(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

(12-01-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it is the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good

Worked for the Soviet Union. Working for Cuba and North Korea.

We literally do that in the US.

That is not an idea unique to communism.

Deciding that only some arbitrary number of people may meet together is

To the bold above, how did that work with prohibition? Why don't we all follow Federal guidance on marijuana?

You're saying that 'shopping without a mask, regardless of how many other are in the space' has been deemed 'too risky for the public good'?? Who made that declaration?

How about regarding kids in school? Compare NY and other places new regulations to CDC guidelines and other than the 'adapt as it suits your situation' you will find that most of them are doing more than the people charged with protecting the public good have deemed necessary.

Why should the feds fund that and/or why should the feds stop a place from doing more?

You have this black and white way of describing this issue as if everyone agrees... when even the experts (and by that I mean, those we've charged with in the government to give such recommendations) INTENTIONALLY AND WITH PURPOSE leave all sorts of leeway in their recommendations?

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

By the feds, yes.

(12-01-2020 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

By the feds, yes.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

(12-01-2020 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it is the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good

Worked for the Soviet Union. Working for Cuba and North Korea.

We literally do that in the US.

That is not an idea unique to communism.

Deciding that only some arbitrary number of people may meet together is

To the bold above, how did that work with prohibition? Why don't we all follow Federal guidance on marijuana?

You're saying that 'shopping without a mask, regardless of how many other are in the space' has been deemed 'too risky for the public good'?? Who made that declaration?

How about regarding kids in school? Compare NY and other places new regulations to CDC guidelines and other than the 'adapt as it suits your situation' you will find that most of them are doing more than the people charged with protecting the public good have deemed necessary.

Why should the feds fund that and/or why should the feds stop a place from doing more?

You have this black and white way of describing this issue as if everyone agrees... when even the experts (and by that I mean, those we've charged with in the government to give such recommendations) INTENTIONALLY AND WITH PURPOSE leave all sorts of leeway in their recommendations?

What do you think I am arguing?

You seem to think I am making a black and white argument, when I am not.

Look at the initial part of my response that started us on this rabbit hole, does that look black or white to you?

Quote:I think a tough part of this, is that at some point, someone’s risk tolerance can have a negative outcome on others and the spread of the virus. And so it is the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places). Ideally, you would have a group of experts evaluating risk profiles for various activities and adjusting where that line falls as new information is obtained.

Sounds to me like it's the recognition that the target is moving, but we should be using sound judgement to identify what activities, if any, are too risky for the public good.

It's not that I think everyone agrees on what is a behavior that is too risky, but that there are definitely behaviors that some would find within their risk tolerance, but would be dangerous for others. And when relevant agencies/governments identify those activities and act to curtail them, we need to make sure that the economic consequences are covered.

(12-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

The Bill of Rights mostly does not apply to any group EXCEPT the Feds. It restricts the Federal government, not the states. STATE constitutions restrict the states.... so how can you be talking about the BOR and NOT be talking about the feds?

(12-01-2020 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What do you think I am arguing?

You seem to think I am making a black and white argument, when I am not.

Look at the initial part of my response that started us on this rabbit hole, does that look black or white to you?

Quote:I think a tough part of this, is that at some point, someone’s risk tolerance can have a negative outcome on others and the spread of the virus. And so it is the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places). Ideally, you would have a group of experts evaluating risk profiles for various activities and adjusting where that line falls as new information is obtained.

There is no such thing as a federal ban on smoking in public places. Feds have no jurisdiction on them. Yes, they can provide guidance... but I think it fair to argue that we know a whole lot more... a lot more of science is 'settled' on smoking than on COVID. Not to mention that a recommendation on eliminating public smoking doesn't bring along with it the possibility of keeping people from being able to pay their bills or feed their family if they comply. It doesn't bear the risk of increased child abuse and lost nutrition and lost socialization skills at a time on ones development where it can be impossible to overcome them, etc etc etc. You're comparing apples to the space shuttle.

Quote:Sounds to me like it's the recognition that the target is moving, but we should be using sound judgement to identify what activities, if any, are too risky for the public good.

So how are you supposed to pass a law that addresses a moving target other than exactly what they have done?

Quote:It's not that I think everyone agrees on what is a behavior that is too risky, but that there are definitely behaviors that some would find within their risk tolerance, but would be dangerous for others. And when relevant agencies/governments identify those activities and act to curtail them, we need to make sure that the economic consequences are covered.

[/quote]

Again lad... you keep dancing around this fact...

'Experts' in SOME states have decided that based on the situations that THEY face, that certain acts are necessary, and others have decided that they aren't. As I said, a 200 seat bar in Manhattan vs a 10 seat bar in nowhere South Dakota represent vastly different pandemic risk profiles. That the profile for Rice U, a 4,000 (on campus or so) student body in the middle of a city of 2mm vs say La Tech, a 13k student body in a city of 22k have vastly different risk profiles. A city like houston where people usually drive themselves vs a city like NY where they take public or shared transportation... a city like NY where delivery is readily available vs a city like Rosharon where it isn't have vastly different risk profiles.

Things that are risky in one location and under certain circumstances are NOT risky in others. An example is a limit on gatherings to say 50 people. 50 people in Rice Stadium does not have the same risk profile as 50 people in the Will Rice Commons. 50 people at Second Baptist in Houston vs 50 people at Second Baptist in Bowie. A state like NY with 55k sq miles and
20mm people vs N. Dakota with 750k people spread across 70k square miles will have vastly different risk profiles... as limits on gatherings of 50 people or more in say an office building or factory would have close to zero impact on jobs in ND, but essentially shut NY down completely.... and even if you make it a percentage, there are some businesses that can't operate at all with 1/2 a staff... like a small diner... and others that would do just fine.

Because of this, AND because of the Constitution that generally prohibits feds from restricting commerce WITHIN any state, The Feds don't have the manpower nor the authority to make the literally tens of if not hundreds of thousands of individual decisions that would need to be made. That is specifically WHY we are United States and have city and county and local government.... and not simply 'America'. Mostly what they have the power to do here is to write a check.... and once again, I'm asking you if you think they should just write the check for whatever any state says they need, or whether they (after consulting their experts) should decide how much the states need and give them that?

Not to mention... I'd note that dems and reps were originally 1.5 trillion dollars in disagreement, on a 2.5 trillion dollar bill. Are we suggesting that ONE side's teams were using experts and the others were just winging it when they came up with those numbers?? Or is it possible that those who mostly represent densely populated states would have one attitude towards risk and those who mostly represent more sparsely populated states would have a different one, and that EXPERTS would agree with both, given their specific situations??

Which by the way... the CDC are experts in health... not economics. Economists are similarly experts in economics, not health. I happen to have been considered an expert of sorts in both, but not at the same time... and you react to my 'expert' and 'informed' opinions in economics and healthcare as if I don't know a damn thing. I've also lived in 14 states including Missouri, California (both rural and SF), Hawaii and VA near DC... and traveled to NYC 100 times... and my son lives there now... so I know a little about the different needs and priorities of varied people... having provided healthcare to people in Downtown SF as well as Ozark, Missouri.

I'm not saying this to imply I'm smart. Lots of people are much smarter. I'm saying it to imply that my resume looks a WHOLE LOT like someone who would be considered ideally suited to speak about these issues on a national level... but essentially because we disagree on the role of the central government, you dismiss my thoughts.... as would anyone else who disagrees with me on the role of government.

So this isn't about listening to experts... Its about what you think the role of government is. You seem to think that its the role of the feds to either fund whatever decisions the states want to make without question, or to decide what they will and will not fund... even if the states (and THEIR experts, who of course are experts on their states) disagree and want to do more (or less).

So who the hell are you going to appoint to be these 'experts'? And more important, how are you going to enforce a federal ban on masks when you can't even enact a federal ban on indoor smoking?

(12-01-2020 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is really nice to have someone who has the experience to know what he is actually talking about address this issue.

Amen, brother.

(12-01-2020 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

The Bill of Rights mostly does not apply to any group EXCEPT the Feds. It restricts the Federal government, not the states. STATE constitutions restrict the states.... so how can you be talking about the BOR and NOT be talking about the feds?

(12-01-2020 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What do you think I am arguing?

You seem to think I am making a black and white argument, when I am not.

Look at the initial part of my response that started us on this rabbit hole, does that look black or white to you?

Quote:I think a tough part of this, is that at some point, someone’s risk tolerance can have a negative outcome on others and the spread of the virus. And so it is the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places). Ideally, you would have a group of experts evaluating risk profiles for various activities and adjusting where that line falls as new information is obtained.

There is no such thing as a federal ban on smoking in public places. Feds have no jurisdiction on them. Yes, they can provide guidance... but I think it fair to argue that we know a whole lot more... a lot more of science is 'settled' on smoking than on COVID. Not to mention that a recommendation on eliminating public smoking doesn't bring along with it the possibility of keeping people from being able to pay their bills or feed their family if they comply. It doesn't bear the risk of increased child abuse and lost nutrition and lost socialization skills at a time on ones development where it can be impossible to overcome them, etc etc etc. You're comparing apples to the space shuttle.

Quote:Sounds to me like it's the recognition that the target is moving, but we should be using sound judgement to identify what activities, if any, are too risky for the public good.

So how are you supposed to pass a law that addresses a moving target other than exactly what they have done?

Quote:It's not that I think everyone agrees on what is a behavior that is too risky, but that there are definitely behaviors that some would find within their risk tolerance, but would be dangerous for others. And when relevant agencies/governments identify those activities and act to curtail them, we need to make sure that the economic consequences are covered.

Again lad... you keep dancing around this fact...

'Experts' in SOME states have decided that based on the situations that THEY face, that certain acts are necessary, and others have decided that they aren't. As I said, a 200 seat bar in Manhattan vs a 10 seat bar in nowhere South Dakota represent vastly different pandemic risk profiles. That the profile for Rice U, a 4,000 (on campus or so) student body in the middle of a city of 2mm vs say La Tech, a 13k student body in a city of 22k have vastly different risk profiles. A city like houston where people usually drive themselves vs a city like NY where they take public or shared transportation... a city like NY where delivery is readily available vs a city like Rosharon where it isn't have vastly different risk profiles.

Things that are risky in one location and under certain circumstances are NOT risky in others. An example is a limit on gatherings to say 50 people. 50 people in Rice Stadium does not have the same risk profile as 50 people in the Will Rice Commons. 50 people at Second Baptist in Houston vs 50 people at Second Baptist in Bowie. A state like NY with 55k sq miles and
20mm people vs N. Dakota with 750k people spread across 70k square miles will have vastly different risk profiles... as limits on gatherings of 50 people or more in say an office building or factory would have close to zero impact on jobs in ND, but essentially shut NY down completely.... and even if you make it a percentage, there are some businesses that can't operate at all with 1/2 a staff... like a small diner... and others that would do just fine.

Because of this, AND because of the Constitution that generally prohibits feds from restricting commerce WITHIN any state, The Feds don't have the manpower nor the authority to make the literally tens of if not hundreds of thousands of individual decisions that would need to be made. That is specifically WHY we are United States and have city and county and local government.... and not simply 'America'. Mostly what they have the power to do here is to write a check.... and once again, I'm asking you if you think they should just write the check for whatever any state says they need, or whether they (after consulting their experts) should decide how much the states need and give them that?

Not to mention... I'd note that dems and reps were originally 1.5 trillion dollars in disagreement, on a 2.5 trillion dollar bill. Are we suggesting that ONE side's teams were using experts and the others were just winging it when they came up with those numbers?? Or is it possible that those who mostly represent densely populated states would have one attitude towards risk and those who mostly represent more sparsely populated states would have a different one, and that EXPERTS would agree with both, given their specific situations??

Which by the way... the CDC are experts in health... not economics. Economists are similarly experts in economics, not health. I happen to have been considered an expert of sorts in both, but not at the same time... and you react to my 'expert' and 'informed' opinions in economics and healthcare as if I don't know a damn thing. I've also lived in 14 states including Missouri, California (both rural and SF), Hawaii and VA near DC... and traveled to NYC 100 times... and my son lives there now... so I know a little about the different needs and priorities of varied people... having provided healthcare to people in Downtown SF as well as Ozark, Missouri.

I'm not saying this to imply I'm smart. Lots of people are much smarter. I'm saying it to imply that my resume looks a WHOLE LOT like someone who would be considered ideally suited to speak about these issues on a national level... but essentially because we disagree on the role of the central government, you dismiss my thoughts.... as would anyone else who disagrees with me on the role of government.

So this isn't about listening to experts... Its about what you think the role of government is. You seem to think that its the role of the feds to either fund whatever decisions the states want to make without question, or to decide what they will and will not fund... even if the states (and THEIR experts, who of course are experts on their states) disagree and want to do more (or less).

So who the hell are you going to appoint to be these 'experts'? And more important, how are you going to enforce a federal ban on masks when you can't even enact a federal ban on indoor smoking?

When did we start talking about a federal ban on masks (or mask use even)?

I even responded earlier that I didn't think it was the feds job to support any decision the states made.

See: "I'm on board with the idea that complete economic shutdowns almost always wouldn't make sense and shouldn't be fully supported at any level" https://csnbbs.com/thread-907918-post-17...id17128358

I also responded that one size fits all is not appropriate in responding to COVID, just like you point out in NY vs S Dakota.

See: "I'm not advocating for the Feds to require every state to operate the exact same way. Let the federal government support the states to make decisions that make the most sense for them. I think the fed should play an organizing and coordinating role, but not a heavy handed one unless it was absolutely necessary." https://csnbbs.com/thread-907918-post-17...id17128358

You seem to be trying to argue a point with me that I'm not making.

Maybe read what I write? If so, you would have noticed you didn't need to ask this again:

Quote:and once again, I'm asking you if you think they should just write the check for whatever any state says they need, or whether they (after consulting their experts) should decide how much the states need and give them that?

I really don't get the overarching point of your responses, besides being an absolute contrarian trying to point out how wrong I am about the need for the federal government to provide relief funds for specific industries most affected by COVID restrictions.

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

Freedom to peaceably assemble?

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

I was obviously pretty broad when I said "Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this."

But hell, I don't even know what the goal posts are, besides you taking umbrage with anything I type on here.

The original goal post was that some people's personal risk tolerance are so great that they begin to put other's health at risk, and that is when government should step in.

I posted earlier that I didn't think a complete lockdown was justifiable, yet you still post the bolded above and suggest that I think the government should have unlimited power - I don't. Do you fundamentally believe the opposite, that the government cannot exercise greater powers in times of crisis to combat public health or security threats?

Quote:Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

Obviously there is more than tackling bars, but from what I've read, it's actually a very good method for reducing spread and it's a pretty risky activity (which is why I focused on it).

But sure, the governments of the US should have no ability to enact any laws to promote the public good/health if they restrict someone's individual freedoms. Good bye seat belts! Hello smoking indoors!

Thank god for the libertarians, for they know what is best for us all - complete unbridled freedom.

I forgot what it was like when rather innocuous comments get twisted into the rabbit hole from hell. Fun times.

(12-01-2020 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

The Bill of Rights mostly does not apply to any group EXCEPT the Feds. It restricts the Federal government, not the states. STATE constitutions restrict the states.... so how can you be talking about the BOR and NOT be talking about the feds?

Uhh.... hate to tell you the BOR actually *does* apply to the states. Via application of the 14th amendment. The rights that are contained in the Constitution 'flow through' to the individual states through this Amendment.

Example: Heller found the 2nd Amendment to be infringed by the Federal government actions and restrictions in DC. McDonald found that Heller applied in the same manner to the state of Illinois and city of Chicago for similar restrictions.

But, some individualized portions of the BOR are still to be incorporated. (i.e. 7th Amendment right to jury trials in civil cases, right to a grand jury....

(12-01-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

I was obviously pretty broad when I said "Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this."

But hell, I don't even know what the goal posts are, besides you taking umbrage with anything I type on here.

The original goal post was that some people's personal risk tolerance are so great that they begin to put other's health at risk, and that is when government should step in.

I posted earlier that I didn't think a complete lockdown was justifiable, yet you still post the bolded above and suggest that I think the government should have unlimited power - I don't. Do you fundamentally believe the opposite, that the government cannot exercise greater powers in times of crisis to combat public health or security threats?

Quote:Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

Obviously there is more than tackling bars, but from what I've read, it's actually a very good method for reducing spread and it's a pretty risky activity (which is why I focused on it).

But sure, the governments of the US should have no ability to enact any laws to promote the public good/health if they restrict someone's individual freedoms. Good bye seat belts! Hello smoking indoors!

Thank god for the libertarians, for they know what is best for us all - complete unbridled freedom.

I forgot what it was like when rather innocuous comments get twisted into the rabbit hole from hell. Fun times.

Not so fun on the other end of the twist, is it?

(12-01-2020 03:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did we start talking about a federal ban on masks (or mask use even)?

Isn't that a rather generic example of the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places)??

Quote:I even responded earlier that I didn't think it was the feds job to support any decision the states made.

But you criticised them specifically for not funding it, because 'they' can run a deficit but states cannot. How is 'funding it' not an example of 'supporting it'??

Quote:You seem to be trying to argue a point with me that I'm not making.

Nope, that's why I keep implying that you're not addressing it.

I find all of the things you are quoting to be completely inconsistent with your criticism of the feds and your comment about the 'deficit spending'.

They HAVE provided significant guidance. You may not always agree with it as I may not as well, but they have provided it. Such guidance comes from the CDC, not Congress or the White House. What comes from Congress is the money to fund it... and it should be obvious by the 2.4 trillion vs 1 trillion that became 1.9 trillion in approvals... so I'm trying to understand where you think they haven't funded it, other than their act to politicize the issue around the election over a relative rounding error at the end of the day (because this isn't the only or final bill)

Quote:

Quote:and once again, I'm asking you if you think they should just write the check for whatever any state says they need, or whether they (after consulting their experts) should decide how much the states need and give them that?

I really don't get the overarching point of your responses, besides being an absolute contrarian trying to point out how wrong I am about the need for the federal government to provide relief funds for specific industries most affected by COVID restrictions.

I think I've been pretty clear.
1) why should feds provide relief funds for industries affected by covid restrictions that they may not agree with? That's why I keep asking about a blank check and made the reference to a state shutting down entirely and presenting a bill to the feds for the salaries of every person (and company) in the state.
2) where have the feds (other than the political delay over the more recent package) failed to provide relief funds for specific industries most affected by COVID restrictions, particularly ones that THEY have recommended??

You need to explain '1' and provide evidence/an example of '2'. I mentioned NYC's school restrictions that are in excess of direction from the CDC as well as 'Cuomo Chips' which have nothing to do with COVID best practices, but they can keep bars in NY from opening.... because a small bar might have the manpower to serve beer, wine and simple cocktails, but not to cook and serve 'meaningful' meals which is a NYC requirement to be open.... so that specific restriction can keep some smaller bars from opening. Similarly, the drive towards delivery services for things like groceries favor larger entities and not specialty shops.
Tell me why you'd go to Zenga and not WalMart for your clothes? And would you buy Zegna online? Or do you want the personal service and to have it tailored? Now maybe Zegna can manage, but what about Mr Lee's custom Tailors? Did he shut down because of a decision made by feds? Or did he shut down because he couldn't profitably provide his services under the restrictions put in place by the state, that may not really have been necessary and specifically recommended by the CDC?

Long story short, you are once again big on the 'Feds failed' but woefully lacking on giving examples where the feds declared something necessary, and then didn't fund the logical result from it... OR on where the feds didn't address something that they have the legal authority to do. You've presented a feeling/impression and I'm asking for some specifics... because all the specifics I"ve seen either represent issues that result from individual states reactions and not 'best practices' or are things that are mostly prohibited by the Constitution such as a mask mandate.

Are you familiar with the business concept of 'best practices' involving demonstrable IRR vs 'initiatives'? Honest question. Some do not and it doesn't make them unintelligent.

Now is where we get to philosophical differences... because people in say SF, LA or NY are going to be very much in favor of spending federal rather than state dollars on 'extra' protections that would primarily benefit places like SF, LA and NY... and people in Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and wide swaths of Texas would be against using Federal dollars for initiatives that place unnecessary restrictions on them. As an example, Pelosi offered to compromise on Republicans desire to protect employers from certain lawsuits related to COVID restrictions ONLY as long as those states enacted 'enhanced' COVID restrictions.... (according to the same bloomberg article I quoted earlier).

(12-01-2020 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Almost every country in the world that has successfully tackled the virus, or beaten it back, has done something like this.

Without governments being able to make otherwise severe restrictions in times of need, we would be in a bad place.

And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And each of those governments that you implicitly praise has done so and does not have lil' ol' things like the Bill of Rights to get in their merry way.

I guess we should mark you up to 'Scrap the fundamental rights of a citizenry to combat a threat'? There is a gentleman named Korematsu that would fundamentally disagree with you on that premise, or even a quarter of that premise.

Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 03:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did we start talking about a federal ban on masks (or mask use even)?

Isn't that a rather generic example of the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places)??

Not really, since it brings in the federal government, which is problematic (as discussed earlier).

I've advocated for the fed to provide guidance and support, but not to apply a federal mask mandate. So it would be better example if the Fed recommended mask mandates and required all federal employees to wear masks while at work.

Quote:

Quote:I even responded earlier that I didn't think it was the feds job to support any decision the states made.

But you criticised them specifically for not funding it, because 'they' can run a deficit but states cannot.

I don't see how those are connected, because I don't see any state enacting a state-wide stay at home order. If there were states with stay at home orders in place, then I'd see the connection.

As far as I can see, most states do not have significant restrictions on their economies as a whole, but there are clearly targeted restrictions on select industries and how they operate, like restaurants and indoor vs outdoor dining.

Quote:

Quote:You seem to be trying to argue a point with me that I'm not making.

Nope, that's why I keep implying that you're not addressing it.

I find all of the things you are quoting to be completely inconsistent with your criticism of the feds and your comment about the 'deficit spending'.

They HAVE provided significant guidance. You may not always agree with it as I may not as well, but they have provided it. Such guidance comes from the CDC, not Congress or the White House. What comes from Congress is the money to fund it... and it should be obvious by the 2.4 trillion vs 1 trillion that became 1.9 trillion in approvals... so I'm trying to understand where you think they haven't funded it, other than their act to politicize the issue around the election over a relative rounding error at the end of the day (because this isn't the only or final bill)

Congress has only passed one round of support, and they are stuck negotiating on the second round. A bill passed the house earlier this year, but went nowhere in the Senate.

So their lack of a second round of support is why I think they haven't funded it.

I'm trying to understand why you think Congress has funded it, when clearly, nothing has passed. Really, are you actually trying to argue that Congress has funded more relief???

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:and once again, I'm asking you if you think they should just write the check for whatever any state says they need, or whether they (after consulting their experts) should decide how much the states need and give them that?

I really don't get the overarching point of your responses, besides being an absolute contrarian trying to point out how wrong I am about the need for the federal government to provide relief funds for specific industries most affected by COVID restrictions.

I think I've been pretty clear.
1) why should feds provide relief funds for industries affected by covid restrictions that they may not agree with? That's why I keep asking about a blank check and made the reference to a state shutting down entirely and presenting a bill to the feds for the salaries of every person (and company) in the state.
2) where have the feds (other than the political delay over the more recent package) failed to provide relief funds for specific industries most affected by COVID restrictions, particularly ones that THEY have recommended??

You need to explain '1' and provide evidence/an example of '2'. I mentioned NYC's school restrictions that are in excess of direction from the CDC as well as 'Cuomo Chips' which have nothing to do with COVID best practices, but they can keep bars in NY from opening.... because a small bar might have the manpower to serve beer, wine and simple cocktails, but not to cook and serve 'meaningful' meals which is a NYC requirement to be open.... so that specific restriction can keep some smaller bars from opening.

1) The reality is states aren't acting the way you are suggesting, which is why I basically said this point was moot (about shutting down entirely).

And I've addressed this moot point before - if there was an agreement between the state and feds that such a drastic measure was needed, then yes, the feds should fund it.

2) Why are you ignoring this delay? This delay is them dropping the ball! The CARES act passed in March - nearly nine months ago!

The House passed the RESTAURANTS Act in October which specifically earmarked $120 billion to the restaurant industry, which has been getting killed because of restrictions on indoor dining and capacity limits (which are reasonable and supported by the CDC).

Covid test for the experts here:

I am in a waiting room in a medical building. I was sent here to wait while my sister sees a doctor.

It has 4 chairs: 3 close together and one separate. The separate one is right by the walkway from the main entrance to elevators.

Which is safer: the three close together or the one by the walkway?

Please just vote, and don’t jump to conclusions about my “point”.

(12-01-2020 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Restricting bar occupancy is outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?

Quote:For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.

Quote:For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.

Quote:(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

Ok?