Safety Theater

[Revoltingest]

There's two parts to my answer. One is sadly human nature. It's a sledgehammer to be sure, but I would contend that given what people do otherwise, it's necessary

Sweden is a country where there's universal medical care, where politics is not allowed in medical judgement and where the people listen to medical judgement voluntarily. So they're not comparable to what we have here.

Now if we had all three in this country, I'd be willing to listen. Are you willing to advocate for universal health care?

Sigh....no one ever reads my posts.
(That's understandable...but still lamentable.)
I regularly advocate for a single payer system which doesn't prohibit private options.

China could do that because it's a police state. It's a simple idea but what kind of police state would be necessary to truly enforce that. I find that less appealing as an option.

1) Does this mean that government has found the best
balance of restrictions?
2) Do you believe that delivering mulch by dump trucks is too
dangerous to be allowed?
3) What would you say to someone out of money, with a job
which is prohibited, but could be practiced safely?
4) If the person in #3 violates the restriction, but does so
safely, should they be shut down & prosecuted?
5) How should they survive without money?

 

[Revoltingest]

And replace it with what?

With what I proposed, ie, requiring safe behavior.

Every idiot who has no grasp on the concept of contagious illness can do anything they want, regardless of the consequences? What are you actually proposing, other than anarchy?

We have idiots in government with no grasp of which businesses
can operate safely. Thus, it becomes necessary for the individual
to decide when the dictates should be flouted.
This is always the case when we face bad law. And it is always
a conflict between what an individual believes is right, & what
government wants to enforce, eg, military draft, banning
homosexuality, banning blasphemy, racial segregation.

We can minimize illegal reactions to bad law by improving the law.
This is better than blindly following the letter of the law because
of trust that leaders know better.
Think of my approach as coordinated & regulated anarchy.
(It's called minarchy.)

And once we have a better grasp of what's most risky behavior, and legislative bodies have a chance to craft more nuanced responses, and legislative bodies get over the pandering that's going on right now(Texas is one example), then that might happen.

But that isn't going to happen immediately in the fractious and self indulgent culture of the USA. Capitalist and partisan values generally Trump human welfare. That's not news.


Feel free to send a letter or email to the White House or something. Like they're gonna care
Maybe if self indulgent Constitutional Literalists keep the epidemic going long enough? How much suffering is easy availability of mulch worth?
Tom

FYI, I'm not a constitutional literalist (usually referred to "strict construction").
I'm avoiding addressing constitutional law in this thread, lest it derail from
the theme of optimizing public safety & economic health.

 

[columbus]

With what I proposed, ie, requiring safe behavior.

Oh, c'mon.

Define "requiring". Define "safe".
Heck, define "proposed".

I'll agree that, under most circumstances, delivering mulch doesn't carry much risk. Will you agree that if everyone was excruciatingly careful and informed and cognizant of what is risky and what is less risky and what is reducing risks, we wouldn't need any laws at all?
But since people aren't that excellent, the blunt instrument of the law is the best we've got, at this time? And your mulch needs aren't very important in the grand scheme of things?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, c'mon.

Define "requiring". Define "safe".
Heck, define "proposed".

I've already listed safe practices.
I won't be defining "proposed" for you.
Come on, man....read the thread,
& use a dictionary for common word definition.

I'll agree that, under most circumstances, delivering mulch doesn't carry much risk. Will you agree that if everyone was excruciatingly careful and informed and cognizant of what is risky and what is less risky and what is reducing risks, we wouldn't need any laws at all?

That's not a realistic question.
Let's deal with the real world, about which I presume
dumb people both in government & in society.

But since people aren't that excellent, the blunt instrument of the law is the best we've got, at this time? And your mulch needs aren't very important in the grand scheme of things?
Tom

This has been covered before by other posters to whom I've responded.
Read the thread.

 

[icehorse]

With what I proposed, ie, requiring safe behavior.

I am quite concerned that totalitarians all over the world are going to use this as an excuse to further totalitarian agendas. Quite concerned.

So again, I'm with you @Revoltingest in spirit. In this case the devil is in the details. Perhaps people caught congregating should face the same penalties as drunk drivers? just brain storming here..

 

[Revoltingest]

I am quite concerned that totalitarians all over the world are going to use this as an excuse to further totalitarian agendas. Quite concerned.

So again, I'm with you @Revoltingest in spirit. In this case the devil is in the details. Perhaps people caught congregating should face the same penalties as drunk drivers? just brain storming here..

Some of what goes on appears to be politically driven.
Here, asphalt & concrete contractors & suppliers are
permitted to do only work for government.

People can exercise, provided the groups are small,
& people maintain social distance.
But is exercise really more "essential" than making
a living when the same precautions are taken?
Those who cannot earn anymore, are out of money,
& facing destitution might say that work is every bit
as important as exercise.

It strikes me that the pandemic feels immediate, but
economic collapse does not. So all the attention is
paid to the former. But when the latter looms large,
only then will the error be realized.


I'd still treat drunk drivers far more harshly. But note
that jailing people is troubling, given that jails & prisons
are becoming hotbeds of infection.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

People can exercise, provided the groups are small,
& people maintain social distance.
But is exercise really more "essential" than making
a living when the same precautions are taken?
Those who cannot earn anymore, are out of money,
& facing destitution might say that work is every bit
as important as exercise.
.

Good argument.

 

[Regiomontanus]

In the news.....
Resistance Building To Coronavirus 'House Arrest' Orders...It's About Time!
Excerpted....
Across the country, from political leaders, to small business owners, to
parents who just want to take their children to the park, resistance is
growing to the authoritarians who have effectively suspended the
Constitution and placed most of the country under house arrest.
Lawsuits are also challenging unlawful "stay at home" orders.
What if all the hysteria-driven orders have actually made the virus
outbreak even worse? More scientists are coming forward to argue
for the "Sweden model" of moderation rather than lockdown.
:

I agree that we must take precautions to prevent the virus's spread.
But government is a very blunt an instrument, & is treating the issue
simplistically at the moment. Some businesses, while non-essential,
can operate with very low risk. And for contractors, there's no
program yet giving them money to weather the loss of business.

One local business was caught delivering mulch. Cops shut them
down as non-essential. But the nature of the business is such that
there's massive social distance. Mulch is loaded in dump trucks by
wheeled loaders. Dump trucks drop the load without drivers ever
leaving the vehicle. Human contact doesn't happen. Close proximity
doesn't happen.

Some self storage facilities are even deny tenants access to their
already rented units. I won't go that far We've closed the office,
but still allow tenants access to their units. There's virtually no
interaction between them, & they only touch their own units & locks.
There's very little activity anyway...perhaps 1 person a day.

Virus or not, spring is here and the landscaping companies are in town (I live in the woods lol) cutting grass, pruning bushes...in other words ignoring our Governor's order. Law enforcement is looking the other way. In this case, I see no harm.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Sigh....no one ever reads my posts.
(That's understandable...but still lamentable.)
I regularly advocate for a single payer system which doesn't prohibit private options.

1) Does this mean that government has found the best
balance of restrictions?
2) Do you believe that delivering mulch by dump trucks is too
dangerous to be allowed?
3) What would you say to someone out of money, with a job
which is prohibited, but could be practiced safely?
4) If the person in #3 violates the restriction, but does so
safely, should they be shut down & prosecuted?
5) How should they survive without money?

On 5), why not do what some other countries are doing - paying everyone their normal salaries?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Virus or not, spring is here and the landscaping companies are in town (I live in the woods lol) cutting grass, pruning hushes...in other words ignoring our Governor's order. Law enforcement is looking the other way. In this case, I see no harm.

On the opposite end, a friend of mine got stopped and warned by the cops for picking up a vacuum (curbside) at a Kohl's here in Maine. She was perfectly within the mandates of picking up supplies for household cleanliness the governor put out.

 

[Revoltingest]

On 4), why not do what some other countries are doing - paying everyone their normal salaries?

Government is planning to issue money to some, but not all.
And none of it has arrived yet. Meanwhile bills must be paid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is an excellent example of a group who should
be visited by authorities. Since these people welcome
infection & death, there's a high probability they won't
practice "safe worship". Heavy sanctions for unsafe
behavior are appropriate for violators.
Pastor who said his congregation would 'rather die than miss church' to hold Easter service with 1,000 people
Excerpted...
He added: "True Christians do not mind dying, they fear living in fear.
People that can prefer tyranny over freedom do not deserve freedom."

Spell claims if Christians who attended church during the coronavirus
outbreak were to die, they would die "like free people fighting for their convictions."

If the church didn't hold in-person services and instead used a
communication platform like Zoom, the pastor said: "It does not work."

"If it worked then why would America spends billions and billions of dollars on churches."

Last week, when Spell was asked by CBS why he broke
the governor's orders, he said: "Because the Lord told us to."

A spokesperson for Spell said they’re planning to sue Edwards for a
violation of the First Amendment and noted 16 states have religious
exemptions to stay-at-home orders.

“We believe the governor is wrong,” Long told Reuters.
“And we look forward to proving our case in court.”

Police believe Spell is defying the statewide law as a publicity stunt.

He said Spell told him he’d obey the law — but then didn’t.

Chief Roger Corcoran, of the Central Police Department, told TMZ
that Spell can’t use a violation of the First Amendment as an excuse
to hold services because it’s a health issue.

Corcoran said police don’t plan to interfere with Spell’s service this
Sunday, and are instead planning to document it and provide
evidence of it to the district attorney’s office.

The police chief claims Spell told him he’d obey the law, but then didn’t.

On Facebook, police wrote: “Instead of showing the strength and
resilience of our community during this difficult time, Mr. Spell has
chosen to embarrass us for his own self-promotion.”

“Mr. Spell will have his day in court where he will be held responsible
for his reckless and irresponsible decisions that endangered the
health of his congregation and our community.”

Police added that “this is not an issue over religious liberty, and it’s not about politics.”

 

[sun rise]

Sigh....no one ever reads my posts.
(That's understandable...but still lamentable.)
I regularly advocate for a single payer system which doesn't prohibit private options.

What? My memory is not perfect? Oh horrors. I guess I'm just one of the very tiny minority who has a less than perfect memory. And of course, I should always remember that you are a "libertarian" not a "Libertarian".

1) Does this mean that government has found the best
balance of restrictions?
2) Do you believe that delivering mulch by dump trucks is too
dangerous to be allowed?
3) What would you say to someone out of money, with a job
which is prohibited, but could be practiced safely?
4) If the person in #3 violates the restriction, but does so
safely, should they be shut down & prosecuted?
5) How should they survive without money?

1) Since it varies by locality, how should I know for any given location.

2) Whataboutism is the disease here. If dump trucks can deliver mulch, what about religious services, gun shops, gardeners and a whole host of others?

3) Theoretically no. But practically given people's natures, sorry, but I vote in favor of the relatively low level of people's natures currently.

4) If we don't prosecute all law violators, then we should not prosecute those here illegally and the innocent children as well. (Whataboutism from the other direction)

5) I would say "here's how we're going to help you survive" (individually, collectively and governmentally)

 

[sun rise]

Government is planning to issue money to some, but not all.
And none of it has arrived yet. Meanwhile bills must be paid.

From what I read, the first 50 million 1200 support should be arriving starting today.

 

[sun rise]

We have idiots in government with no grasp of which businesses
can operate safely. Thus, it becomes necessary for the individual
to decide when the dictates should be flouted.

If they broke the law, lock them up. Otherwise it's just opening the floodgates to everyone to ignore lawful orders. This is not the time nor the place for that. But if people feel so strongly, let them go to jail singing.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? My memory is not perfect? Oh horrors. I guess I'm just one of the very tiny minority who has a less than perfect memory. And of course, I should always remember that you are a "libertarian" not a "Libertarian".

Argchchgch!

1) Since it varies by locality, how should I know for any given location.

Ahah!
This means that you allow for the possibility that things could be better.
Detente enuf for me.

2) Whataboutism is the disease here. If dump trucks can deliver mulch, what about religious services, gun shops, gardeners and a whole host of others?

There will be a wide spectrum. Between the extremes, government could
settle on a point, which could reasonably shift one way or the other.
One might say that material deliveries with no personal contact would be safe.
You could argue that it shouldn't be extended to be any more permissive than
that, eg, gun stores, which do have close proximity indoors.
But the question about delivering mulch remains.

3) Theoretically no. But practically given people's natures, sorry, but I vote in favor of the relatively low level of people's natures currently.

It's becoming more real than theory as weeks go by.
But the question...you know....remains.

4) If we don't prosecute all law violators, then we should not prosecute those here illegally and the innocent children as well. (Whataboutism from the other direction)

But the....you know.

5) I would say "here's how we're going to help you survive" (individually, collectively and governmentally)

Does this mean you'd tell them to not work?

 

[Revoltingest]

From what I read, the first 50 million 1200 support should be arriving starting today.

We should all be aware that the $1200 is means tested.
If one had a thriving business in 2019, but is in the red in 2020,
one won't get that $1200. There might be loans available, but
I know many who've applied, & no one has even found out if
they're approved, let alone received any money.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they broke the law, lock them up.

And put them in the disease ridden prisons?
You know...the ones rioting over rampant infections & death
because they're in close confines without protection & good
health care.
I argue that if one commits the victimless crime of working for
a living, & doing so safely, that prison is more dangerous &
economically damaging.

You law & order types....willing to wreck people's lives in the
name of obeying The Man. You didn't beat up hippies back
in the 60s, did you? Or just bite them?

Otherwise it's just opening the floodgates to everyone to ignore lawful orders. This is not the time nor the place for that. But if people feel so strongly, let them go to jail singing.

People are already massively ignoring the restrictions.
When there is so much rampant violation, this points towards
making more activity legal, but regulating what is most critical.
That's better than filling up government coffers with fines, &
prisons with the working class.
Mind you....they prolly can't pay the fines anyway.

 

[Quagmire]

I would guess that if the lockdowns go on long enough, we'll see more businesses being approved for operation, partly because it'll become necessary, partly because it's easier and safer to start with a massive lockdown and assess and approve individual services on a case to case bases than it would be to stall the implementation of a lockdown until they could run a risk assessment on every business and service to decide who should and shouldn't remain in operation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would guess that if the lockdowns go on long enough, we'll see more businesses being approved for operation, partly because it'll become necessary, partly because it's easier and safer to start with a massive lockdown and assess and approve individual services on a case to case bases than it would be to stall the implementation of a lockdown until they could run a risk assessment on every business and service to decide who should and shouldn't remain in operation.

Those resistant to lightening the shut downs should consider
that the longer they go on, the more we'll see....
- Personal bankruptcies
- Business failures
- Deficit spending for relief
- Greater difficulty getting the economy going again.

The repercussions we'll see after the pandemic passes....
- Higher taxes to cover the increased debt service.
- Slower recovery to normal the longer restrictions last.
- Decreased ability to implement desired government programs,
eg, education, health care.
- Possible reductions in Social Security & Medicare benefits.

There is indeed a risk of more deaths & more overloading of the
health care system if things become less restricted. But there are
also risks associated with a partial economic collapse, eg, lost
homes, lost businesses, lost savings.