Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Should it be illegal for government to prevent businesses from operating?


Should it be illegal for government to prevent businesses from operating?   

14 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

It's estimated that 20 percent of retailers will go out of business in Canada due to public health restrictions.  Workers and business owners are being forced onto government subsistence handouts for the sake of preventing viral spread. Rather than letting people decide whether they want to risk shopping or patronizing businesses, government is deciding for them and destroying some livelihoods.  Is it fair?

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, oops said:

Government used to value and support Canadian businesses, now they criminalize them. I believe this is not to our benefit.

I'm leaning more towards that point of view because we're seeing the heavy toll these forced closures are having on people's dignity, mental health, and overall quality of life. We're adding public debt at an alarming rate to make a vast swath of the population impoverished wards of the state.  It makes us that much more at the mercy of the beliefs and policies of a small group of government leaders.  We're seeing this in large organizations too.  Take your reduced, rationed payments and personal space because we're in a public health crisis.  The arguments are wearing thin.

Closures should be extremely limited and targeted.  The purpose is not simply the reduction of viral spread but the overall public interest, which should maximize human freedom and creativity, including the ability to produce goods to meet market demand.  That's business.  Being able to run your business and earn a livelihood should be a human right.  No government should be able to prevent you from doing this.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Government actions that deprive and prevent legal commerce should be limited by legislative frameworks that require a state of emergency declaration with approvals and renewals by elected representation, not an unlimited time horizon.

To the extent that this constitutes a government taking for the public good, compensation should be awarded to harmed parties.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course governments should be able to limit business activity.  Else the meth dealer would be free to deal meth, cause it's his "business".

I guess what the OP really means "In the choice between public health and public commerce, should public commerce prevail?".

In 1918-1921, businesses were also shut down, people stayed home in droves and mask wars played out in the media and on the street. 

Amazingly, once the pandemic ended, the economy improved, people got back to work, busineses thrived - there's a reason the decade after was called the "roaring 20s".   

Its true,  during the pandemic and the preceeding war years, people suffered - dying, losing loved ones, losing businesses and income.  But as a society, we survived.  And we will this time, too.  

So in my view, money and jobs and the economy are all "fixable"; death is not.  So if temporarily closing down businesses helps save lives, I'm ok with that - because death is permanent in a way job loss is not.

We've been dealing with this pandemic for less than a year and already have a solution on the horizon.  We really are such snowflakes when compared to what our grandparents went through. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I love not being able to edit previous posts. This is such a greater feature of these forums!

You can, for a while.  I edit mine all the time. 

I don't know how long the feature lasts after the initial post, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2020 at 11:18 PM, Zeitgeist said:

It's estimated that 20 percent of retailers will go out of business in Canada due to public health restrictions.  Workers and business owners are being forced onto government subsistence handouts for the sake of preventing viral spread. Rather than letting people decide whether they want to risk shopping or patronizing businesses, government is deciding for them and destroying some livelihoods.  Is it fair?

I thought 90 % of small business go out of business within 5 years, closure of 20 % is going to effect you and me How exactly, we will have to drive another km to get a Tim Hortons . They people it is going to effect is the owners... banks...and provincial and fed governments, who have leant money or gave grants... On the bright side look at all the new business opportunities that have opened up...

I live in bum f*** NB, our town of 25,000 and we have 6 Tim Horton's, 3 Mikey Dees, 10 pizza places, and about 10 more places to eat... i think we can do with out 20 % just fine.  

Nobody is forcing anyone to take hand outs, employment opportunities here are growing everyday... why people don't want to work they want to sit at home and get hand outs for doing nothing ...there is work if you want it, lots of jobs nobody to fill them, good paying jobs....

Your very trusting of Canadians to do the right thing, which is to stay home, you going out you risk not only your health but those that are stuck working to put money on the table....want to shop what is wrong with shopping on line, shit you can even buy all your food needs on line and delivered for a small fee...but a home on line, a car, a boat, shit i think even hookers are on line today, adapt or die  Is it fair , nope but then again life is unfair...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2020 at 12:28 AM, Zeitgeist said:

I'm leaning more towards that point of view because we're seeing the heavy toll these forced closures are having on people's dignity, mental health, and overall quality of life. We're adding public debt at an alarming rate to make a vast swath of the population impoverished wards of the state.  It makes us that much more at the mercy of the beliefs and policies of a small group of government leaders.  We're seeing this in large organizations too.  Take your reduced, rationed payments and personal space because we're in a public health crisis.  The arguments are wearing thin.

Closures should be extremely limited and targeted.  The purpose is not simply the reduction of viral spread but the overall public interest, which should maximize human freedom and creativity, including the ability to produce goods to meet market demand.  That's business.  Being able to run your business and earn a livelihood should be a human right.  No government should be able to prevent you from doing this.  

Those that have invested time and to much emotion are going to feel it when they are forced to close, but business is business there are no limit on the amount of times you can apply for business or grants for a new business.. Thats what entrepreneurs do, dust themselves off and get up and start over. 

We do have a democracy , in fact it's entire system is taught to us in our public school system, it's been in paly for more than 100 years, and yes we all agreed to all of it's rules and policies... Liberals' are very confident in their man Justin, and if he burns the house down then so be it, who would have thought that a drama teacher could run the country 

People are forgetting that people are dying, and to limit the death we are sent home to our own devices... now maybe if there was riots for food, water, or they were shooting citizens in the streets... but that is not happening, our biggest worry is how to spend Justins money at home.. and we as a nation can't even do that without complaining... this is all going to be a distance dream in another 3 to 6 months.... next we will be crying about having to get vaccinated it never stops ya people are already talking how they are not going to get the vaccine...shit...

Putting other lives in danger is not a human right, and the government has the power to do what ever it wants to do... you think your rights are trampled now, what would happen if the declared emergence powers, set up curfews and limited travel... read FLQ crises , remember big Trudeaus comment just watch me, as he stripped everyone's rights... your freedoms that we take for granted everyday are just a fleeting dream when our government decides to act.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2020 at 10:18 PM, Zeitgeist said:

 Is it fair?

The question is too wide open. Is it fair to force shutdown of stores when they are fully compliant with the safety code? No. Is it fair to shut them down if they are non-compliant? Yes.

But that's not what happened. Stores were shut down even though they were compliant. I see no benefit of shutting the small stores. They could at least allow in one person at a time, but should allow more if the space is larger.

Toronto small store owners wrote a complaint to the premier that the shutdown of small stores in the GTA is unfair, and also stupid. For one, they note that everybody is simply driving out of the GTA to shop at stores out there. This contributes to a greater potential spread of the virus.

For two, the government reduced the available shopping hours that stores can be open, which means people all need to go to the store within a smaller time frame. This too contributes to greater potential spread of the virus.

Word has it the Premier was not sympathetic to their reasoning. He did say he needed to go home and make a cheescake, whatever that means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats what entrepreneurs do, dust themselves off and get up and start over. 

When entrepreneurs they stop being human beings. Why is it okay for the government to knock them down instead of help them up. Entrepreneurs are people who work harder than than most, people who sacrifice to build something positive. Why is it okay to say I don't care id they go broke I will get my coffee somewhere else. These people are not the cause of our problems, they are the solution to our problems. When did our fear stop us from caring about the well being of others.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oops said:

When did our fear stop us from caring about the well being of others.

When did our fear (of a temporary loss of business) stop us from caring about people permanently dying?

And it's not so much people dying, from the government's point of view, its the collapse of the health system from so many people getting sick.  If enough people get sick at the same time, the hispitals will be full of Covid patients.  If the hospitals are full of Covid patients, where will auto crash patients go?  Where will heart attack parients go?  Where will overdose, attempted suicide, assault victims go?  Our medical system is designed for a somewhat consistent number of patients with various ailments to be treated, numbers based on data collected over years.  To suddenly add dozens or 100s or 1000s of additional patients to a hospital, a region or the country throws this balance completely off.

And, what happens if medical staff get sick and are off for days or weeks?  Or they die?  The remaining have to work longer hours and harder.  And life-saving work is stressful, so there's burn-out of medical staff.  Where is your concern for these people?

The same bunch who downplay the seriousness of this virus, who laugh at mask-wearing, who complain about business closures are the same ones who'll complain if their mother dies of a heart attack because the hospitals were full of Covid patients, and understaffed because medical professionals were too sick, too burnt out or too dead to treat her.

Edited by dialamah
Words
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Of course governments should be able to limit business activity.  Else the meth dealer would be free to deal meth, cause it's his "business".

I guess what the OP really means "In the choice between public health and public commerce, should public commerce prevail?".

In 1918-1921, businesses were also shut down, people stayed home in droves and mask wars played out in the media and on the street. 

Amazingly, once the pandemic ended, the economy improved, people got back to work, busineses thrived - there's a reason the decade after was called the "roaring 20s".   

Its true,  during the pandemic and the preceeding war years, people suffered - dying, losing loved ones, losing businesses and income.  But as a society, we survived.  And we will this time, too.  

So in my view, money and jobs and the economy are all "fixable"; death is not.  So if temporarily closing down businesses helps save lives, I'm ok with that - because death is permanent in a way job loss is not.

We've been dealing with this pandemic for less than a year and already have a solution on the horizon.  We really are such snowflakes when compared to what our grandparents went through. 

Maybe you're just privileged?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oops said:

When entrepreneurs they stop being human beings. Why is it okay for the government to knock them down instead of help them up. Entrepreneurs are people who work harder than than most, people who sacrifice to build something positive. Why is it okay to say I don't care id they go broke I will get my coffee somewhere else. These people are not the cause of our problems, they are the solution to our problems. When did our fear stop us from caring about the well being of others.

 

No matter what is done there is going to be causalities on all sides, If everything remains open people will shop and spread the virus, and risk their health and others health. turning this into a shit show with NO containment... If we shut everything down less people will be coming into contact with others ,so there is a means of containment IF we all comply...

You ask me why is it ok to sacrifice business owners, think about this for a minute.... who or what are we going to sacrifice, is it the elderly, anyone who has health issues, medical workers, first responders, who are you going to pick..... If we support business and have people do what ever they want ,we risk this virus going super nova, health systems over whelmed, effecting everything we rely on for day to day living, food, water, energy, transportation shut downs, and the whinners in big cities are going to have something to complain about.... and once all that happen our days in paradise are over, and suddenly social distancing / washing your hands, and wearing a mask does not sound so bad...

Look nobody dislikes liberals as much as i do, but in this case the government is trying to do what it can, The cons perhaps could do it on budget, but we would still be at this point in time , a nation in crises.. , by asking everyone to comply with 3 simple requests. What is so hard about that, people are losing their minds because their government is forcing them to do something.. it is like they are force to cut a limb off... and they are starting to sound like spoiled children.. 

The end is insight, our next big hurdle is going to be vaccine everyone...once again not everyone is going to do this simple task, so we are back to square one, with only the vaccinated being safe..

This has never been about business going under , it's been about our ability to go out and do what ever the F*** we want when we want it...Shops and business can still generate sales on line...want to support local search them online and buy all you want...and if the business fail to adapt to the changing times they will fail... thats not me having no compassion for business owners , that bad business practices...

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, oops said:

The lockdowns caused deaths, they didn't prevent them.

I understand what you're saying, the shutdowns have caused a lot of very real damage in a lot of ways. It's just not really quantifiable.

When there are 500,000 more people in NA with diabetes due to inactivity, when mental health issues rise and suicides and ODs are up, etc, it's hard to point the finger and directly blame C19. 

The main change that we're seeing from covid is we just have a far more socialist/communist country.

People are getting paid to stay home, politicians have god-like powers, low-level capitalists are getting snitched on by their fellow citizens for trying to operate in the same way that mega-corporations are operating, and mega-corporations with far-left politician pals are getting stronger.

Trudeau supporting We through this was a perfect example of how the government can pull their friends through C19 while at the same time ensuring the demise of their rivals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Maybe you're just privileged?

I am privileged, yes.  I have family and friends who are not as privileged as I am who agree with me.  I have family, as privileged as me, who disagree with me.  

So what is your point about privilege?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I am privileged, yes.  I have family and friends who are not as privileged as I am who agree with me.  I have family, as privileged as me, who disagree with me.  

So what is your point about privilege?

It goes hand in hand with your race-based judgments of criminals, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not answer the questions. Maybe am having a cognitive issue, I don't know. But for example the option 3

Only temporarily when the costs of remaining open outweigh the costs of closing.

Costs in terms of what, financial? Life? If you mean lives, how to put a value on life as "outweighing" some other kind of value.

Or in that case, would there ever be an instance when it makes sense to close, when the cost of closing outweighs the cost of opening? I don't think so...   :blink:
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dialamah said:

When did our fear (of a temporary loss of business) stop us from caring about people permanently dying?

Many people believe that the government restrictions have prevented deaths from covid 19. They have not. While no deaths have been prevented large numbers of non viral deaths have resulted  from these actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      Is anyone else disgusted by the draconian, unjust deep sixing of the Toronto BBQ owner who defied the lockdown order to open indoor dining for three days?   This story illustrates exactly why people have become distrustful of the police and government.  The $187,000 fine imposed on this business owner is vindictive and doesn't fit the crime.  It does explain why small business owners and people in general are suspicious of restrictions that prevent someone from operating a business and earning a livelihood.  I just don't think government should have the right to impose such restrictions.  The right to earn a living is a basic human right. If you don't want to eat out, then don't.  Ensuring social distancing and reduced capacity is one thing, destroying someone's business to make a point that police and government hold all the cards, right or wrong, isn't okay.   What recourse does this guy have without taking expensive legal action that he probably can't afford?
      https://apple.news/A7SiAcw1sRxCR3d6CmZlinA
       
    • By myata
      OK, down with pessimism and sorrow! This pandemic thread is only for positive news. And do we have some:
      Israel: vaccinated 21% of population, including about 70% of aged over 60 (1.9 million in total). Plans to complete vaccination by early spring.
      The country has reached an agreement with Pfizer for uninterrupted vaccine supply in return for real-time vaccination statistics.
      USA: achieves vaccination rate of 1.3 million doses daily
      Pandemics impact:
      Australia (population 25.4 million): 909 deaths
      Taiwan (23.8 million): cases 923 deaths 9
      South Korea (51.7 million): 1,464
       
    • By myata
      Right off the news (CBC): officials around a retirement home in Ontario reported to have jumped the queue in vaccine distribution. Board members, the director and the family etc were ostensibly given the "leftover vaccines" to avoid it being wasted.
      Here, our humble public servants yet again in all their caring glory. If this is not the third world, and not somewhere on a remote reserve but right here in the nation's capitals, then what is?
      In early December Health Canada approved the first vaccine for use in the country. As early as October national and provincial task forces were assembled and started training in vaccine distribution. Some were shown on TV under serious fanfare. What does it mean? Does it mean that now, February (months on), there is no standard procedure for effective and fair use of remainders, if any? And we have to thank our luck that board members, directors and family only by sheer chance all happened to be in the right place at the right time so that precious elixir was saved?
      Iacobelli claims the leftover vaccine with a limited shelf life "would go to waste" and thus "a decision to prevent this from happening was made."
      Not funny. Hardly entertaining. Simply disgusting. Looks like Lebanon, or Nicaragua. But who can say, entirely unexpected and not logical and natural evolution, of an entitled democracy?
      P.S. It's hard to say this, but maybe in some ways at least we should be grateful for this experience. It revealed so much about ourselves, as we as a society really are in this mirror, not as we want to paint us to ourselves, that wouldn't be easy to find out otherwise - even if we cared to.
    • By Zeitgeist
      International and interprovincial travel has been legal in Canada outside the Maritime bubble, yet people who travel are being publicly shamed and losing their jobs.  I realize there's the idea that political leaders should be held to a higher standard and that they are seen as hypocritical for asking Canadians to make sacrifices if they won't make the same efforts.  I suppose, but people make choices based on all sorts of varying criteria. I'm going against the witch-hunters and saying that as long as flights are allowed, people should be able to fly without having to defend it, if they can do the necessary quarantining.  It's nobody's damn business.  If people have cottages or other properties, they should have the right to visit them within their own country, no questions asked.
      Allowing governments to restrict movement is an issue.  What if we had extreme violence or food shortages and the state prevented people from being able to flee dangerous areas or hunt for survival?  I don't think government should be allowed that kind of control.  Thankfully such restrictions aren't yet in place, and I don't think it's right to shame people for traveling.
      Essential means different things to different people.  Be careful what freedoms you give up because precedents are being set.  Right now some provinces are considering curfews among many other tight restrictions on movement.  I understand  that much of this may be necessary, but it must be targeted and temporary.  I certainly don't think it's fair to shame people for not following a restriction that hasn't become policy.
      https://apple.news/ARymylQ4qTqisTCMFCzBYVw
    • By Zeitgeist
      We have seen excesses at play from members and factions within the police authorities, kneeling on the neck of a subdued black man, hitting a 70 year-old white man in the face with a baton, shooting a twenty-something indigenous woman based on the police claim that she became aggressive with a knife.
      These stories of police brutality arrive in the context of a pandemic that has hit poor, crowded communities hardest, many with large racialized populations.  In communities that struggled to begin with, hit hard recently by Covid-19, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that police brutality against such peoples can only ignite a powder keg of pent-up anger and frustration.
      Obviously no one in a protest should destroy private property or hurt innocent people.  Meeting a misuse of power with a misuse of protest is an unreasonable solution to oppression.
      The questions must now be asked.
      What systemic policies continue to exist that enable oppression?
      What must change in policing and public policy to prevent the misuse of power?
      I’ll put forward a few policies that I think should immediately change:
      -end all use of force against peaceful protesters
      -end the criminalization and use of law enforcement against drug use (not including large scale drug dealing), prostitution (both in the provision and use of such services), drinking in public, and assembling in any sized group (including groups not practicing social distancing)
      -end the harassment of people suffering from mental health problems or who are inebriated (and not harassing or hurting anyone)
      -redirect funding used to enforce laws against the above mentioned behaviour towards inner city economic development and mental health programs
      -end carding of people who are not committing a crime
      -ensure that all police are equipped with mini cams that must be active during all forms of law enforcement
      -refocus law enforcement on protecting people from violence, theft, and other clear crimes intended to hurt people 
      What do you think must change?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...