,  and my neighbors don't look like they are open for business too much.
Well, we are. Ghosts and goblins coming here are met by my wife wearing a witches hat and face covering and receive Kit Kats, Baby Ruth's and Reese's. 
Glad there are still parents with the nads to take their kids out for some fun.
Happy Halloween to the MIACPP!

[jamtod]

I am quite content with my nads but we mixed it up this year and had family come and all the kids ran back and forth between front and back doors until they were worn out. Then after some sorting and sampling they went downstairs and watched a movie while the adults (and 2 of my BILs 4 mo triplets, #3 still in hospital) hung out and had pulled pork. Kids said it was best Halloween yet and I'm tempted to do something similar with friends next year. I've never been excited about going out trick or treating but this was great

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mrs. Y (age 66) and I (age 72) spent much of the day at #1 son's house with the 4 grandkids.  We're willing to risk our lives to see our grandkids, but not random trick-or-treaters!   (We did make an exception for our next-door 3-year-old who got treated by special appointment. )

Otherwise, we just doused our halloween decorations and turned off the porch lights, and everyone seems to have honored the idea that we were not participating this year.  Halloween has always been one of our favorite holidays, but sometimes self-preservation has to take precedence.

[jknezek]

We had a great time trick or treating last night. I was pleasantly surprised by the ways people found to make it work. Lots of people simply set up tables outside, others just left buckets of candy they refilled when no one was around, others got more creative. We had several houses with PVC candy slides down front steps, one house did a huge pvc slide from their second story window with all kinds of twists and turns! A few older residents used long grabbers to deposit candy in buckets, including one with the grabber on an actuator built in to her robot costume. Of course most people wore masks and just handed out candy with gloves on, but it really seemed like adults found ways to give kids as normal a Halloween as possible. It was a really nice thing to see considering I honestly believe the kids have sacrificed the most "normality" during this virus and they are, by far, the least at risk. I was really happy to see adults finding ways to give back.

[SagatagSam]

[...] "F**K NLT"!

You must be a real hit at parties.

[GoldandBlueBU]

We had a great time trick or treating last night. I was pleasantly surprised by the ways people found to make it work. Lots of people simply set up tables outside, others just left buckets of candy they refilled when no one was around, others got more creative. We had several houses with PVC candy slides down front steps, one house did a huge pvc slide from their second story window with all kinds of twists and turns! A few older residents used long grabbers to deposit candy in buckets, including one with the grabber on an actuator built in to her robot costume. Of course most people wore masks and just handed out candy with gloves on, but it really seemed like adults found ways to give kids as normal a Halloween as possible. It was a really nice thing to see considering I honestly believe the kids have sacrificed the most "normality" during this virus and they are, by far, the least at risk. I was really happy to see adults finding ways to give back.

Indeed!  Our neighborhood largely reflected what you've said above.

I have a couple of kids in prime age for enjoying trick or treating, so I was bummed at the prospect of them missing it, in a time when we've already had countless other covid related event casualties.

[Texas Ole]

I saw less than 10 people out trick or treating in my neighborhood.  My neighborhood is no longer probably viewed as a high end neighborhood for trick or treating.  Most residents are older without kids.  We also have a ton of diverse families in the nearby apartment communities where I don't think Halloween is understood from a cultural standpoint.  There were a lot of refugee kids from the Middle East playing at the local park on Saturday night.  One neighbor had a huge haunted house.  It was quiet which was nice, and it was hard to beat the football on Saturday.

Also Happy Reformation Day!

[Texas Ole]

Going back to sports I am starting to think that a few schools and maybe the MIAC in general will not play sports this spring.  Does that help or hurt any school in particular?  What does it do to the conference as a whole since several schools are set on no graduate school athletes?

[OzJohnnie]

Going back to sports I am starting to think that a few schools and maybe the MIAC in general will not play sports this spring.  Does that help or hurt any school in particular?  What does it do to the conference as a whole since several schools are set on no graduate school athletes?

That would suck.  Power5 schools will be picking up a lot of D3 transfers (students in general, not specifically athletes), I reckon.  At least they are making an effort at selling an atmosphere and experience still.  Not just online learning locked in a cinder block cell.  It will take a few years for fallout to work it's way through the system, but there's going to be a real issue with $60k/yr price tags for an experience that can be delivered on a laptop anywhere in the world on the student's schedule, not the teacher's.

I think the endpoint for schools is obvious and inevitable.  The question is which ones get there kicking and screaming and which ones get there under their own initiative.  There will be the opportunity for some dynamic, counter-cultural risk taking in terms of business change.  I hope the MIAC schools are on the pointy end of a successful wedge.