26 ms·

> This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support. "Support" is a bit of an

by geofft 6y ago

> This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support. "Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence. As a simple analogy, perhaps the speed limits for highways in my state are capped at 60 mph, but there's evidence that the roads can safely accommodate drivers at 70 mph, they're well-maintained, they are built to appropriate safety standards, etc. I wouldn't support the government keeping the speed limit at 60 mph based on flimsy evidence. But I also wouldn't object to the government enforcing the speed limit as it is - because the end result of saying that every driver has the right to make their own private judgment of whether the speed limit laws are validly reasoned is that there is no speed limit anymore.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
We don't barricade all roads just because some drunk drivers are a threat to others.
- jfoutz 6y ago
  A slightly more relevant example is speed limit. Speed limits are generally kinda low. It's that we allow a whole lot of cars on roads. Pretty much any relatively new will be fine at 75, but highways have to support 40 year old beaters with bald tires pulling a trailer. If we had regular drivers tests, we could probably loosen up more laws around driving - but there wouldn't be as many drivers who could qualify. We all try to strike a pragmatic balance. :shrug:
  - lonelappde 6y ago
    Huh? Most people ignore the speed limit, per their individual judgment. Does limits aren't magical safe driving speeds for all vehicles and weather conditions.
    - harimau777 6y ago
      In my experience, most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. That suggests to me that the speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect.
      - dexen 6y ago
        >most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit >speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect. You got the causality dangerously backwards. That's not how policy works. "The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic exceeds),", as per [1]. Specifically, speed limits are not set by carefully measuring & modeling conditions on the road by direct application of science; there's no finely tuned measuring aparatus nor advanced math model. Instead we rely on drivers judgement aggregated over time, conditions, and locations. Granted, there are certain notable exceptions: bridges & tunnels where speed limit is also informed by structural constraints, and also fuel consumption reduction policy in cases like the 1973 speed limit. And yes there are natural parallels to civil disobedience; in some cases limits got raised or lowered upon public pressure. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limi...
      - LyndsySimon 6y ago
        This is highly regionally dependent. For instance, when I lived in Virginia, it was relatively rare to see someone going more than 5 mph over the limit on the interstate (75 in a 70). I’m Arkansas, it’s very common to see people going 15 over (85 in a 70).
        mjayhn 6y ago
        In Virginia anything over 80mph is automatic reckless driving, it's a big deterrent. Only speeding ticket I ever got as a kid. Also I don't know anything about Arkansas but we grow up in Virginia being completely afraid of State Troopers pulling us over for anything. I've never lived in a place with more general fear of STs.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    My comment is an analogy to the lockdown: That we've locked down the populace because a few persons are a danger to some.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    I think another example is banning alcohol sales because it causes DUI. drinking is an optional/recreational activity unlike driving.
- maest 6y ago
  I think strawmaning each other won't lead to any useful discussion.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    How does my example not apply to the lockdown?
    - harimau777 6y ago
      Drunk driving is not contagious. In addition, drunk driving is a relatively controlled problem. That is, a relatively small percentage of the population do it and law enforcement is able to police it with a reasonable degree of success. On the other hand, it we had an epidemic of drunk driving where say 20% of the people on the road were driving drunk then it very well may make sense for the government to barricade the roads until they got things under control.
      - gregimba 6y ago
        I don't think you realize how common drunk driving in in rural areas. 20% of the people on the road after 6-7 pm could be drunk in certain areas. Edit: Found this as a support source, while not 20% roughly 2x the rate in rural vs urban areas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30160320 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30160320
        senectus1 6y ago
        that doesn't change the fact that you cant "catch" being drunk by being in the vicinity of someone who didn't know they were drunk.
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        You've not been to wild parties, I guess.
      - IfIEverCatchYou 6y ago
mgolawala 6y ago
You must also take into account the history of intentional civil disobedience where the government has over reached and the population simply reaches the point where it refuses to comply. Prohibition is obviously a prime example of this, but if you consider various laws that once existed or are currently on the books but no longer enforced (think laws pertaining to racial segregation, sexuality, drug use, and such) you realize that being a law abiding citizen does not mean you are no longer allowed to think for yourself. Read up on "Jury Nullification" or "Jury Equity".
- cmdli 6y ago
  Civil disobedience typically involved still getting punished as a matter of protest to change public opinion. If Elon Musk is doing this as civil disobedience, he is using the resources of Tesla and the forced compliance of his workers in order to make a political statement. I don't really see that as better. Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.
  - mgolawala 6y ago
    Civil disobedience is typically, but not always, punished. We will have to see how this plays out. There is also the question of which branch of government gets to have a say in the enforcement of a law. Consider California's approach to marijuana use vs the Federal government's. Or consider how there are numerous sanctuary cities that are in defiance of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These things are complicated.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - bcrosby95 6y ago
      It's not complicated because there is no conflicting guidance from the federal vs state governments. Once the federal government orders everyone to open up it will be unknown what the right answer is. States that want to continue with the lockdown will likely sue the federal government, or companies that want to open up would sue the state. The courts will weigh in and it will probably go "something something interstate commerce" and the federal government will win, forcing the states to open up. After that it really depends upon how states respond and you could be stuck in a giant game of chicken. This is where it might get complicated and risky - mostly for people trying to abide by the law. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But in this case, the government wont' really arrest you for not opening your car factory. But the state might arrest you for doing it. In the case of Marijuana, it's really quite simple: everyone in California using marijuana can be arrested by the federal government. They just choose not to, at least usually. ICE is a bit more complicated. They are trying to compel cooporation from local law enforcement, who is not responsible for enforcing immigration law. They aren't asking them to enforce it directly themselves though.
gerdesj 6y ago
I appreciate where you are coming from. (1/2)mv^2 very rapidly becomes unforgiving to the frail human frame due to that annoying square! Many people might look at 60 -> 70 mph and conclude something like a 16% increase in "danger". However, if we set m = 1 then 60 mph gives 1800 thingies and 70 mph gives us 2450 thingies or 36% "extra danger". I live in metric (with a sprinkle of extra units to taste land) hence: "thingies". I set m = 1 which should avoid problems. Something as simple as speed is not as intuitive as someone might think. We look at the variable (speed) and it is obviously linear and so we think the implications of increasing it must similarly be linear. But it isn't. The energy in a speeding car is proportional to the square of the velocity of the car. This is a horribly simplistic model but the fundamentals are there. Now virus propagation ... R is the rate of infection. If R < 1 then infections drop over time. If R > 1 then infections rise exponentially. I gather that R = 3 is the norm for SARS-COV-2 without controls. You can play with a spreadsheet for a simple model to scare yourself. When the term exponential heaves into view then we should quite rightly shit ourselves and do as we are told. We are far away from worrying about 16:36 which is the result of a one off event but an exponential "thing" over time grows rather fast.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  > When the term exponential heaves into view then we should quite rightly shit ourselves and do as we are told. And yet we didn't collectively shit ourselves to nearly the same extent for any of the other novel viruses that have popped up in the last couple decades and spread exponentially. Exponential spread is the default state of things. It's only when a virus becomes widespread in a population that the exponential spread ceases, as you indicated in your reference to R. To use a contrived example: Imagine a new virus SARS-CoV-1337 with an R of 250 and an infection fatality rate of .00000001%. Would it warrant the response we've made to SARS-CoV-2? Clearly not. Therefore we need to look at the actual outcomes associated with the virus, and then counterbalance those against the externalities introduced by suppressing spread. Implicitly everyone in favor of lockdown is assuming that the mortality avoided by hunkering down until a theoretical game-changer (vaccine, highly effective antiviral, monoclonal antibodies etc) is available at scale, is a bigger benefit than the negatives incurred by trying to prevent spread (lockdown/containment). My personal opinion is that the externalities of our current approach (I'm speaking from a US-based perspective) far exceed the cost of COVID-19 itself.
ajhurliman 6y ago
It seems like the parent is supporting the ability for the Tesla Alameda factory to operate, and is not questioning the ability of the government to shut it down.
mid 6y ago
> But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence. To claim that the environment is unsafe (or safe for that matter) one must _test_ their beliefs against empirical evidence, not just _illustrate_ such theory with selected facts. Has the government done that in this case?
dpoochieni 6y ago
Ladies and gentlemen, can we agree on 1 thing though? This is not even comparable to speed limits. The law is enacted by legislative action, not by Alameda's county board, nor the administrator nor its health official. Show us please what law Elon Musk is going to break. Can a lawyer chime in please?
gpm 6y ago
> "Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence. On the flip side I support the elected legislature's ability to do this, but if you read the legal arguments being made it's pretty unclear that the legislature has in fact passed any law doing so. Read paragraph 32 of the complaint for what I find to be the most convincing argument for this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359281/gov.uscourts.cand.359281.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359281...
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Thanks for the link! I'm surprised to find that California's legislature did not pass statutes making refusal to obey lockdown rules crimes. In many places it's all governors' EOs and mayors' orders. Here in Texas, for example, no statutes have been passed enabling localities to dictate and enforce stay-at-home orders or wearing of masks, and the cities and counties thus lack the authority to do much of what they nonetheless have gone on to do in terms of ordinances and executive orders. We're a nation of laws, and we have generally been very particular about process. Due Process, yes, but also all manner of procedure, from electoral, to parliamentary, and others. Besides that, the Constitution still applies -- no part of it has been suspended -- and much of it has been incorporated against the States (term of art for: "it wasn't clear before, but now is under Supreme Court precedents, that these various parts of the Constitution that talk of what Congress can't do apply to State legislatures too"). So around here, many people are wearing masks, but they don't have to, not legally, and those signs that say "customers must wear masks by order of the city and county" are correct but legally toothless. In fact, around here I see enough people not wearing masks at notable stores, like Central Market, and all the big box stores that are open, that I can only conclude there is no attempt even to enforce those unenforceable edits. If the county executive wants to require the wearing masks, they'll have to lobby the legislature for new statutes. People will much more likely support their governors and mayors when the legislatures are also standing with them, and less so when they are not.
CamperBob2 6y ago
Maybe that's not the best analogy, since evidence exists that setting speed limits that are too low actually costs lives.
briandear 6y ago
Under that logic, we’d still have segregation.
anonytrary 6y ago
The speed limit analogy doesn't really reflect the magnitude of the conflict we're seeing here. Should the government be allowed to pick and choose businesses that are allowed to open as if they were eggs in a basket? The speed limit example applies to everyone equally, and a difference of 10mph in the speed limit isn't going to potentially bankrupt successful businesses. Given the speed limit analogy, the corresponding action here would be to allow all businesses to operate in distanced-mode (6ft, thermo guns, etc.) equally. Any business that cannot function in this mode would be at a disadvantage, but it wouldn't be because someone on a small government panel disliked their eggs. My 2 cents -- I agree with OP, California apparently tends to exercise their power a bit too often at the expense of their constituents. I can't imagine how a black-and-white veto on businesses could be considered as sensible policy... The government should be more incremental in their decisions, i.e. with slow business-agnostic openings.
elisharobinson 6y ago
i guess your ignoring the fact that if your county didnt have the authority to impose a speed limit but did so anyway than its not illegal to ignore it.
- ascorbic 6y ago
  Then you challenge the speed limit in court. You dont order your 10,000 employees to disobey it.
  - elisharobinson 6y ago
    Get your facts straight it's only 1/3 of ten thousand and they will be separated into 3 shifts . Also they claim to have safe hygiene standards . I don't have any reason to doubt their clAIm . What do you get from going to court . You can't get the billions wasted in time cost And penalty of having artificial limits on you while your competition is allowed to operate and you lose market share.
jeffdavis 6y ago
Your logic is sound, but the calculus changes when dealing with matters that touch on rights and freedoms. In all likelihood, these closures are a direct violation of the First Amendment. I think people are tolerant of these restrictions for limited periods of time, but when the emergency drags on forever and becomes increasingly arbitrary, it starts to lose credibility. Politicians have limited power, even during an emergency. And especially when the emergency looks like it's going to be in effect to some degree for maybe a year. Remember also that the people who go out are doing so by choice. And most people mostly choose to stay home. It's not clear that we need a big enforcement hammer here.
- contravariant 6y ago
  This isn't any more a violation of the First Amendment than making it illegal to sow panic by shouting "Fire!". Being pretty sure it's not going to end too badly isn't sufficient reason to ignore either restrictions.
  - jeffdavis 6y ago
    Even if it's not a violation of the First Amendment, it's close enough that it flips the responsibility. Now the government needs to continually convince people that it's not a violation. America is about freedom and limited government. That means some policy options are off the table or treated with extreme skepticism.
    - contravariant 6y ago
      It's a violation of basic freedoms, that's true, but it's not one without reason (hence my example). I do agree with you that measures like this require constant justification, as would be the case in any democracy. I do not think that flouting these measures arbitrarily is the best way to achieve this.
tinus_hn 6y ago
I don’t know if it works that way in California but in many places if the government tries to restrict basic rights like the right to go where you want to and the right to earn a living, they better be prepared to explain it to a judge. It’s just basic accountability.
Amygaz 6y ago
I think a government should be able to provide strict guidelines on how a business can comply and get approved for staying open. Some States have that in place for companies that are on the list of exempt businesses, and those lists can be ridiculously long, with plenty of not-essential-at-all businesses. The current problem is a lack of clear guidelines. To me it seems that the plan is to not have one. Now, I do condone Musk's. I think his 9yo tantrum throwing behavior is on par with the child king staying at the WH.
bluntfang 6y ago
speed limit is a great choice for an example here, since damage via motor vehicle collision is exponentially related to speed. ie the difference between potential for injury/death is considerable higher between the 40-50 increase than the 50-60 increase. When I drive my car, I'm not worried about my ability. I'm worried about other's ability. Are they texting? Are they drunk? etc. If everyone is capped at 50mph, then the potential for damage is much lower than if everyone was capped at 60mph. It's not about personal safety or whether your vehicle can safely operate at higher speeds under ideal conditions. It's about the potential to injure others (or others to injure you) if those ideal conditions aren't met for some reason (user error or extraneous conditions) and our ability to account for when those ideal conditions aren't met.

by geofft 6y ago

Fjolsvith 6y ago

We don't barricade all roads just because some drunk drivers are a threat to others.

jfoutz 6y ago
A slightly more relevant example is speed limit. Speed limits are generally kinda low. It's that we allow a whole lot of cars on roads. Pretty much any relatively new will be fine at 75, but highways have to support 40 year old beaters with bald tires pulling a trailer. If we had regular drivers tests, we could probably loosen up more laws around driving - but there wouldn't be as many drivers who could qualify. We all try to strike a pragmatic balance. :shrug:
- lonelappde 6y ago
  Huh? Most people ignore the speed limit, per their individual judgment. Does limits aren't magical safe driving speeds for all vehicles and weather conditions.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    In my experience, most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. That suggests to me that the speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect.
    - dexen 6y ago
      >most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit >speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect. You got the causality dangerously backwards. That's not how policy works. "The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic exceeds),", as per [1]. Specifically, speed limits are not set by carefully measuring & modeling conditions on the road by direct application of science; there's no finely tuned measuring aparatus nor advanced math model. Instead we rely on drivers judgement aggregated over time, conditions, and locations. Granted, there are certain notable exceptions: bridges & tunnels where speed limit is also informed by structural constraints, and also fuel consumption reduction policy in cases like the 1973 speed limit. And yes there are natural parallels to civil disobedience; in some cases limits got raised or lowered upon public pressure. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limi...
    - LyndsySimon 6y ago
      This is highly regionally dependent. For instance, when I lived in Virginia, it was relatively rare to see someone going more than 5 mph over the limit on the interstate (75 in a 70). I’m Arkansas, it’s very common to see people going 15 over (85 in a 70).
      - mjayhn 6y ago
        In Virginia anything over 80mph is automatic reckless driving, it's a big deterrent. Only speeding ticket I ever got as a kid. Also I don't know anything about Arkansas but we grow up in Virginia being completely afraid of State Troopers pulling us over for anything. I've never lived in a place with more general fear of STs.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  My comment is an analogy to the lockdown: That we've locked down the populace because a few persons are a danger to some.
- dominotw 6y ago
  I think another example is banning alcohol sales because it causes DUI. drinking is an optional/recreational activity unlike driving.
maest 6y ago
I think strawmaning each other won't lead to any useful discussion.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  How does my example not apply to the lockdown?
  - harimau777 6y ago
    Drunk driving is not contagious. In addition, drunk driving is a relatively controlled problem. That is, a relatively small percentage of the population do it and law enforcement is able to police it with a reasonable degree of success. On the other hand, it we had an epidemic of drunk driving where say 20% of the people on the road were driving drunk then it very well may make sense for the government to barricade the roads until they got things under control.
    - gregimba 6y ago
      I don't think you realize how common drunk driving in in rural areas. 20% of the people on the road after 6-7 pm could be drunk in certain areas. Edit: Found this as a support source, while not 20% roughly 2x the rate in rural vs urban areas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30160320 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30160320
      - senectus1 6y ago
        that doesn't change the fact that you cant "catch" being drunk by being in the vicinity of someone who didn't know they were drunk.
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        You've not been to wild parties, I guess.
    - IfIEverCatchYou 6y ago

mgolawala 6y ago

You must also take into account the history of intentional civil disobedience where the government has over reached and the population simply reaches the point where it refuses to comply. Prohibition is obviously a prime example of this, but if you consider various laws that once existed or are currently on the books but no longer enforced (think laws pertaining to racial segregation, sexuality, drug use, and such) you realize that being a law abiding citizen does not mean you are no longer allowed to think for yourself. Read up on "Jury Nullification" or "Jury Equity".

cmdli 6y ago
Civil disobedience typically involved still getting punished as a matter of protest to change public opinion. If Elon Musk is doing this as civil disobedience, he is using the resources of Tesla and the forced compliance of his workers in order to make a political statement. I don't really see that as better. Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.
- mgolawala 6y ago
  Civil disobedience is typically, but not always, punished. We will have to see how this plays out. There is also the question of which branch of government gets to have a say in the enforcement of a law. Consider California's approach to marijuana use vs the Federal government's. Or consider how there are numerous sanctuary cities that are in defiance of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These things are complicated.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    It's not complicated because there is no conflicting guidance from the federal vs state governments. Once the federal government orders everyone to open up it will be unknown what the right answer is. States that want to continue with the lockdown will likely sue the federal government, or companies that want to open up would sue the state. The courts will weigh in and it will probably go "something something interstate commerce" and the federal government will win, forcing the states to open up. After that it really depends upon how states respond and you could be stuck in a giant game of chicken. This is where it might get complicated and risky - mostly for people trying to abide by the law. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But in this case, the government wont' really arrest you for not opening your car factory. But the state might arrest you for doing it. In the case of Marijuana, it's really quite simple: everyone in California using marijuana can be arrested by the federal government. They just choose not to, at least usually. ICE is a bit more complicated. They are trying to compel cooporation from local law enforcement, who is not responsible for enforcing immigration law. They aren't asking them to enforce it directly themselves though.

gerdesj 6y ago

I appreciate where you are coming from. (1/2)mv^2 very rapidly becomes unforgiving to the frail human frame due to that annoying square! Many people might look at 60 -> 70 mph and conclude something like a 16% increase in "danger". However, if we set m = 1 then 60 mph gives 1800 thingies and 70 mph gives us 2450 thingies or 36% "extra danger". I live in metric (with a sprinkle of extra units to taste land) hence: "thingies". I set m = 1 which should avoid problems. Something as simple as speed is not as intuitive as someone might think. We look at the variable (speed) and it is obviously linear and so we think the implications of increasing it must similarly be linear. But it isn't. The energy in a speeding car is proportional to the square of the velocity of the car. This is a horribly simplistic model but the fundamentals are there. Now virus propagation ... R is the rate of infection. If R < 1 then infections drop over time. If R > 1 then infections rise exponentially. I gather that R = 3 is the norm for SARS-COV-2 without controls. You can play with a spreadsheet for a simple model to scare yourself. When the term exponential heaves into view then we should quite rightly shit ourselves and do as we are told. We are far away from worrying about 16:36 which is the result of a one off event but an exponential "thing" over time grows rather fast.

ryankemper 6y ago
> When the term exponential heaves into view then we should quite rightly shit ourselves and do as we are told. And yet we didn't collectively shit ourselves to nearly the same extent for any of the other novel viruses that have popped up in the last couple decades and spread exponentially. Exponential spread is the default state of things. It's only when a virus becomes widespread in a population that the exponential spread ceases, as you indicated in your reference to R. To use a contrived example: Imagine a new virus SARS-CoV-1337 with an R of 250 and an infection fatality rate of .00000001%. Would it warrant the response we've made to SARS-CoV-2? Clearly not. Therefore we need to look at the actual outcomes associated with the virus, and then counterbalance those against the externalities introduced by suppressing spread. Implicitly everyone in favor of lockdown is assuming that the mortality avoided by hunkering down until a theoretical game-changer (vaccine, highly effective antiviral, monoclonal antibodies etc) is available at scale, is a bigger benefit than the negatives incurred by trying to prevent spread (lockdown/containment). My personal opinion is that the externalities of our current approach (I'm speaking from a US-based perspective) far exceed the cost of COVID-19 itself.

ajhurliman 6y ago

It seems like the parent is supporting the ability for the Tesla Alameda factory to operate, and is not questioning the ability of the government to shut it down.

mid 6y ago

> But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence. To claim that the environment is unsafe (or safe for that matter) one must _test_ their beliefs against empirical evidence, not just _illustrate_ such theory with selected facts. Has the government done that in this case?

dpoochieni 6y ago

Ladies and gentlemen, can we agree on 1 thing though? This is not even comparable to speed limits. The law is enacted by legislative action, not by Alameda's county board, nor the administrator nor its health official. Show us please what law Elon Musk is going to break. Can a lawyer chime in please?

gpm 6y ago

> "Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence. On the flip side I support the elected legislature's ability to do this, but if you read the legal arguments being made it's pretty unclear that the legislature has in fact passed any law doing so. Read paragraph 32 of the complaint for what I find to be the most convincing argument for this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359281/gov.uscourts.cand.359281.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359281...

cryptonector 6y ago
Thanks for the link! I'm surprised to find that California's legislature did not pass statutes making refusal to obey lockdown rules crimes. In many places it's all governors' EOs and mayors' orders. Here in Texas, for example, no statutes have been passed enabling localities to dictate and enforce stay-at-home orders or wearing of masks, and the cities and counties thus lack the authority to do much of what they nonetheless have gone on to do in terms of ordinances and executive orders. We're a nation of laws, and we have generally been very particular about process. Due Process, yes, but also all manner of procedure, from electoral, to parliamentary, and others. Besides that, the Constitution still applies -- no part of it has been suspended -- and much of it has been incorporated against the States (term of art for: "it wasn't clear before, but now is under Supreme Court precedents, that these various parts of the Constitution that talk of what Congress can't do apply to State legislatures too"). So around here, many people are wearing masks, but they don't have to, not legally, and those signs that say "customers must wear masks by order of the city and county" are correct but legally toothless. In fact, around here I see enough people not wearing masks at notable stores, like Central Market, and all the big box stores that are open, that I can only conclude there is no attempt even to enforce those unenforceable edits. If the county executive wants to require the wearing masks, they'll have to lobby the legislature for new statutes. People will much more likely support their governors and mayors when the legislatures are also standing with them, and less so when they are not.

CamperBob2 6y ago

Maybe that's not the best analogy, since evidence exists that setting speed limits that are too low actually costs lives.

briandear 6y ago

Under that logic, we’d still have segregation.

anonytrary 6y ago

The speed limit analogy doesn't really reflect the magnitude of the conflict we're seeing here. Should the government be allowed to pick and choose businesses that are allowed to open as if they were eggs in a basket? The speed limit example applies to everyone equally, and a difference of 10mph in the speed limit isn't going to potentially bankrupt successful businesses. Given the speed limit analogy, the corresponding action here would be to allow all businesses to operate in distanced-mode (6ft, thermo guns, etc.) equally. Any business that cannot function in this mode would be at a disadvantage, but it wouldn't be because someone on a small government panel disliked their eggs. My 2 cents -- I agree with OP, California apparently tends to exercise their power a bit too often at the expense of their constituents. I can't imagine how a black-and-white veto on businesses could be considered as sensible policy... The government should be more incremental in their decisions, i.e. with slow business-agnostic openings.

elisharobinson 6y ago

i guess your ignoring the fact that if your county didnt have the authority to impose a speed limit but did so anyway than its not illegal to ignore it.

ascorbic 6y ago
Then you challenge the speed limit in court. You dont order your 10,000 employees to disobey it.
- elisharobinson 6y ago
  Get your facts straight it's only 1/3 of ten thousand and they will be separated into 3 shifts . Also they claim to have safe hygiene standards . I don't have any reason to doubt their clAIm . What do you get from going to court . You can't get the billions wasted in time cost And penalty of having artificial limits on you while your competition is allowed to operate and you lose market share.

jeffdavis 6y ago

Your logic is sound, but the calculus changes when dealing with matters that touch on rights and freedoms. In all likelihood, these closures are a direct violation of the First Amendment. I think people are tolerant of these restrictions for limited periods of time, but when the emergency drags on forever and becomes increasingly arbitrary, it starts to lose credibility. Politicians have limited power, even during an emergency. And especially when the emergency looks like it's going to be in effect to some degree for maybe a year. Remember also that the people who go out are doing so by choice. And most people mostly choose to stay home. It's not clear that we need a big enforcement hammer here.

contravariant 6y ago
This isn't any more a violation of the First Amendment than making it illegal to sow panic by shouting "Fire!". Being pretty sure it's not going to end too badly isn't sufficient reason to ignore either restrictions.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  Even if it's not a violation of the First Amendment, it's close enough that it flips the responsibility. Now the government needs to continually convince people that it's not a violation. America is about freedom and limited government. That means some policy options are off the table or treated with extreme skepticism.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    It's a violation of basic freedoms, that's true, but it's not one without reason (hence my example). I do agree with you that measures like this require constant justification, as would be the case in any democracy. I do not think that flouting these measures arbitrarily is the best way to achieve this.

tinus_hn 6y ago

I don’t know if it works that way in California but in many places if the government tries to restrict basic rights like the right to go where you want to and the right to earn a living, they better be prepared to explain it to a judge. It’s just basic accountability.

Amygaz 6y ago

I think a government should be able to provide strict guidelines on how a business can comply and get approved for staying open. Some States have that in place for companies that are on the list of exempt businesses, and those lists can be ridiculously long, with plenty of not-essential-at-all businesses. The current problem is a lack of clear guidelines. To me it seems that the plan is to not have one. Now, I do condone Musk's. I think his 9yo tantrum throwing behavior is on par with the child king staying at the WH.

bluntfang 6y ago

speed limit is a great choice for an example here, since damage via motor vehicle collision is exponentially related to speed. ie the difference between potential for injury/death is considerable higher between the 40-50 increase than the 50-60 increase. When I drive my car, I'm not worried about my ability. I'm worried about other's ability. Are they texting? Are they drunk? etc. If everyone is capped at 50mph, then the potential for damage is much lower than if everyone was capped at 60mph. It's not about personal safety or whether your vehicle can safely operate at higher speeds under ideal conditions. It's about the potential to injure others (or others to injure you) if those ideal conditions aren't met for some reason (user error or extraneous conditions) and our ability to account for when those ideal conditions aren't met.