4 ms·
Oddly enough, in this case the local and state government does have a reason and did follow due process. A company that disagrees can sue -- more due process.
by greglindahl 6y ago
Oddly enough, in this case the local and state government does have a reason and did follow due process. A company that disagrees can sue -- more due process.
- glofish 6y agoIt all hinges on the reason and due process of course. I read an amusing analogy, we have what we call the "Schrodinger's disease". The government tries to protect me from the disease and suspects me of spreading the disease - all at the same time. Even though I don't want that protection and I am not sick. Doesnt' matter, I have to oblige.
- qotgalaxy 6y agoYes, you do. It's honestly not that complicated.
- ascorbic 6y agoHave you been tested? Every day? You can't confidently say you're not infectious when a large proportion of cases are asymptomatic, or very mild. By all means be gung-ho about your own life, but your rights stop at the point they risk other people.
- deathgrips 6y agoYou will never be able to confidently say you are not infectious of some disease.
- ascorbic 6y agoExactly. Which is why, when there is an epidemic of a dangerous disease, measures need to be implemented that assume that everybody is infectious unless proven otherwise.
- deathgrips 6y agoNo, that's not the point. If the small risk of someone dying from covid19 is enough to take away everyone's rights, what keeps your state from taking away your rights for a similarly flimsy reason, such as the risk that you will commit a crime?
- chimprich 6y agoLaws, constitutions, the legal system, and the ballot box. Mature democracies should have the ability to carefully and responsibly limit some rights in times of great crisis, such as wars and pandemics.
- glofish 6y agothis is like saying have you regularly proven that you are not guilty of crimes? It is really not how it should work at all. Assuming everyone is infected at all times is both absurd and most importantly unworkable and counterproductive. The net effect is the opposite of what it wants to achieve.
- code_duck 6y agoThis is essentially the same principle that says restaurants have to follow health regulations to prevent spreading disease.
- deathgrips 6y agoDepriving people of the right to earn a living regardless of their health status and regardless of their health practices (PPE, distancing in the workplace, sanitizing surfaces, air filtration) is absolutely not due process. It is the sort of arbitrary and absurd regulation which is quintessentially Californian. California has a history of depriving people of human rights without rhyme or reason; this is just furthering the trend.
- colejohnson66 6y ago> California has a history of depriving people of human rights without rhyme or reason; this is just furthering the trend. [citation needed] Why point the finger at California? The federal government has done so too.
- deathgrips 6y agoHere are some examples: * making it illegal for homeless people to exist in cities (loitering laws etc. when the homeless cannot help but break the law) * taking away the right to bear arms as soon as black people started carrying firearms for self defense * a long history of police brutality in the LAPD against minorities * Los Angeles refusing to protect Asian Americans during race riots * The California Dept of Labor refusing to enforce minimum wage laws regardless of the citizenship status of workers (only the federal government has to enforce border and immigration laws) We're talking about California in this thread. If you want to talk about the federal government you're free to do so.