3 ms·

forget about the legal technicalities for a moment. through no fault of their own, a subset of businesses are taking a disproportionate share of the burden of k

forget about the legal technicalities for a moment. through no fault of their own, a subset of businesses are taking a disproportionate share of the burden of keeping us all safe. this is a direct result of government action that affects the employees as well as the owners. you don't think the government (ie, the taxpayers) have any obligation to make things right here?

duxup 7y ago
The legal technicalities are how you decide things like liability and what to do in such situations. Without that it is just "something bad happened to me someone should pay". Do we ignore that the pandemic itself seems to call for the government to do a thing? The pandemic sure isn't government action.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > Without that it is just "something bad happened to me someone should pay". it's a bit more specific than "something bad happened to me someone should pay". restaurants are going under as a direct result of government action. if they failed because people were too scared to go out to dinner, that would be a different story. can you not accept that it's possible for the government to do a good thing, but also owe compensation to people who are disproportionately harmed by that thing?
  - duxup 7y ago
    Government action, in response to an actual thing the government does not control, a pandemic. Just the basics of liability would seem to have to include being "liable". Hard to be liable for a pandemic.
    - bavell 7y ago
      But the government does control it's response to the pandemic, right? Is it not liable for it's response? I don't know what the right answer is here but it's an interesting discussion.
      - duxup 7y ago
        We have laws that limit legal action vs government, and even simpler laws like good samaritan laws for reasons. We don't want people who make good faith efforts to protect / help people sued... because the end result was not entirely positive. Dude is in a car accident and his car is on fire. I pull him out but his arm breaks? I didn't cause the accident, neither did he, I didn't have to pull him out of that burning car.... but it probabbly makes sense that I'm not legally liable because we want people to help. Same goes for this sort of ultra expanded view of government liability. If they're not protected, the result is without question inaction. Voters don't want that, nobody really does.
        tathougies 7y ago
        No no no. Good Samaritan laws serve the public interest of not having individuals go bankrupt because they tried to help. It doesn't apply to companies and it definitely ought not to apply to government. The government is often sued for things it thought was right. For example, California thought it would be good to sterilize people and was sued for it. They must pay regardless of intent and how it may have been viewed at the time.
        duxup 7y ago
        Good Samaritan laws address the obvious challenges for a well meaning individual to act in a difficult time where that action might have negative consequences, while they act for the greater good. The concept is just general fairness / incentivizing good acts and isn't hard to understand within the concept of anyone acting, not just individuals. The idea that someone / anyone must pay regardless is just ignoring the actual circumstances. That makes no sense.

duxup 7y ago

The legal technicalities are how you decide things like liability and what to do in such situations. Without that it is just "something bad happened to me someone should pay". Do we ignore that the pandemic itself seems to call for the government to do a thing? The pandemic sure isn't government action.

leetcrew 7y ago
> Without that it is just "something bad happened to me someone should pay". it's a bit more specific than "something bad happened to me someone should pay". restaurants are going under as a direct result of government action. if they failed because people were too scared to go out to dinner, that would be a different story. can you not accept that it's possible for the government to do a good thing, but also owe compensation to people who are disproportionately harmed by that thing?
- duxup 7y ago
  Government action, in response to an actual thing the government does not control, a pandemic. Just the basics of liability would seem to have to include being "liable". Hard to be liable for a pandemic.
  - bavell 7y ago
    But the government does control it's response to the pandemic, right? Is it not liable for it's response? I don't know what the right answer is here but it's an interesting discussion.
    - duxup 7y ago
      We have laws that limit legal action vs government, and even simpler laws like good samaritan laws for reasons. We don't want people who make good faith efforts to protect / help people sued... because the end result was not entirely positive. Dude is in a car accident and his car is on fire. I pull him out but his arm breaks? I didn't cause the accident, neither did he, I didn't have to pull him out of that burning car.... but it probabbly makes sense that I'm not legally liable because we want people to help. Same goes for this sort of ultra expanded view of government liability. If they're not protected, the result is without question inaction. Voters don't want that, nobody really does.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        No no no. Good Samaritan laws serve the public interest of not having individuals go bankrupt because they tried to help. It doesn't apply to companies and it definitely ought not to apply to government. The government is often sued for things it thought was right. For example, California thought it would be good to sterilize people and was sued for it. They must pay regardless of intent and how it may have been viewed at the time.
        duxup 7y ago
        Good Samaritan laws address the obvious challenges for a well meaning individual to act in a difficult time where that action might have negative consequences, while they act for the greater good. The concept is just general fairness / incentivizing good acts and isn't hard to understand within the concept of anyone acting, not just individuals. The idea that someone / anyone must pay regardless is just ignoring the actual circumstances. That makes no sense.