Thread by @thetrollbar

Continuing the discussion of the last few tweet storms, it is clear that first principles need to be addressed:

1. what are the powers of legitimate, non-tyrannical government with regards to public health measure
2. how are such decisions rationally made in cost - benefits ...

https://twitter.com/thetrollbar/status/1431990717149184009

3. is the present government of the states or FedGov legitimate? Is it tyrannising in any way?
4. for a legitimate or non-legitimate government, what if any limit is their over its power to interfere with domestic affairs politically or economically?
5. legit ways of dissent?

Specifically, which of these are allowed morally and politically, and which if any are effective:
- non-collaboration and non-resistance
- non-collaboration with resistance
- 'protesting' individually or verbally
- mass line of protesting
- armed resistance ('rebellion')

I will simply point out as regards the above that Classical Liberalism and Passive Obedience Theory (classical Toryism or #NRx) give different answers.

Also, that both answer address the illegimate, usurper, tyrant case, but in different ways.

Finally, there is an important edge case:

6. what if the government is legitimate and not tyrannising (for the sake of argument), but the proposed action compelled is in fact false, wrong, or insane?

[ Passive Obedience gives a definite answer to this question by the way ]

In other words, what happens if legitimate 'unitary executive' moment of decision powers (Schmitt, Bush, etc) bump up against the _Salus Populi_

This amounts to asking, is MUTINY justified (Schmitt gave the answer relative to _Benito Cereno_)

This was a real question during the Cold War, with regard to complying with orders to initiate a Nuclear Strike -- those old enough to remember Phil Ochs "Is treason worth a try?"

Patrick Henry gave the Classical Liberal answer.

@threadreaderapp unroll