3 ms·

No business can survive under those conditions and that is not a valid critique of their viability under a range of ordinary conditions. Tax payer do own busin

No business can survive under those conditions and that is not a valid critique of their viability under a range of ordinary conditions. Tax payer do own businesses due process under law and a respect for private property rights. In America, the government can’t seize a business without compensation. Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution and a violation of basic inalienable rights we as citizens each have. As far as 25% being spend on other things. It’s kind of pointless to pay employees but not pay rent, get evicted, and have no place for them to go...kind of defeats the point. A restaurant kind of needs its physical location to operate and offer people jobs. This isn’t about “funneling funds to individuals” that’s what unemployment insurance and stimulus checks were for. This was also about saving businesses so we don’t enter a depression.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
> Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution False, government does this to businesses all the time and compensation isn’t due. Take hurricanes in Florida and mandatory shutdown/evacuation orders, there is no promised compensation. Besides under imminent domain cases, I’d like to see some case law to support taxpayers bailing out businesses.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  Actually there is promised compensation in hurricane emergencies in the form of SBA EIDL (economic injury disaster loans). The existence of imminent domain proves my point, there are circumstances where tax payers owe An obligation to property owners and their actions are restricted by that obligation. Now we can argue about whether this specific act is a taking but I destroyed your blanket argument that tax payers don’t own business anything. Own a business with a plot of land, tax payers want to expand a road and tear down your office and take the land? Can’t do it without paying.
  - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
    In imminent domain if your property is taken you receive compensation, here many businesses closed and didn’t get PPP money, the government picked winners and losers. Again feel free to cite any law supporting your argument: 1) the shutdown orders were a government taking of private property; And 2.) compensation for a temporary taking. You missed the entire point of hurricanes, before any damage occurs governments order shutdowns and evacuations, there is no taking and there is no compensation for those shutdown and evacuation orders.
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      > You missed the entire point of hurricanes, before any damage occurs governments order shutdowns and evacuations, there is no taking and there is no compensation for those shutdown and evacuation orders. The time between evacuation order and landfall is at most four days. The economic damage from that phase is minor. There are businesses in some parts of the US that are in their fourth month of being forcibly closed. The situation is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to a hurricane evacuation.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      I wouldn't expect there to be law given that the government as never responded to a pandemic in the way that it has now. Your argument that it is temporary may be persuasive, but I wonder if that disappears if the shutdown order is long enough that it results in the business failing. Your point of the hurricane is not persuasive, in that situation, the hurricane does the damage, the government order is ancillary. Here, the shut down order is more of a direct cause in the business harm.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago

> Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution False, government does this to businesses all the time and compensation isn’t due. Take hurricanes in Florida and mandatory shutdown/evacuation orders, there is no promised compensation. Besides under imminent domain cases, I’d like to see some case law to support taxpayers bailing out businesses.

digitaltrees 6y ago
Actually there is promised compensation in hurricane emergencies in the form of SBA EIDL (economic injury disaster loans). The existence of imminent domain proves my point, there are circumstances where tax payers owe An obligation to property owners and their actions are restricted by that obligation. Now we can argue about whether this specific act is a taking but I destroyed your blanket argument that tax payers don’t own business anything. Own a business with a plot of land, tax payers want to expand a road and tear down your office and take the land? Can’t do it without paying.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  In imminent domain if your property is taken you receive compensation, here many businesses closed and didn’t get PPP money, the government picked winners and losers. Again feel free to cite any law supporting your argument: 1) the shutdown orders were a government taking of private property; And 2.) compensation for a temporary taking. You missed the entire point of hurricanes, before any damage occurs governments order shutdowns and evacuations, there is no taking and there is no compensation for those shutdown and evacuation orders.
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    > You missed the entire point of hurricanes, before any damage occurs governments order shutdowns and evacuations, there is no taking and there is no compensation for those shutdown and evacuation orders. The time between evacuation order and landfall is at most four days. The economic damage from that phase is minor. There are businesses in some parts of the US that are in their fourth month of being forcibly closed. The situation is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to a hurricane evacuation.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    I wouldn't expect there to be law given that the government as never responded to a pandemic in the way that it has now. Your argument that it is temporary may be persuasive, but I wonder if that disappears if the shutdown order is long enough that it results in the business failing. Your point of the hurricane is not persuasive, in that situation, the hurricane does the damage, the government order is ancillary. Here, the shut down order is more of a direct cause in the business harm.