4 ms·

There's still some liability on the state in leaving it interpretable. They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. The

There's still some liability on the state in leaving it interpretable. They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. The best political safe alternative for all players involved is to do what's happening now; the government provides a hard line on guidance and then is lax on enforcement and lets the plant re-open and begin production. If it goes well (and hopefully it goes well), it goes well. If it doesn't go well, then people who were advocating taking the risk and with the most to gain if had it gone well, are ultimately responsible for the downside liability. Which seems fair?

pdonis 6y ago
> They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. Called out by whom? I won't. I don't expect the government to provide me guidance. I'm an adult human being and I don't need a parent. > The best political safe alternative I have no interest in a "political safe alternative". Politicians worrying more about their political safety than the good of the people is what got us into this mess. Without a culture of "political safe alternative" the FDA would not have had the power to keep state and local health authorities from coming up with their own testing protocols when it was clear the FDA and the CDC weren't up to the job. And without a culture of too many people waiting for "guidance" from the government, people would not have waited to take obvious common sense precautions against a possible pandemic until the government and the media told them to, way too late. > Which seems fair? I have no problem with people who decide for themselves what to do with their own lives having to live with the consequences. What I have a problem with is someone else claiming the power to decide for me what I am allowed to do, and the only consequences to them if they screw up being "political".
- somethoughts 6y ago
  The scenario as a taxpayer that's concerning is as follows: 1.) Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" or doesn't provide any guidance (edited). 2.) Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up either through explicit approval or inaction (i.e. Individual B thinks the Government should have acted) - (edited). The Government then loses the lawsuit and uses taxpayer money to pay the settlement. Then Taxpayer A, B and C proceed to also sue the government due to gross mismanagement of tax payer dollars and the government loses that as well. And now the rest of us Taxpayers D thru Z have to pay for all these settlements.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" Who gave the government the power to make that decision unilaterally? > Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up. So if the government were out of the picture, B would simply be suing A. There would be nobody else to sue. And the taxpayers would not have to pay anything. So what value, exactly, is the government adding here?
  - nradov 6y ago
    You are just completely wrong and have no clue how liability works in US civil courts. Did you get your legal education by watching TV?
- macintux 6y ago
  Clearly a large number of adults do require guidance, and health care practitioners are paying the price for their arrogance.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Clearly a large number of adults do require guidance So I should have my freedom restricted because other people can't handle theirs responsibly?
    - macintux 6y ago
      That’s what happens in pandemics: everyone’s freedom is restricted because everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways No, some people's choices impact some other people in serious, often fatal ways. My wife and I started taking precautions more than two months ago. We have drastically cut down the number of shopping trips we make--one of us used to go to the grocery store, drugstore, or whatever every other day or so, now it's about once every 10 days, and we make sure to stock up so we don't have to go more often. We wear mask and gloves whenever we do go to the store or any other public place where we can't reliably social distance. When we walk our dogs, we stay well away from anyone else. How have our choices impacted anyone else negatively?
        macintux 6y ago
        You have voluntarily restricted your own freedoms, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > You have voluntarily restricted your own freedoms No, I've exercised my own freedom to choose what's best for me. > I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. First, you made an obviously wrong factual claim, so I called you on it. It is not true that "everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways". Second, this wrong factual claim is not harmless, because, as you yourself note, it is being used as justification for the government to exercise draconian powers to restrict everyone's freedom. The government cannot be trusted to exercise such powers responsibly. No government can, because governments are run by humans, and no humans can be trusted with that much power over other humans. That was supposed to be the key lesson that got the United States of America started as an independent country, but we seem to have forgotten it.

pdonis 6y ago

> They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. Called out by whom? I won't. I don't expect the government to provide me guidance. I'm an adult human being and I don't need a parent. > The best political safe alternative I have no interest in a "political safe alternative". Politicians worrying more about their political safety than the good of the people is what got us into this mess. Without a culture of "political safe alternative" the FDA would not have had the power to keep state and local health authorities from coming up with their own testing protocols when it was clear the FDA and the CDC weren't up to the job. And without a culture of too many people waiting for "guidance" from the government, people would not have waited to take obvious common sense precautions against a possible pandemic until the government and the media told them to, way too late. > Which seems fair? I have no problem with people who decide for themselves what to do with their own lives having to live with the consequences. What I have a problem with is someone else claiming the power to decide for me what I am allowed to do, and the only consequences to them if they screw up being "political".

somethoughts 6y ago
The scenario as a taxpayer that's concerning is as follows: 1.) Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" or doesn't provide any guidance (edited). 2.) Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up either through explicit approval or inaction (i.e. Individual B thinks the Government should have acted) - (edited). The Government then loses the lawsuit and uses taxpayer money to pay the settlement. Then Taxpayer A, B and C proceed to also sue the government due to gross mismanagement of tax payer dollars and the government loses that as well. And now the rest of us Taxpayers D thru Z have to pay for all these settlements.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" Who gave the government the power to make that decision unilaterally? > Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up. So if the government were out of the picture, B would simply be suing A. There would be nobody else to sue. And the taxpayers would not have to pay anything. So what value, exactly, is the government adding here?
- nradov 6y ago
  You are just completely wrong and have no clue how liability works in US civil courts. Did you get your legal education by watching TV?
macintux 6y ago
Clearly a large number of adults do require guidance, and health care practitioners are paying the price for their arrogance.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Clearly a large number of adults do require guidance So I should have my freedom restricted because other people can't handle theirs responsibly?
  - macintux 6y ago
    That’s what happens in pandemics: everyone’s freedom is restricted because everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways No, some people's choices impact some other people in serious, often fatal ways. My wife and I started taking precautions more than two months ago. We have drastically cut down the number of shopping trips we make--one of us used to go to the grocery store, drugstore, or whatever every other day or so, now it's about once every 10 days, and we make sure to stock up so we don't have to go more often. We wear mask and gloves whenever we do go to the store or any other public place where we can't reliably social distance. When we walk our dogs, we stay well away from anyone else. How have our choices impacted anyone else negatively?
      - macintux 6y ago
        You have voluntarily restricted your own freedoms, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > You have voluntarily restricted your own freedoms No, I've exercised my own freedom to choose what's best for me. > I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. First, you made an obviously wrong factual claim, so I called you on it. It is not true that "everyone’s choices impact everyone else in serious, often fatal, ways". Second, this wrong factual claim is not harmless, because, as you yourself note, it is being used as justification for the government to exercise draconian powers to restrict everyone's freedom. The government cannot be trusted to exercise such powers responsibly. No government can, because governments are run by humans, and no humans can be trusted with that much power over other humans. That was supposed to be the key lesson that got the United States of America started as an independent country, but we seem to have forgotten it.