41–50 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID deaths are near 90K in the US (so far).
[deleted - I didn't mean anything like the reply]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hardly call it an arbitrary shutdown. Pandemic, ya know.
Constitutional rights, ya know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.
I would hardly call it an arbitrary shutdown. Pandemic, ya know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted - I didn't mean anything like the reply]
Deaths by other causes--flu, pneumonia, clots, strokes, etc. are all being reported as above normal levels. That's a sign that Covid-related cases are likely being undercounted rather than your unsubstantiated assertions of overcounting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, you’re crazy. Me: Who produces the food if no one works? You: Food producers are essential workers so food production is unaffected. Me: How do people outside the food industry pay for the food without working? You: They don’t. The government taxes future productive efforts of other people to buy the food. Me: But I don’t want the government to take my future dollars and give them away. You: Too bad chump.
A better answer, from your perspective, would probably be that private charity and food banks deal with this problem already, right?
1. Agents allocate their own scarce resources.
2. Agents make subjective assessments of Covid-related work risks.
3. Agents who previously preferred saving to consumption are less constrained.
Nothing to see here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.
>> The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. That would be illegal, but isn't what is happening. An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). But temporarily shutting down a business because of a virus, safety issues, lack of insurance, pollution worries, failure to pay taxes, inadequate lighting in the parking lots, to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constitutional rights, ya know.
Is this a constitutional right, or just a matter of general individual liberty? Because if it's a matter of individual liberty, I think we can sacrifice some of those for the time being for the greater good of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are we going to ban all cars now? Average automobile deaths are ~30k per year. They're non essential. Let's all stop driving. "do whatever it takes to save lives"
> do whatever it takes to save lives When did this become the norm? It happened sometime in the last decade, this idea that life is the ultimate metric with which to measure the utility of some action. I agree that life is precious and up there in importance, but I do not agree that it is the most important variable to optimize for. There are things more precious than life, such as freedom. Specifically, freedom that…
Once you speak about someone else's — no, life is the most precious part you need to preserve. The reason is simple: any material things can be replaced, but a life, once stopped, cannot be reinstated.
The trouble with deep economy shutdown, though, is that it becomes a trolley problem: do you want to save some more lives today at the risk of having more people die later because of the consequences? I think this is where the war mentality should kick in: we need to fight and have our commanders risk our lives, so that the other people we care about would live. It's not that bad yet, though, except for the medical personnel.