Beer Virus V

[printcraft]

So you define choice by whether or not you like the options?

Monopoly, the only game in town etc etc.

 

[foszoe]

Monopoly, the only game in town etc etc.

I guess we just have to disagree.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cho...9i57.2079j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[jamil]

Actually, I am very familiar with that business, at several levels. And feel a great deal of sympathy for people in that industry - even more during COVID.

That's a really hard business to succeed in during the best years.

Then should I assume you know the answer to your own question?

 

[printcraft]

I guess we just have to disagree.

 

[T.Lex]

Then should I assume you know the answer to your own question?

Well, I do, but I don't think INGO will like it.

The government has the essential power to regulate businesses for the public health.

 

[printcraft]

"essential"

 

[foszoe]

Which one are you? We can always argue about that...its much more subjective

 

[BugI02]

So you define choice by whether or not you like the options?

I Google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cho...9i57.2079j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Now do Hobson's Choice

 

[T.Lex]

Now for some hyperbole-avoiding content.

Looking at the current numbers, we remain at a 144 days-to-double for deaths. It was as high as 145 and dropped to 143 briefly. If we use 144 +/- 1 day, then we have been in an exponential growth phase for deaths since approximately November 9. Every day since then has been 143-145.

And it looks like today will continue that pattern.

Again, that really isn't a call to action of any sort. It just described the current situation.

 

[chipbennett]

And bastardizing the definition of a scientific staple word like asymptomatic is very poor science and would not get through peer review or be published.

We're not publishing anything here; we're merely holding a discussion. Having a common lexicon facilitates that discussion.

It is useful to differentiate between those who are contagious without symptoms but who will later show symptoms, and those who are contagious without symptoms and who will never show symptoms. Debating over what term to use to describe the different types of people is pointless, and merely distracts from meaningful discourse.

 

[foszoe]

Now do Hobson's Choice

Nah. If you do it for me, I'll read it though. I am a very busy guy.

 

[jamil]

Well, I do, but I don't think INGO will like it.

The government has the essential power to regulate businesses for the public health.

That's not the answer to the question though. Your question was, paraphrasing, what freedom is lost by forcing restaurants to shut down half their capacity? I think the answer is self evident. So I think you already know the answer to THAT question.

So the answer you gave to the wrong question makes me suspect that the question of harm doesn't matter. And that's the problem with policy makers. They're not focused on the harm caused by their solutions. It looks to me like they just want to impose anything to avoid political blame for not doing something.

 

[jamil]

"essential"

I don't think there's necessarily anything to complain about that choice of word. He also could have said necessary. They have the authority they need to impose just about anything in the name of "emergency". But, the question is, do they have the political capital? So far yes, and that's why they can crack down as much as they want. Even with 12% voting for the Libertarian guy, Holcomb won reelection in a landslide, and his handling of covid was on the ballot, so to speak. He has a **** ton of political capital to **** anyone, any way he wants.

 

[jamil]

Now do Hobson's Choice

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

 

[jamil]

We're not publishing anything here; we're merely holding a discussion. Having a common lexicon facilitates that discussion.

It is useful to differentiate between those who are contagious without symptoms but who will later show symptoms, and those who are contagious without symptoms and who will never show symptoms. Debating over what term to use to describe the different types of people is pointless, and merely distracts from meaningful discourse.

Oh no. I'm told by INGO that if I say something I have to provide ample citations from approved sources.

 

[T.Lex]

That's not the answer to the question though. Your question was, paraphrasing, what freedom is lost by forcing restaurants to shut down half their capacity? I think the answer is self evident. So I think you already know the answer to THAT question.

So the answer you gave to the wrong question makes me suspect that the question of harm doesn't matter. And that's the problem with policy makers. They're not focused on the harm caused by their solutions. It looks to me like they just want to impose anything to avoid political blame for not doing something.

The issue of harm is exactly why I answered the question (both of them). INGO may not like it, but there is no freedom lost by forcing restaurants to shut down to half their capacity. That wasn't freedom to begin with. That capacity was a governmental decision. We can dislike the evolution of government that led to it, but it doesn't change the current reality.

The harm to the public by having people gathered together is real and quantifiable. Mostly because of a-/pre-symptomatic spreaders, and - unfortunately - people who know they are positive and are not self-isolating or having their family members isolate.

There is sufficient evidence that congregate settings spread COVID and the downside risk of that is death, some chance for every demographic over the age of 19 (from what I can tell).

 

[jamil]

The issue of harm is exactly why I answered the question (both of them). INGO may not like it, but there is no freedom lost by forcing restaurants to shut down to half their capacity. That wasn't freedom to begin with. That capacity was a governmental decision. We can dislike the evolution of government that led to it, but it doesn't change the current reality.

The harm to the public by having people gathered together is real and quantifiable. Mostly because of a-/pre-symptomatic spreaders, and - unfortunately - people who know they are positive and are not self-isolating or having their family members isolate.

There is sufficient evidence that congregate settings spread COVID and the downside risk of that is death, some chance for every demographic over the age of 19 (from what I can tell).

Nah, I'm not gonna let you out of this one. Your question implied that no freedoms are actually being lost. And you know they are. It's true enough that the governors have the power to do these things. So I guess the only thing that harm has to do with it is the hit to political clout that feeds the practicality of exercising the authority. And given all bull**** going around it's not likely to change.

 

[T.Lex]

Nah, I'm not gonna let you out of this one. Your question implied that no freedoms are actually being lost. And you know they are. It's true enough that the governors have the power to do these things. So I guess the only thing that harm has to do with it is the hit to political clout that feeds the practicality of exercising the authority. And given all bull**** going around it's not likely to change.

Let me be explicit, then: no "essential liberty" (which was the actual phrase used)is being lost by limiting capacity to restaurants, or even closing them in the name of a public health emergency.

You concede as much when you say that "governors have the power to do these things." They have that power because of - and this is a risky phrase to use on INGO - the greater good. Ultimately, that's one of the reasons for government, to protect the greater good.

Is that a slippery slope? Yes.
Is that a battle cry for authoritarianism/tyranny by the majority? Yes.

We must remain vigilant to not let that justification continue after the danger passes. (Based on what happened after 9/11, I don't have a great deal of confidence.)

But, there's no essential freedom that gives us authority to go to Chik Fil A.

Edit:
To change "freedom" to "liberty." I don't think it changes the meaning, and we started using them interchangeably.

 

[Crash7]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chipbennett]

Let me be explicit, then: no "essential liberty" (which was the actual phrase used)is being lost by limiting capacity to restaurants, or even closing them in the name of a public health emergency.

You concede as much when you say that "governors have the power to do these things." They have that power because of - and this is a risky phrase to use on INGO - the greater good. Ultimately, that's one of the reasons for government, to protect the greater good.

Is that a slippery slope? Yes.
Is that a battle cry for authoritarianism/tyranny by the majority? Yes.

We must remain vigilant to not let that justification continue after the danger passes. (Based on what happened after 9/11, I don't have a great deal of confidence.)

But, there's no essential freedom that gives us authority to go to Chik Fil A.

Edit:
To change "freedom" to "liberty." I don't think it changes the meaning, and we started using them interchangeably.

Ex hoc ergo propter hoc and begging the question. That the people have (knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly) given the government power to restrict essential liberty does not mean that the government is not restricting essential liberty when exercising that power. The government restricting an essential liberty does not prove that the liberty in question was somehow not essential.

The mass non-compliance, combined with the court battles that have largely concluded that governors, in particular, have overstepped statutory authority and constitutional limits support the assertion that the government actions with respect to lockdowns do, in fact, represent restriction of essential liberties.