4 ms·

> And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existe

> And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existed at the time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, most of which were entirely forgiven after the fact. It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Had those loans not been handed out like candy, the gov would have violated 5A. You cannot seize private property for public good without just compensation. As it stands, I think many folks should sue the federal and state governments for 5A violations, especially if they did not receive true just compensation for the shutdowns.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Is there a source for this? This seems incredibly shaky, basically saying that because of public health mandates, the government had to "repay" businesses for lost business/the inability to conduct business, which is just... not the same thing. Lost business is at best a nebulous "I might've made X" proposition, it's not nearly the same thing to, for example, say that the Government confiscated your truck which was worth $12,000 and should pay you as such. Like, I can see the logic but this seems like something that should be handled in court, not pre-empted by the feds this way.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Businesses would have lost customers naturally and folded due to a lack of revenue. But that's not what happened in the US. In many states, the state government forbade service businesses from operating and actively revoked licenses and/or fined businesses that tried to operate. [1] Why did they force businesses to close? To prevent covid transmission. That is definitionly done for the public good and is therefore subject to 5A. Here is the relevamt text from the ammendment: """ ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. """ A quick ddg search isn't turning anything up for ppp and 5th ammendment, but it's obvious it applies. [1] https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-murphys-covid-rules-must-pay-124k-in-fines-court-rules.html https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-mur...
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym. Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym. The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down. How is this unreasonable?
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot of the downplaying of COVID as a whole and the opposition to masks/mandates/business stoppages was decidedly not rational and was in fact deeply rooted in conservative/libertarian culture war nonsense. If you wanted to go out, without a mask, and open yourself to that risk in full understanding of it, fair enough. The thing is with the amount of disinformation it's extremely dubious how many people did that with that understanding. And, more to the point, that risk is simply not isolated to you, that actor: that risk is shared by you, your co-habitants, your neighbors if you live in an apartment or condominium, your coworkers if you worked in person, and anyone else you happened to be in contact with. And, due to the long incubation period before symptoms showed, it was entirely possible you could get infected and spend upwards of a week spreading it around before you even realized you needed to quarantine. So saying "I'm not concerned about covid" sounds fine on paper, but you're exposing numerous people through your decision to greater risk, and they should have a say in that too, don't you think? And to be clear: I am not in the slightest opposed to giving businesses money to survive those weird circumstances, that makes complete fucking sense to me. The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Is there a source for this? This seems incredibly shaky, basically saying that because of public health mandates, the government had to "repay" businesses for lost business/the inability to conduct business, which is just... not the same thing. Lost business is at best a nebulous "I might've made X" proposition, it's not nearly the same thing to, for example, say that the Government confiscated your truck which was worth $12,000 and should pay you as such. Like, I can see the logic but this seems like something that should be handled in court, not pre-empted by the feds this way.

hellojesus 3y ago
Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Businesses would have lost customers naturally and folded due to a lack of revenue. But that's not what happened in the US. In many states, the state government forbade service businesses from operating and actively revoked licenses and/or fined businesses that tried to operate. [1] Why did they force businesses to close? To prevent covid transmission. That is definitionly done for the public good and is therefore subject to 5A. Here is the relevamt text from the ammendment: """ ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. """ A quick ddg search isn't turning anything up for ppp and 5th ammendment, but it's obvious it applies. [1] https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-murphys-covid-rules-must-pay-124k-in-fines-court-rules.html https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-mur...
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym. Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym. The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down. How is this unreasonable?
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot of the downplaying of COVID as a whole and the opposition to masks/mandates/business stoppages was decidedly not rational and was in fact deeply rooted in conservative/libertarian culture war nonsense. If you wanted to go out, without a mask, and open yourself to that risk in full understanding of it, fair enough. The thing is with the amount of disinformation it's extremely dubious how many people did that with that understanding. And, more to the point, that risk is simply not isolated to you, that actor: that risk is shared by you, your co-habitants, your neighbors if you live in an apartment or condominium, your coworkers if you worked in person, and anyone else you happened to be in contact with. And, due to the long incubation period before symptoms showed, it was entirely possible you could get infected and spend upwards of a week spreading it around before you even realized you needed to quarantine. So saying "I'm not concerned about covid" sounds fine on paper, but you're exposing numerous people through your decision to greater risk, and they should have a say in that too, don't you think? And to be clear: I am not in the slightest opposed to giving businesses money to survive those weird circumstances, that makes complete fucking sense to me. The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.