I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

Being dead violates our right to life.

What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.

Exaggerated maybe but not ridiculous.

A persons right to pursue happiness does not trump other people's rights to do the same.

Willing spreading an infectious virus is not an act of nature.

Your wording of "willingly spread" is also exaggerated, and I fail to see how you equate that to a person taking the generally accepted measures to prevent the spread while in public.

Event still, this isn't HIV we're talking about here, and it will presumably be seasonal going forward. Most people who even contract this will walk away perfectly fine.

There are currently 36 million jobless claims from the shutdowns. How long be before streets everywhere become inundated with freshly homeless people? How long until people riot? When does the shutdown outweigh people's livelihood and freedom?

That's the point isn't it? Until individuals take the necessary precautions and businesses provide their employees with safe working conditions the only reasonable course of action is to limit social interaction.

The shutdown isn't a solution, it's a way to buy time and prevent things from getting worse while we adapt and find solutions.

If you want to shift the debate from whether the shutdown has merit to how long it should last then it's a matter of judging the progress being made.

As for the nature of the virus, it's certainly not as deadly as HIV but it's a lot more infectious. Most people would be fine but if half the population is infected the resulting death toll will be enormous. I wouldn't presume it will be season either, from what I can tell the consensus is that we will be dealing with this until vaccination is widespread.

> You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.

You can enforce it on how a government responds to natural events, however.

That doesn't make sense. When we enforce the Constitution on the government we are demanding they recognize our rights and the structure we prescribe. "enforce it on how a government responds to natural events" doesn't change that. You're trying to pretend there's some kind of loophole where there isn't.

Liberty (as well as life and property) can be denied by a State under the Constitution if it is not done without due process (see the 14th Amendment); pursuit of happiness isn't a Constitutional right at all.

Do I have the right to not be killed by people who are illegally disregarding stay-at-home orders? Doesn't someone killing me violate my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.

You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.

Would you consider it a fair compromise to require anyone within 10ft of anyone else to wear a mask?

If your answer is no, please make the same argument but replace the word 'mask' with 'pants'.

So it's okay in your opinion to curtail some constitutional rights when it makes sense to you, but not others? That's a pretty inconsistent position.

The argument being made for warheads is the same as that for staying inside: not doing so would pose an outsize danger to others. Whether I agree or disagree isn't the point personally, I'm arguing that the curtailments follow from the same basic premise and are likely legal. We'll see how it plays out.