I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you.
I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining.
However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call.
Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends.
The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying.
Regarding psychatric care it was at least discussed in april but then discarded due to harsh critique [1].
In general I agree with you and would not take an extreme position to deny the goverment everything in a crisis situation.
But on the other hand there are people (medical experts?) arguing that in the coming years or decades there will be many new viral deseases to encounter. So espacially with all this worldwide awareness and fear I find it easy to imagine that there will be an increased afford to detect virsus leading to maybe one new virus in focus every few years keeping the whole system in an alarmed state (including all the "special" [reading the permanent] laws) active for the whole time. Generations growing up from now on may not even know the times before. Same as with the "terror" theme now. Every few month there are reports about terrorist attacks and the whole thing becomes a meme and is used to justify anything.
I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining.
However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call.
Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends.
The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying.
Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?