2 ms·

I understand the immediate pragmatism, but if a gov't wants to make laws / rules it's on them to staff it functionally. We dont tell a restaurant they have to c

I understand the immediate pragmatism, but if a gov't wants to make laws / rules it's on them to staff it functionally. We dont tell a restaurant they have to close because there are no health inspectors available. (I am assuming here, correct me if that's wrong)

geofft 7y ago
A better example would be if the government hired health inspectors who say "I saw a rat, you need to shut down" without also saying "Here is my peer-reviewed article about why rats are bad" - which they absolutely do.
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  But within your own example you're missing the point that there is no one going to TSLA (afaik) to inspect the property to say "The way you're operating is insufficient" Instead they're deeming all possible operations as automatically insufficient. For example lets say, just for argument's sake, that every worker had some kind of full body hazmat suit and filtered positive pressured air supply. Would it still be not ok to build a car in such a condition? What makes it ok to operate a checkout stand (groceries) in not even close to such protections? The problem is the assumption of guilt w/o any means to continue operations--a perfectly legal thing otherwise-- even with appropriate measures in place.
fatbird 7y ago
This is crazy high standard to invoke during a public health emergency--the gov't would have to suddenly increase staff by orders of magnitude on short notice, causing huge amounts of inspections at a time when preventing non-essential contact is the most basic action than can be collectively taken.
int_19h 7y ago
The amount of rulemaking differs substantially in normal times, and in a crisis like this. So does the amount of time available for review. For them to be able to do what you want, we'd need the government to be big enough to vet everything properly in a crisis. A government that big is going to find ways to occupy itself in normal time, to make use of all that extra capacity.
abc_lisper 7y ago
Please don't downvote parent. We don't want drown out a voice of reason, even though, it is not necessarily correct here.
csdreamer7 7y ago
No. That is inappropriate to the need that a national emergency causes and would get people killed.

geofft 7y ago

A better example would be if the government hired health inspectors who say "I saw a rat, you need to shut down" without also saying "Here is my peer-reviewed article about why rats are bad" - which they absolutely do.

maerF0x0 7y ago
But within your own example you're missing the point that there is no one going to TSLA (afaik) to inspect the property to say "The way you're operating is insufficient" Instead they're deeming all possible operations as automatically insufficient. For example lets say, just for argument's sake, that every worker had some kind of full body hazmat suit and filtered positive pressured air supply. Would it still be not ok to build a car in such a condition? What makes it ok to operate a checkout stand (groceries) in not even close to such protections? The problem is the assumption of guilt w/o any means to continue operations--a perfectly legal thing otherwise-- even with appropriate measures in place.

fatbird 7y ago

This is crazy high standard to invoke during a public health emergency--the gov't would have to suddenly increase staff by orders of magnitude on short notice, causing huge amounts of inspections at a time when preventing non-essential contact is the most basic action than can be collectively taken.

int_19h 7y ago

The amount of rulemaking differs substantially in normal times, and in a crisis like this. So does the amount of time available for review. For them to be able to do what you want, we'd need the government to be big enough to vet everything properly in a crisis. A government that big is going to find ways to occupy itself in normal time, to make use of all that extra capacity.

abc_lisper 7y ago

Please don't downvote parent. We don't want drown out a voice of reason, even though, it is not necessarily correct here.

csdreamer7 7y ago

No. That is inappropriate to the need that a national emergency causes and would get people killed.