3 ms·

> 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 p

> 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. Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person's assessment of harm. > Well for starters,... I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. *Also, another tidbit is that banks were compensated for lending ppp loans by a percent of the total loan's value, so bigger corporations were more likely to get a ppp loan because the bank received more money for the same amount of work. Corrupt incentives by design.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd. > I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. Add to it, where does this stop? If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? And for how long? If it's the first example that could be however long until they can inspect your remodeled/cleaned premises. If it's the second, it could be anywhere from an hour to several weeks depending what happened. If it's the second one, it might be for eternity. Are we calculating lost business revenue to your likely age of retirement then? This whole thing is a bottomless pit of litigation and legal gray areas. > Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. > and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. Yeah I don't believe that at all. We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, you don't have the freedom to drive on the left side of the road, you don't have the freedom to build a 200 story skyscraper on your suburban lot, etc. etc. etc. This hyper individualistic libertarian fantasy is just that: a fantasy.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. I disagree. The gov forced businesses to shut down (1). That is not the same as preventing potential revenue (2). (1) requires just compensation. (2) doesn't. > If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If the code is in place prior to your business' operation, then no. If a new law forces a new code that renders an existing contract of yours void, I would see a case for compensation as the gov passed the law for the benefit of the public. > If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? This is an example of (2) above. The gov isn't forcing your business shut. A policy has prevented customers from reaching you, but your business is still free to operate. > If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? No private property was seized. No compensation owed. > Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. Quite literally we're in record inflation times. Some of that is due to supply side constraints, but a whole bunch of it was due to the three trillion pumped into the economy to prevent an economic contraction. > You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater You do. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. > We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. We have laws in place to restrict freedoms. We cannot ignore these same laws when they prescribe a remedy for seizure of non state property by the state.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd. > I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money! Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. Add to it, where does this stop? If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? And for how long? If it's the first example that could be however long until they can inspect your remodeled/cleaned premises. If it's the second, it could be anywhere from an hour to several weeks depending what happened. If it's the second one, it might be for eternity. Are we calculating lost business revenue to your likely age of retirement then? This whole thing is a bottomless pit of litigation and legal gray areas. > Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. > and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life. Yeah I don't believe that at all. We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, you don't have the freedom to drive on the left side of the road, you don't have the freedom to build a 200 story skyscraper on your suburban lot, etc. etc. etc. This hyper individualistic libertarian fantasy is just that: a fantasy.

hellojesus 3y ago
> Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason. I disagree. The gov forced businesses to shut down (1). That is not the same as preventing potential revenue (2). (1) requires just compensation. (2) doesn't. > If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If the code is in place prior to your business' operation, then no. If a new law forces a new code that renders an existing contract of yours void, I would see a case for compensation as the gov passed the law for the benefit of the public. > If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? This is an example of (2) above. The gov isn't forcing your business shut. A policy has prevented customers from reaching you, but your business is still free to operate. > If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that? No private property was seized. No compensation owed. > Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened. Quite literally we're in record inflation times. Some of that is due to supply side constraints, but a whole bunch of it was due to the three trillion pumped into the economy to prevent an economic contraction. > You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater You do. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. > We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. We have laws in place to restrict freedoms. We cannot ignore these same laws when they prescribe a remedy for seizure of non state property by the state.