We still have them where I work as well as those facial recognition looking thermometers. They’re like artifacts.
1 Like
They were Americans.
Absolutely. I’ve mentioned in posts on these boards before that “conservative” doesn’t mean what it used to. It’s just a social ideology now, and limited government doesn’t exist on either side of the aisle. Both sides want a big daddy govt, just a big daddy who sees things their way.
All problems. A draft could be construed as not like the others, if we are under attack.
However I don’t think anybody just agreed that losing one billion makes total sense and should be replicated.
Exactly. Many of the things I listed were permisible by simply labeling them national emergencies or serious security threats. Did we need a draft for Vietnam? Or the better question is, did we need to be in Vietnam? According to the government it was the whole domino effect that endangered our national security. So there you go, we needed a draft.
Of course no sane person would be ok with this. But, in the private sector, people have gone to prison for fraud and embezzling money. De Blasio and his wife have yet to be called upon to explain where the money went and probably never will. We let these politicians get away with literal murder.
I’m not talking about removing choice for all, but allowing protections for those who needed it. It’s not really possible for most people to say “Yeah, I’ll stay at home, it’s okay if I lose my job.” You can have protections for them without requiring everyone to never step foot outside.
1 Like
I have to disagree.
While I personally believe it’s important to be supportive of employees in trying times, I do not believe government should be allowed to tell employers to keep people on payroll for any reason. This is literally the mirror image of slavery.
Big believer in at will employment.
What happens when government forces a business to shut down and very literally makes it illegal for them to earn money?
Should the owner still be on the hook to keep salaried employees on payroll?
At what point does the owner get to protect his interests?
Should an employee be able to tell me that due to the risk of loss of life in a car wreck he’s just not coming to work anymore? And should I keep paying him?
This points to a problem in this country. That is, a business feels it can operate in some vacuum, outside of and with no attachment to society but, the individuals who operate the businesses also want society to exist, because society and its members are what keep the business in business. Many, mostly on the right, talk about civics not being taught in school anymore but civic duty and responsibility are hard sells when not everyone shares those values.
1 Like
Yep. That’s why this massive country needs to subdivide itself in a meaningful way.
This doesn’t address the issue of forced participation, which is the underlying point, and it completely misses filling consumer need. Businesses don’t exist to arbitrarily propagate society and its whims at large, and they operate in a market place driven by consumer demand. Not vacuums. I’m not interested in reframing.
1 Like
Cool thing about the internet, you can look back and see what people were saying. Go check out the covid thread from 2020. Start at the beginning.
4 Likes
1 Like
Mine has. Now that it has come to light that Fauci played a role in funding and overseeing the creation of the virus, and played us for dupes while knowing the whole time exactly what it was, where it came from, etc.
He should be hanged. I’d liken his behavior during this episode of history to Joseph Mengele’s. Probably worse.
1 Like
That’s fine. I figured you would.
What about during jury duty? Employees aren’t required to pay their employees but they aren’t allowed to fire them. Do you disagree with that?
It seems to me that a business being literally forced to close is a different matter than making accommodations for at-risk people to work from home, provided that by doing so they are still able to fulfill job duties.
No, but a car crash is a risk that exists at every moment of our lives. World wide pandemics are sort of a special circumstance.
Like taxes? Like obeying the law? In a civilized and civil society, no one gets everything he wants. We all give up a certain amount of freedom when we choose to follow the rules. We give up even more when we choose not to.
Maybe, but why are they able to exist?
If I were president and put forward a plan that made military service of two years mandatory for every American up to say the age of 50, with possible exceptions for some disabilities, and if there was a war while you served, you might end up going, I doubt it would go over well. If we had a severe troop shortage or a major war broke out and we needed to reinstate the draft, with all of the loopholes and exceptions, and with it only being young men who could pass a physical, I doubt many of those who objected to my initial proposal would object. The point being, a lot of Americans have no problem living in a civilized nation that others died to create and protect but wouldn’t make the same sacrifice themselves. Crying about having to give up a little when others gave up all, is childish. I prefer a nation of Audie Murphys over a nation of Dick Cheneys.
The problem with this thinking, and I mean taking into account what you’ve posted along with what I posted, is that in some ways it could be defined as fascism.
I think this is a grey area given law and service, but I do disagree. It makes sense short term, however even if there isn’t a requirement to pay salary there is a gap in labor that needs to be filled. This leaves the employer either going without and seeing productivity and profitability (which behooves everyone in the company) suffer, or he can hire somebody new. Then I guess decide which one to fire when the original returns 
Most likely a non-issue for the vast majority of cases but in the off chance an OJ Simpson scenario occurs it is a pickle. To reiterate, I’m a big believer in at will employment.
Working from home provided they can still fulfill job duties wasn’t part of the original scenario, but in this case I agree. Personally. As long as jobs are getting done I don’t give a shit. I’ll add the caveat that if targets are missed there will be extra scrutiny.
I still believe in at will employment though, and if a different employer wants employees in office full time that’s his prerogative. And his company. That he owns.
Except the data wasn’t supportive of the directive at any step. The argument is whether or not people should essentially be able to eschew work because of perceived risk, out of personal choice, while leaving the employer on the hook to continue providing salary and benefits regardless.
We’ve shifted to working from home as long as employees can still be productive, which is great.
Why should employers be on the hook for pandemics, if we do want to make them a special case?
It’s totally acceptable to expect employees to continue unscathed without contributing to the company, but fuck the owner? The pandemic buck stops with him?
You’re twisting away from the context and leaping again.
1 Like
I don’t follow…
A homogenous nation, when it comes to values, that will, as a result, also be intolerant of anything that would challenge or corrupt those values. Those values being based on the idea that a healthy nation is made of healthy citizens. You can get what you want as long as you don’t negatively affect that ecosystem.
Take Ayn Rand; she is the goddess for many CEOs, bankers and politicians on the right (though they can’t admit it in public anymore). A nation of Rand worshippers would be a nation of collaborators if we ever found ourselves like France under Nazi occupation. Her ideology relies on freedoms that have already been established but provides nothing to make people want to fight to keep those freedoms let alone create them in the first place. Fascism seeks to make people feel there is something worth fighting for. You can’t make greed an ideal and expect people to care about where they live and who they live amongst.