411–420 of 604 posts
Sounds like legitimate reasoning for their decision, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what about the US? If all government is corrupt, if all taxes are sin, if all leaders on the other side are traitors to the cause, the people will never respect those in charge. The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. This is a rather extremist take on the issue. You can be against unlawful orders while still obeying the scientific advisories. Take MA for example, where we have a stay-at-home advi…
Also just anecdotally, here in Ontario people seem to want to avoid catching and spreading the disease, more than to avoid clashing with the law (who can't really tell if you have a legitimate reason to be somewhere anyway); and the people who don't care about one don't care about the other either. For the handful of people I see clearly flaunting the restrictions here, I feel like more often than not they have decen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of the shelter in place order is doing more harm than good. When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics. And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this. Having some relatives in that part of th…
"Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy . The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the checks. "But but but debt--" Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional. Just write the checks. "But but but undeserving poors --" No. Just write the checks. I realize, of course, I am sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. But Sweden is run by an ultra leftist government, so if course it is not criticised. But the same lies about "the US is doing worse" are told here in Europe as well. Just need to look to the stats, do the sum, and suddenly the US and EU are about the same. Oh well, modern journalism is about clicks, not facts, unfortunately.
How is Sweden ultra leftist? The ruling party are Social Democrats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, there is not. I didn't attend to which circuit had issued the landmark-stupid ruling.
Why is the ruling stupid? It seems like an entirely reasonable check on the power of the governor. The health department and governor can order a binding shelter in place, but the elected state representatives have the power to overrule it. Shouldn't the majority be able to revoke such an order if they want?
They didn't do that here. They wanted a direct check on the agency's decision, rather than executing the power they actually had.
To quote my other response, on why this was a stupid ruling:
>Which is literally the court's excuse for the "rulemaking" ruling - that they should have gone through the 12mo+ tradition of regulation-development that legislatively-empowered agencies utilize. Which isn't how public health powers usually work - the public health powers are delineated in empowering statutes and regulations ahead of time, and allow leewey to do things like "order quarantine" within broadly-worded statutes+regs.
> Which is why this was phenomenally stupid. Besides ignoring context, this was a ruling that basically boiled down to "agencies cannot exercise the powers developed in the scope of their founding statutes and regulations unless those (edit: specific manifestations) have been very explicitly laid out ahead of time, otherwise, they need to go to rulemaking for every application of their powers." It effectively guts the ability of agencies to do things they are supposed to do, have been doing, and prevents them from acting in time-frames All in the context of a legislative body that had a legal remedy afforded to them, but that would have been too slow. So for political purposes, they've now gutted the ability of emergency agencies to respond to emergencies, so that legislatures don't have to legislate changes to legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. But Sweden is run by an ultra leftist government, so if course it is not criticised. But the same lies about "the US is doing worse" are told here in Europe as well. Just need to look to the stats, do the sum, and suddenly the US and EU are about the same. Oh well, modern journalism is about clicks, not facts, unfortunately.
How is Sweden ultra leftist? The ruling party are Social Democrats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes back to the culture point OP made. Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.
I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have be…
Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So at the risk of asking a dumb question: why aren't protesters demanding e.g. more economic aid instead of a reopening? It's not like giving money to people in this crisis is a taboo anymore... it was one thing both the Congress and the White House agreed on for once. And it's not like if everything reopens then they're going to be instantly back in business. A lot of people will still stay home anyway. Wouldn't it…
Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work. In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of th…
I'm confused. I was saying people could demand more money instead of going back to work... precisely because the $1200 they got clearly wasn't enough (like you also said) and because clearly going back to work is otherwise riskier. You just jumped from "$1200 isn't enough" to "the only solution is to go back to work"?
This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…
I've heard this broadly expressed as America being focused on (abstract) rights , when most of the rest of the Western world focuses on justice (of outcomes). A pointed example of this is the criminal justice system, where people in the US have the right to stay silent, talk to a lawyer, etc, but still get screwed sideways with profoundly unjust outcomes due to plea bargaining, mandatory minimums, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have be…
I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. The choice of staying home and dying is a false dichotomy, and many see the lockdown as a unjust assumption of power by governments that don't have the right to take such actions. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
> I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
I'm sorry, I was just replying to what you wrote, and you were telling me that the issue is earning a living. Now you changed your argument entirely. So you're saying this isn't even about making a living then, given that paying people would clearly solve that problem? That means you're concluding it's really a political protest then? Isn't that a pretty strong, rational reason for everyone else to actively ignore the protesters in that case? Rather than "show a little more compassion" for something they're not protesting about?