3 ms·

Don't take it too harshly but it's a very naive view of how the world works. 1/ most regulations com from how people behave, not the other way around, which is

by mam2 6y ago

Don't take it too harshly but it's a very naive view of how the world works. 1/ most regulations com from how people behave, not the other way around, which is a good thing. 2/ civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) 3/ in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure if you do a referendum in many countries (starting with the US), people will say they don't want a lockdown. You are probably not on the majority side.

smt88 6y ago
> civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) It is laughable to suggest that Musk did this because it was moral. He did it to make money. His employees were getting paid either way. There is nothing noble or humanitarian about the decision. > in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. Desegregating the South in the US is a counterpoint. It was not popular (in the South), it was expensive, and it did change people's behavior. > You are probably not on the majority side. Why even write this without googling it? Temporary lockdowns have always been popular in the US[1]. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-national-one-month-lockdown-poll-1557262 https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-n...

by mam2 6y ago

smt88 6y ago

> civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) It is laughable to suggest that Musk did this because it was moral. He did it to make money. His employees were getting paid either way. There is nothing noble or humanitarian about the decision. > in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. Desegregating the South in the US is a counterpoint. It was not popular (in the South), it was expensive, and it did change people's behavior. > You are probably not on the majority side. Why even write this without googling it? Temporary lockdowns have always been popular in the US[1]. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-national-one-month-lockdown-poll-1557262 https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-n...