Do you believe that government has the right to force businesses to close?
Displaying poll results.10285 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 8035 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Yes, if it is for the common good... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but at the same time, they have a duty to at least partially reimburse the business for losses incurred due to its closure
Re: (Score:3)
Business owners get the chance to make the big bucks because they take the risk of not knowing how the future is going to work out for their business;
Well, the government shutting down everything due to public health emergency is definitely on the bad end of the spectrum, but it is still just one of the many risks that business owners get to face.
The government should *not* be subsidizing businesses. Just like I wouldn't expect the government to subsidize the business if their marketing campaign failed, or
Re: (Score:2)
Failure has social cost. Why not bail them out? We also should charge them more taxes in the good times to be able to afford them.
Re: (Score:2)
Failure to weed out corporations that have failed after passing through their startup phase is throwing good money after bad.
Let sunk costs be sunk. Don't piss more money down a hole. Especially not a multinational bank or international automaker sized hole.
It's a deep pockets game (Score:2)
Make your smaller, scrappier, competition go bankrupt --- buy them out --- profit.
It was too much work to have to compete, so we just give them the old "reset".
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really expect auto manufacturers to be able to have the cash reserves to survive being told they cannot make any cars for six months?
Re: (Score:2)
Under normal circumstances I would agree. Hell, a 3 month shutdown and I would agree. But beyond that you're really just destroying your own social and economic infrastructure at the benefit of other countries that manage this differently. At some point you have to look at the greater good and not just your little box of principles-applied-to-businesses.
Re: Yes, if it is for the common good... (Score:2)
https://www.sbnation.com/tenni... [sbnation.com]
In many regions, long-period disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis occur. And all regions experience pandemics.
This is a great use of insurance, where the annual risk is low but the potential cost is very high... just like fire insurance for a house.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting on the big-boy pants and living with the consequences of your decisions is for the little people.
Re: (Score:2)
it makes economic sense to subsidize those (by devaluing currency if necessary) who are made destitute by such a national disaster so they can at least feed themselves
Support people--not legal fictions.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure - people, that's what Europe does, not businesses per se
In the US, they just let people starve/die/go bankrupt while the rich get richer
Re: (Score:3)
"You don't understand. Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation. We want to find a way to become the exploiters." - Rom, Star Trek: Deep Space 9
Re:Yes, if it is for the common good... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, if it is for the common good... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
...but at the same time, they have a duty to at least partially reimburse the business for losses incurred due to its closure
Well, I thing they should but I don't think they have a duty, just like they didn't have a duty to put Typhoid Mary up in a nice hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
B b b b b b bbut isn't that cawmnizzerm?
Finally some common sense (Score:2)
All I've been hearing lately is "Shut them down" vs "Keep them open!"
Thank you, sir, for expressing some sensible pragmatic nuance.
Re: Yes, if it is for the common good... (Score:3)
This would be true if we were a gold standard but we aren't. Governments can print money. But you say that devalues its currency, interestingly enough that's the claim regarding China and it's the fastest developing economy in the world... Wait that cannot, devaluing currency can be a benefit to your nation... interesting. So as it turns out modern governments can create money that is not from tax payers. Of course there is lots of complexity in economics too this but nonetheless you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, sod the frak off with your "who is paying" nonsense.
The fact is we need to stop people from spreading COVID-19. Take your little government nonsense and go stuff it. If you're not talking about how to avoid people dying intubated in a hospital then you're just not relevant to any adult discussion at all.
Corps (Score:3)
Hold up, Communists. Corporations are people! (Score:2)
Wait a second
If corporations are people doesn't that mean when they commit negligence that gets tons of people killed they can be punished... just like people? And when that negligent mass murder is willful can't the charges be upped to a murder charge with the consequence of capital punishment?
For corporations that means dissolution, right? I mean, they are people and that's what we do to people, right?
Dang, maybe you're not a commie after all. Nevermind!
Are there no laws about this in the USA? (Score:2)
I don't know much about USA legal matters, but in my country (in Europe) we have a Constitution and Laws, therefore the 'government' cannot 'close' anything without legislation or constitution support. Also, are these companies local of foreign-state owned? I think the question is ill-posed, it should be "Do you believe that the US government has the right to force US or other countries' businesses to close?"
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the question meant to ask "Do you believe that government should have the right to force businesses to close?"
Re: (Score:3)
the 'government' cannot 'close' anything without legislation or constitution support
Outside autocracies, government generally can't do *anything* without "legislation or constitutional support." I'm pretty sure that the question is whether it is appropriate for government to have the power to close businesses *with* such support.
Re: (Score:2)
This interpretation really did not cross my mind, thanks. If the question was meant to ask whether something that is legal is also ethical (or 'appropriate' as you put it)... good luck finding a consensus in slashdot!
Re: Are there no laws about this in the USA? (Score:2)
This seems to be the idea, is it ethical. I don't think there will be a consensus. Polls seem to be mainly about determining the degree of divisiveness. But I do feel /. is becoming more divisive.
NO, because government can't be trusted (Score:2)
Gov. Gavin Newsom Exempts Entertainment Industry Workers From New Coronavirus Restrictions [dailywire.com]
Outdoor church services are banned but protesting is OK. [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Outdoor church services are banned but protesting is OK.
I think you might want to actually read the articles you link, since that article is an opinion piece that only cites prohibitions on indoor church services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Outdoor church services are banned but protesting is OK.
I regularly come across people trying to tell me that I am not allowed to worship. Far be it from me to accuse people of lying but why are they continuing to use debunked errors? We are used to that being a common practice in the USA and their admirers (like our UK Conservative party) but this is not our way.
I have been at church services since I got out of hospital (pneumonia and stuff). Last week I attended the church members meeting too. The fact that, for the meeting, I was sitting at my dining room
Re: (Score:2)
Government needs to shut every out-of-house gathering down, hard. And enforce mask rules.
What they need to do is offer a $10,000 dead or alive bounty on anyone caught on video without a mask or in a large gathering. That bounty will even have anti-maskers going after each other for the cash. Minimal casualties and COVID-19 is stopped in 2 weeks, 4 tops. Government spends out maybe 2 million.
And yes that is frakking drastic af. Once you have to sit outside a hospital while your kid or parent dies intubated i
Re: NO, because government can't be trusted (Score:2)
Super Weird Poll (Score:2)
What a weirdly-phrased poll. Do I believe they have the right? It doesn't matter: the government has the ability to close a business.
If your business exists to facilitate assassinations, then the government is going to force you to shut down. Are you routinely breaking the law and scamming customers? Are you operating without a license? Are you causing widespread harm?
Businesses are special, but not that special. Is the next poll going to be "do you believe government has a right to detain people?"
Even if y
health department (Score:2)
Of course they do -- what if a restaurant is found to have unclean activities in its kitchen that threaten the health of diners, and are against the health code. They sure can shut them down. And a good thing, too, for anyone who prefers their food sans E. Coli.
Re: health department (Score:2)
The needs of the many.... (Score:5, Interesting)
...outweigh the needs of the few.
Hyper-individualism and hyper-capitalism don't work in an interconnected world. Decisions of individuals, groups, corporations or countries can reverberate across the globe as technological platforms, environmental woes and faith in economic systems become ever more entwined on a global scale.
This means we need regulation. On a local level (think of zoning), on a provincial/state level, on a national level and on a global level. A common framework of morality: How do we protect consumers? What warranties can I expect when I buy something from overseas? Is product safety in order? But also: What about privacy? And in the middle of a pandemic: does this business pose a risk to the population?
As such, the role of government is to protect its citizens.
In the Netherlands, we've had a sort of constitution since the Unie van Utrecht was drafted in 1579, culminating in our modern unified Constitution as written in 1851. This constitution doesn't talk about silly shit like citizens' right to commit violence. Because make no mistake, the notion that weapon ownership is a constitutional right is just bloody silly.
Our Constitution started out as a statement of intent against the Spanish empire: It said, in a Catholic-dominated empire, that every citizen should enjoy the freedom to investigate the nature of being and faith, and draw his or her own conclusions. It was, in other words, to make sure citizens enjoy freedom of religion.
Later, this constitution to amended to a bill of rights and duties that gave the government a Duty of Care towards its citizens:
- Citizens shall not be discriminated against
- Citizens can congregate freely
- Citizens can adhere to whatever religion (or lack thereof) they please
- Citizens can speak their mind, barring stuff like slander, hate-speech and discrimination
- Citizens shall have a safe environment that includes housing
- Citizens shall be educated
- Citizens shall have access to health-care
Those are some of my rights, and some of the government's duties of care.
In the light of this, government should be for the people. Not for corporations, not for an elite, but the actual people. In the Netherlands, we never speak of our Constitution. We take for granted that the system follows those tenets.
The United States' citizens have a perverted view on their Constitution. Under the guise of "Freedom", "The Second Amendment" and the notion that "Commies are bad", social help for citizens has eroded in the last fifty years. Nobody has a debate on safe housing, illiteracy or health care anymore as soon as someone starts yelling "socialism", "abortion" or "theytook'ur'guns".
Therefore, this is a silly debate that will be met with bemusedly raised eyebrows in most of Europe. Of course the government has a basic duty to close businesses, or to break up conglomerates, or to intervene in other ways if the greater good of the citizens is at risk.
This is, we feel, why the government exists.
With that said, this question seems to be a specifically American one. Not even the libertarian streak of the UK questions this notion, over here. My view is that Americans would do well to quit viewing their government as an enemy force that will potentially oppress them, and start seeing it as a bunch of folks that will provide support for the American people, because it has a duty of care. Hand in your damn guns, and do something to eradicate poverty and untimely death within your borders. And curb your moneyed elites: They are hollowing out your entire middle class.
So whoever said "no" to this question could ask themselves what the hell freedom is worth if you're toothless, living in a carboard box, in the dead of winter, with no food and a bad case of the Covid.
Re: (Score:2)
>> My view is that Americans would do well to quit viewing their government as an enemy force that will potentially oppress them, and start seeing it as a bunch of folks that will provide support for the American people
The problem is that this nation was founded out of armed rebellion against His Britannic Majesty, and there's still a deep undercurrent of distrust in government, especially in the more rural areas where it's assumed you're more or less on your own to make your way in life. The attitud
Re: (Score:2)
> The idea that they would need to take up arms against an oppressive government likely doesn't occur to anyone not in tinfoil headwear.
Foil hatters are still dangerous, especially in numbers. The bunghole boys, the 3%ers and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
>> My view is that Americans would do well to quit viewing their government as an enemy force that will potentially oppress them, and start seeing it as a bunch of folks that will provide support for the American people
When i first moved to the US 23 years ago, I had the same view that you do. Now, after living there 23 years, I think you are half wrong. The US government sometimes provides support for its people, but sometimes it oppresses them and sells them down the river, all in the service of big business, delusional fantasies (think McCarythism), power grabs, etc. I think americans have very good reasons to not trust their government.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are some of my rights, and some of the government's duties of care.
In the light of this, government should be for the people. Not for corporations, not for an elite, but the actual people. In the Netherlands, we never speak of our Constitution. We take for granted that the system follows those tenets.
The United States' citizens have a perverted view on their Constitution. Under the guise of "Freedom", "The Second Amendment" and the notion that "Commies are bad", social help for citizens has eroded in the last fifty years. Nobody has a debate on safe housing, illiteracy or health care anymore as soon as someone starts yelling "socialism", "abortion" or "theytook'ur'guns".
The USA is a large union of states. A single state is about the size of your country. Do you think it's the job of the EU supra-national government to provide safe housing, illiteracy or health care? The number one mistake people in other countries make about the US is assuming that their 300M+ collection of diverse states should be viewed identically to your little crowded and sometimes nearly-dictatorial statelet.
Re: The needs of the many.... (Score:3)
The problem is our interdependence. Say you own your land, have a garden, and can your own veggies. Then maybe you are close to being independent. How many Americans do you think I described? Those people having guns to protect their land is maybe a reasonable fear but everyone else already relies on the government more than any person did when the constitution was written.
More so we had to fight against a government that was becoming quite repressive where by and large we were not treated as equals. The
Re:The needs of the many.... (Score:4, Insightful)
For more context, the debates surrounding the Constitution: https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-o... [crf-usa.org]
I mean, seriously, did you take Civics in high school? Everything in the Constitution was written from a perspective of how to form a government that won't impose on the freedoms of States and individuals. The Exec. is empowered to act on behalf of the government, but has major leashes on it in the form of Congressional and Judiciary controls. The 3/5th's compromise was all about the lower population South trying to not get overpowered by the higher population North; the 3/5ths gave them more reps in the House so they could influence the government direction. The Senate was empowered with greater powers than the House because the State governments wanted more say in the Federal government than individuals.
One of Madison's documents about one of the debates clearly references this: "Mr. Sherman was against enabling any one man to stop the will of the whole. No man could be found so far above all the rest in wisdom."
The Constitution was written by men who had just fought a war over Executive overreach and abuse of power. Everything in the Constitution was about forming an effective government but keeping a tight leash on it.
Hell, some amendments were expansion of power, others were not. The 21st amendment repealed Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) that is literally restraining the government's power (a power granted under the 18th amendment). The 24th amendment was a removal of government power to restrict your right to vote over poll taxes. The 19th is women's suffrage, empowering a whole class of people the right to participate in government. I mean, just read it once!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
All of that is in the main body of the Constitution. That doesn't look like limits on power to you? Our government was specifically created to NOT be all powerful.. Jesus H. Christ... The fact I'm having to explain this is pathetic...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the government has some limits. That wasn't in dispute. The question was whether those limits was the primary purpose of the constitution. And I don't think you've made a good case that it was.
Public health authorities have pretty broad powers (Score:3)
If they can shut down restaurants for cleanliness problems, you're saying they can't close businesses as potential disease vectors?
No argument that it's a hardship for the business owners (the point of the stimulus packages, to help tide them over), but the me-first, fsck-the-rest-of-you mentality vs. any sense of community (these are your neighbors, you want them sick? You want them knowing *you* got Grandma sick?) is discouraging.
Rural hospitals are at the breaking point for space to take patients, and running out of places in the nearby cities to send them. El Paso TX has called out the Nat'l Guard to deal with the morgue overcrowding ( https://www.militarytimes.com/... [militarytimes.com] ).
Get real people, this needs to be contained; doing it won't be convenient or pretty, and yes some businesses will fold, but trade that against how many lives? Act like a citizen, not a snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think restaurant owners and workers everywhere will be happy to bite the bullet by not having money to get food and pay rent while the likes of Amazon get richer even during the crisis?
Ultimately it's a choice between an overwhelmingly low risk of death from COVID against an almost certain ending up on the street and that kind o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing something illegal? Yes. Arbitrarily? No. (Score:2)
However, the government cannot shutter a legal business arbitrarily. If you are operating a legal business and the government decides to interrupt your free association with your fellow citizens, they are acting outside their proscribed power. The lockdowns and curfews are both harmful and unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Especially when the argument isn't we are doing it to stop infections. It's always been to slow down, delay etc. I get you can't be completely reckless, but lets reason through this. Say the county (or whatever level of government making the call) says hey we have 500 repirators, 200 we need for other things. So we need to slow the curve so we don't get past 300. Ok, agreed lets work with that. But then they say: theatres closed, no alcohol between 10-5am (why do bars magically become death traps at
Real Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Southern Pacific Railroad case made that to be not true, and Corporate Personhood became a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#:~:text=In%20Santa%20Clara%20County%20v,Fourteenth%20Amendment%20applied%20to%20corporations.
The answer has ALWAYS been "yes". (Score:3)
Re: The answer has ALWAYS been "yes". (Score:2)
are you asking if executive order has the power of law? Because, yes it does, although limited.
Governments have powers, People have rights (Score:2)
The US Constitution indicates what powers are granted to the US Government. If it's not authorized by the constitution, the government can't do it.
The Bill of Rights identifies certain rights that the founders thought were so important as to need to be expressly identified. The ninth amendment covers rights that were not so identified "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And then they threw in the tenth amendmen
The result speaks for itself (Score:2)
At 2902 total votes do just 52% believe such a right exists or that it should exist. The remaining 48% are kidnappers, child pornographer and child traffickers, who think that when or if the government closes their business, they should at the very least get a reimbursement.
Nope (Score:2)
Incorrectly stated question? (Score:2)
The different levels of government in the U.S. already have this power, and exercise this "right."
Did the person creating the poll mean to add a *should* before this question? Without that should, this very much is a question of your ability to interpret current events, past events, and your definition of "right."
In my state? Yes. (Score:2)
In my state, yes. It's allowed because the elected legislature at some point passed a law that allows it (referring specifically to health orders for things like COVID).
Do I agree with it? I don't know yet, we're still testing the theory ;) I'll review the numbers and decide later.
Wrong Question (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is
Does the government have the power to tell people to stop doing something that endangers others ?
And the clear answer to that is yes. Your personal freedom ends where you become a hazard to others. And a government representing the will of the people has the power to act to protect the people.
How is this a questions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure varies widely around the country and world. But at least where I am it really hasn't been laws its been mandates. Oh thanksgiving is coming up things are going to get hairy: lets lockdown the gyms again just to be safe. Oh a bunch of 20 somethings had an illegal rave last weekend, lets ban serving booze everywhere from 10pm-5am. It's that governments aren't saying that the thing that the business does is harmful, but the fact that they exist and people might assemble there creates harm so they got
This is an idiotic question (Score:2)
The entire reason a "Business" needs to be defined as such is because the government requires it to be so, for whatever reasons it deems fit.
The government issues you a business license and taxes you. As it is the license granting entity, it can legally force a business to close (at least in its eyes), in every jurisdiction that a "Business" needs to be defined by the government.
Whether you agree that a government should be in the "business" of regulating what you do to make money is a different question.
Government vs. Anarchy (Score:2)
The whole idea of government is that a group of people agree to all obey certain rules, so that the group can forward its goals, such as the safety, survival, and prospering of the group members.
Anarchy is a state where each individual makes his or her own rules.
Personally, I'd much rather live by government. Sure, it can be contentious to work out what the rules are and how they apply, but there is both strength and safety in numbers.
And due to the fact that there's so damn many of us humans on the planet,
Depends (Score:2)
1. For reasons of national safety, a class or classes of business may be asked to temporarily close equally (without discrimination). Equal treatment under the law.
2. For reasons of legality, a class of businesses may be prosecuted under the law as and when discovered and, if found guilty, closed. Equal treatment, no exemptions made for girlfriends/boyfriends being CEOs.
3. For reasons of public interest, a class (etc).
Government is NOT in the business of giving competitive advantage, NOR is it supposed to b
Of course (Score:2)
The question seems to confuse can and should. The 'guys with the guns' can do almost anything. That is not to say that they 'should' but 'should' is always literally a moral (aka religious) question.
Sure, with caveats. (Score:2)
If we're talking pandemic strategies, yes, but only if the government is prepared to help that business survive the circumstances and come out on the other side still in business. Now, I'm not saying handing management blank checks, but maybe cover payroll and whatever actual expenses accrue during the downtime to keep the structure of the business intact. Would that be expensive? Sure. Would it be more expensive than letting all those businesses shutter, leaving everybody jobless by the time the lock-d
Can government force a business to close. (Score:2)
There is no freedom without consequences, and in the case of public health
It's moot (Score:2)
The question was answered over a hundred years ago. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The CliffsNotes(tm) version: a state may enact any law deemed necessary for the protection of public health and safety.
Yes and No (Score:2)
This is a complicated matter, but COVID-19 has brought us face to face with this problem.
One of the primary issues was that open face to face businesses were endangering public health. Depending on the business, if accommodations can be made to reduce the risk of endangering public health, then you should be able to stay open. If you can not meet these accommodations, you should stay closed. This is extremely difficult with changing recommendations. These recommendations should be clear and accessible s
It is the responsibility of citizens (Score:2)
A license can be revoked (Score:2)
Re:Hell No (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell no? So you think I can start a business offering deep fakes videos of any person you give me pictures of doing anything perverted act you want?
OK, I assume you think that 'committing crimes' is different than violating regulations.
So, that means the government can not shut down a restaurant for cooking expired meat?
OK, so you think that violating health code regulations lets us shut them down, but not 'temporary' health code rules that only apply for a short time. (You seem to be too stupid to realize we can go ahead and make mask rules permanent if you insist on this stupidity).
But OK, how about violating a 'temporary' health code that says you can't shut down the heat of rental apartments when the temperature outside is below 40 degrees.
Yeah, you clearly have not thought things through. The "No" answer is for idiots. "Depends" is the answer you would have selected if you had figured things out.
Re: Hell No (Score:2)
Unilateral (Score:2)
The government does not have any overarching right to force businesses to close. They _may_ do so for a reasonable government purpose after following due process of law.
With some reasonable government purpose, such as mitigating a major public health crisis, they can certainly require a business to close. But the sheriff can't just walk up and say, "y'all are troublemakers, I'm shutting you down."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government does not have any overarching right to force businesses to close. They _may_ do so for a reasonable government purpose after following due process of law.
Well, that's certainly not happening now.... Governors are issuing shut-down notices via Executive Orders. When did we decide we all wanted to have a King or Dictator? I'm pretty sure that the Legislature is supposed to be doing the shut-downs. In fact, our own Commie Governor, Newsom, just got slapped by the Supreme Court of California for vastly exceeding his authority.
If a Governor can simply issue a decree to shut down the state, that's a dictatorship...
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to overturn a democratic election comes to mind. So does ruling largely by executive order, firing anyone who opposes him - including supposedly independent watchdogs, using government ressources such as the DOJ for his own private purposes, hiring his entire family despite zero qualifications for their jobs. Trying to undermine the press so he can spout whatever lies he wants without challenge. All things dictators generally do.
Re: Unilateral (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, this is just factually incorrect. (1) You're free to type "SARS-CoV-19 isolation" into Google and disbelieve all you like, but SARS-CoV-19 isolation is routine, and has been since the start of the outbreak. There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers out reporting it from scientists in many, many countries. (2) Early tests were bad. That doesn't make PCR tests impossible. Current ones still have some flaws, but are much better. It's almost like scientists don't know everything about a novel v
Re: (Score:2)
You don't sound intelligent enough to even explain what PCR is, AstroSurf, but please do tell how it can't be used for diagnosis of infectious disease.
Re: (Score:2)
With some reasonable government purpose, such as mitigating a major public health crisis
There is no public health crisis. This whole COVID-19 propaganda was orchestrated for the sole purpose of ousting Trump from office. They needed a way to crash the economy, make everybody desperate for change, and entice mass absentee voting (which made it easier to conduct voting fraud).
There are two parts of COVID-19. The virus and disease are real. Real people are getting sick and dying. This is a real public health crisis. The liberal media and liberal media did use the pandemic for political purposes to oust Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
More properly stated as , "Trump chose to downplay Covid-19 and lost the election as a result"
Al us "libs" had to do was keep everybody focused on what trump claimed over the course of the year and how it played out
Health professionals, as a group, are frankly shocked that 100% of Americans did not realize the danger that trump put us all in and vote against him, but they live in a largely rational world.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hell no? So you think I can start a business offering deep fakes videos of any person you give me pictures of doing anything perverted act you want?
Pretty sure you can do exactly that. Where is this illegal? How is this not Computer Animation? There any laws that state a computer animation cannot be realistic? Seriously, show me a law that says I can't create the most realistic computer animations that I want. I'll wait..
So, that means the government can not shut down a restaurant for cooking expired meat?
What the hell is expired meat? Are you talking about the "sell by" date? Are you talking about the "best if used by" date? Can you show me anything at all, in the law, that gives a manufacturer's "sell by date" the force of law?
Re: (Score:2)
Truth
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no? So you think I can start a business offering deep fakes videos of any person you give me pictures of doing anything perverted act you want?
Pretty sure you can do exactly that. Where is this illegal? How is this not Computer Animation? There any laws that state a computer animation cannot be realistic? Seriously, show me a law that says I can't create the most realistic computer animations that I want. I'll wait..
I'm pretty sure that using someone's likeness without authorization is illegal (commercial misappropriation of one's publicity, defamation, etc). The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 has provisions regarding deep fakes. Virginia passed legislation making nonconsensual falsely created explicit images and videos a Class 1 misdemeanor. Texas outlawed the creation and distribution of deep fake videos intended to harm candidates for public office or influence elections. In California, victims of deep fake videos of a
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where it's illegal to make a deep-fake
Ah, but you cannot, can you?
California has laws against nonconsensually created explicit images or videos. Texas has laws against using deep fakes to influence elections or harm candidates. Other states have other laws regarding deep fakes.
Re:Hell No (Score:4, Insightful)
Your rights end when they infringe on the right of others. If you passing around a pandemic level virus could be potentially fatal then you have no rights to do so. Don't be such a selfish person and do something that might be better for your fellow citizens for once.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID is no more deadly than the flu, it simply spreads much faster
Which... makes it deadlier, Captain Genius.
Bullshit. It has a mortality rate of 0.05% (total population). We've had flu versions that were much worse. We've had flu versions that have killed WAY more people.
Try to provide truthful and meaningful statistics. You should look at what % of the total population gets infected. What % of infected people get moderate to severe symptoms. What % of infected are hospitalized. What % of infected die. What is the spread ratio? What % of infected have long lasting effects (I lost my smell and taste in January and still haven't fully recovered these senses)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thomas Jefferson: "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
So anyone out there saying the Founding F
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone out there saying the Founding Fathers wouldn't have bought into these sorts of closures in the name of public safely are talking out of their sphincters.
Given the abhorrence and contempt the Founding Fathers had for a strong, centralized government with dictatorial extra-Constitutional powers (i.e. the monarchy they just defeated), I cannot subscribe to your interpretation. The Founding Fathers wanted to make a government that was incapable of doing the things you claim they would support.
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone out there saying the Founding Fathers wouldn't have bought into these sorts of closures in the name of public safely are talking out of their sphincters.
You are right. This is why there is a process for suspending constitutional liberties. The problem is that many governors have not been following that procedure. This is why, in a few states at least, that the initial closure orders were deemed unconstitutional at the state level.
There still has to be checks and balances, even in an emergency, and even if it slows the response down. For a counter-example - would you want the president to be able to instantly suspend constitutional protections in the name of
Re: (Score:2)
Issue I think is both the uncertainty in the cause/and affect rules not being universally applied. Like closing bars but restaurants that don't serve alcohol open. Government is basically saying: you create risk that someone might have something bad happen to them so you need to close. But this other place that also creates risk can stay open. That the risk of getting covid is worse than the certainty of unemployment, lack of social outlets etc. So to that I'd say that what governments are doing are objecti
Re:There is no right to own a business (Score:5, Informative)
A common misconception. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That last sentence is the important one. Go back and re-read it.
Based on the Bill of Rights, your claim that there is "no right to own a business" does not hold water. The US Constitution is somewhat unique in that it places limits on government instead of the the people. So, as a citizen, if you want to do something that is not forbidden by law, you have the right to do so. The Constitution doesn't have to "grant" you a right do so something. Quite the opposite, you are born with rights the government "shall not infringe."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What is a government for? (Score:2)
I think you might find it odd how many would be protesting on the beach. You have people still claiming this whole thing is a conspiracy by the elite. We have moved passed hoax by and large but I bet there are still laggards holding steadfadt even to that position.
It seems fair to me to conclude many would say the same about a physical invasion, that it's a hoax or a conspiracy. A non-trivial number of people are now conditoned to trust virtually no one. It's rather scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting us from ourselves (ie. closing restaurants during a pandemic).
I don't think it's that simple. By your argument there shouldn't be laws against murder, since surely those laws are protecting us from ourselves.