6 ms·

> Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? No not at all. I would highly encourage you to actually read m

> Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? No not at all. I would highly encourage you to actually read my comment. I said: > If the government orders an indefinite shut down, a huge violation of American's civil rights (but one that is warranted in my opinion), then they need to properly reimburse for that drastic change in civil rights. In this sentence 'but one that is warranted in my opinion' indicates that I think the government's actions to shut down the economy are warranted. However, I think we must be reimbursed for the government-ordered loss of rights. Like, if the government wants to seize a house to build a road (eminent domain), I think the government can act correctly to do that, but they must reimburse the home owner the full cost of the house on the market. This means that the government in this case needs to reimburse everyone for the full cost of what their time would have garnered them on the market during the shutdown.

objektif 7y ago
What a pile of nonsense. government is doing this for the safety of its citizens. So consider saved lives as a pay back from the government.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  try thinking about it from another angle. my company has not (yet) been severely affected by the shutdown. I'm working from home still collecting my usual paycheck. the sit-down restaurant right next door to me is taking a huge hit for our safety. you don't think we, the taxpayers, owe them anything?
  - objektif 7y ago
    Following that logic everybody owes everybody else a lot of money. American Indians, world wars, actually my employer also my time is a lot more valuable than that...
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Some American Indians are certainly owed money. The World Wars actually ended with a lot of countries indebted to one another. Your employer-employee relationship does not count, because you are not being forced to work for your employer. They are paying you whatever wage could be agreed on.
      - objektif 7y ago
        So do you as a libertarian support paying descendants of slaves reparations? That is new among libertarians for sure.
        tathougies 7y ago
        I am not really a libertarian. I do not support race-based reparations (which is the most common form proposed), because the Americans that owe the families of today (the slaveowners) are dead. However, insofar as any personal wealth could be traced to their estates, yes they ought to be paid out to the families of any slave on those estates. This is also true of former free blacks that owned black slaves. That is to say, I am against reparations because I am against collective guilt for something that only some individuals in that collective are responsible for. I am certainly not opposed to collective restitution though, and do think that the descendants of former slaves ought to be compensated. So, if the government wanted to open up civil lawsuits so that African American descendants of slaves (and slaves from other ethnic groups) could sue their former 'master's' or their former 'master's' children or descendants for wealth inherited, and made a process by which such investigations could be carried out in a reasonable and fair manner, then yes, that would be great. That being said, libertarianism does quite often support reparations. Not all libertarians of course, but there are lots of libertarians that do, and justify it based on the fact that a person denied liberty deserves restitution, including their descendants. https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-libertarian-case-for-reparations_3177301.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-li... Walter Block, a prominent Austrian economics libertarian also makes the case for some kind of reparations: https://mises.org/wire/reparations-vs-property-rights https://mises.org/wire/reparations-vs-property-rights
  - choward 7y ago
    Where do you draw the line though. What if companies stop trying because they know they'll be bailed out and it's safer to just remain closed and take the money. Several restaurants have changed to delivery/take-out only. How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      > How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. if you were really interested, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a reasonable figure. take average revenue n weeks before the shutdown, then subtract average revenue during the crisis. pay out in proportion to calculated losses, conditional on backpaying employees their average weekly pay. real productivity is down by a lot, so no one is going to be made completely whole, but we could share the burden a lot better than we are now. as an aside, just giving everyone a flat sum would be the best outcome for me personally. I'm still getting paid and my company is doing fine. I'm arguing against my own interests here, which I don't do often.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. Well yeah, citizens also own American companies, so they need the money lost due to their companies (which is their property) not operating. They should be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of their personal property. > The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. Sure, but that's not fair at all. > It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. Well, yeah their wealth doesn't matter, but their income does. Someone making more money and now not making any money due to government intervention is actually owed more than the guy making less money. > I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down. No, you need to give money to both. People own businesses. If their business is not making money, then that is their money that the government must compensate. Even the largest businesses are owned by people. If some company had a dividend scheduled and is now not doing that due to losses incurred by government activity, the government must pay it.
ardy42 7y ago
> However, I think we must be reimbursed for the government-ordered loss of rights. Alright: let's have the government compensate your for your loss of rights during this pandemic by paying you 10% of your pandemic-period income. Let's have it pay for that by assessing a special one-time tax of 10% of your pandemic-period income. The government ain't some magic other, it's us, and your compensation has to come from somewhere. The virus isn't going to pay. This is a country-wide disaster, and there's no getting around the fact that all of us are going to have to pay for it, one way or another.

objektif 7y ago

What a pile of nonsense. government is doing this for the safety of its citizens. So consider saved lives as a pay back from the government.

leetcrew 7y ago
try thinking about it from another angle. my company has not (yet) been severely affected by the shutdown. I'm working from home still collecting my usual paycheck. the sit-down restaurant right next door to me is taking a huge hit for our safety. you don't think we, the taxpayers, owe them anything?
- objektif 7y ago
  Following that logic everybody owes everybody else a lot of money. American Indians, world wars, actually my employer also my time is a lot more valuable than that...
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Some American Indians are certainly owed money. The World Wars actually ended with a lot of countries indebted to one another. Your employer-employee relationship does not count, because you are not being forced to work for your employer. They are paying you whatever wage could be agreed on.
    - objektif 7y ago
      So do you as a libertarian support paying descendants of slaves reparations? That is new among libertarians for sure.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        I am not really a libertarian. I do not support race-based reparations (which is the most common form proposed), because the Americans that owe the families of today (the slaveowners) are dead. However, insofar as any personal wealth could be traced to their estates, yes they ought to be paid out to the families of any slave on those estates. This is also true of former free blacks that owned black slaves. That is to say, I am against reparations because I am against collective guilt for something that only some individuals in that collective are responsible for. I am certainly not opposed to collective restitution though, and do think that the descendants of former slaves ought to be compensated. So, if the government wanted to open up civil lawsuits so that African American descendants of slaves (and slaves from other ethnic groups) could sue their former 'master's' or their former 'master's' children or descendants for wealth inherited, and made a process by which such investigations could be carried out in a reasonable and fair manner, then yes, that would be great. That being said, libertarianism does quite often support reparations. Not all libertarians of course, but there are lots of libertarians that do, and justify it based on the fact that a person denied liberty deserves restitution, including their descendants. https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-libertarian-case-for-reparations_3177301.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-li... Walter Block, a prominent Austrian economics libertarian also makes the case for some kind of reparations: https://mises.org/wire/reparations-vs-property-rights https://mises.org/wire/reparations-vs-property-rights
- choward 7y ago
  Where do you draw the line though. What if companies stop trying because they know they'll be bailed out and it's safer to just remain closed and take the money. Several restaurants have changed to delivery/take-out only. How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. if you were really interested, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a reasonable figure. take average revenue n weeks before the shutdown, then subtract average revenue during the crisis. pay out in proportion to calculated losses, conditional on backpaying employees their average weekly pay. real productivity is down by a lot, so no one is going to be made completely whole, but we could share the burden a lot better than we are now. as an aside, just giving everyone a flat sum would be the best outcome for me personally. I'm still getting paid and my company is doing fine. I'm arguing against my own interests here, which I don't do often.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. Well yeah, citizens also own American companies, so they need the money lost due to their companies (which is their property) not operating. They should be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of their personal property. > The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. Sure, but that's not fair at all. > It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. Well, yeah their wealth doesn't matter, but their income does. Someone making more money and now not making any money due to government intervention is actually owed more than the guy making less money. > I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down. No, you need to give money to both. People own businesses. If their business is not making money, then that is their money that the government must compensate. Even the largest businesses are owned by people. If some company had a dividend scheduled and is now not doing that due to losses incurred by government activity, the government must pay it.

ardy42 7y ago

> However, I think we must be reimbursed for the government-ordered loss of rights. Alright: let's have the government compensate your for your loss of rights during this pandemic by paying you 10% of your pandemic-period income. Let's have it pay for that by assessing a special one-time tax of 10% of your pandemic-period income. The government ain't some magic other, it's us, and your compensation has to come from somewhere. The virus isn't going to pay. This is a country-wide disaster, and there's no getting around the fact that all of us are going to have to pay for it, one way or another.