Liberty vs. Safety


Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I used to 100% of this mindset. Maybe I'm getting soft in my late-middle years :::cough!::: but I could see a few well-placed government-subsidized loans speeding up the economic recovery, when the worst of this is over. I live in a community with many investment-immigrants. They came here seeking a better life, usually having to invest $500,000 or more in a small business. Generally, they run the restaurant/dry cleaning shop/nail salon etc. for 3-5 years, then sell the business at a profit to a new comer. Then they invest in a bigger business, and thus the cycle goes. The problem is, when these small businesses are closed for 3 months, they often become worth nothing. Their value is as a set-up business with loyal customers. Often, their buildings are leased, and they have no hard assets. So...should government loan these businesses some monies to keep them afloat, they would like gain most of the money back and would bring much benefit to local economies. So... I can support "conservative, limited government intervention" in this economic environment.

 

89936511_1453506698164567_5792526365236396032_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MormonGator, I am sure this is the answer you don't want: Only 40% of Americans have enough emergency funds for a $1000 incident. So, we are not what we are expected to be. As for big corporations, I get the frustration. We keep saying that "Too big to fail" is ridiculous, and yet we keep bailing out those big companies to protect their employees. FWIW, my example was for very small to just small businesses--especially those being run by recent and highly motivated investment immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@MormonGator, I am sure this is the answer you don't want: Only 40% of Americans have enough emergency funds for a $1000 incident. So, we are not what we are expected to be. As for big corporations, I get the frustration. We keep saying that "Too big to fail" is ridiculous, and yet we keep bailing out those big companies to protect their employees. FWIW, my example was for very small to just small businesses--especially those being run by recent and highly motivated investment immigrants.

I understsand PC. I think you make some great points, as always. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2020 at 2:09 AM, Scott said:

Call it what you want; they are still bailouts.

I guess I can understand the bailouts for the airlines and hotels since they are needed for commerce.

I still strongly disagree with the proposed bailouts for casinos and cruise ships.  If anything, cruise ship companies that didn't take enough precautions should be fined and punished, rather than bailed out.

I have to differentiate the two.  The difference is VERY SIGNIFICANT.

I believe that a government shutting down a business has to pay the business for redress - same as a government confiscating property for government use.

I believe that is not the function of government to save a business from capitalistic economic downturns or to save them from their stupidity regardless of how many people are employed by such business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2020 at 8:54 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And yet, the governors of the states are enforcing unconstitutional dictates and using the virus as the excuse. The snakes are showing their true colors. It is one thing to request people to stay home, it is another to order it. We need to support freedom, not dictators.

What say you? Should we allow governments to trample our Constitution just because they can???

 

Just wondering, to what extent - including breaking the law and depriving someone of their liberty would you go to - to prevent someone from killing your parents or children?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the company bailouts is not so they can survive and stay in business.  The reason is to stimulate the economy, prevent a lasting depression and maintain a free economy from being destroyed by a pandemic. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering, to what extent - including breaking the law and depriving someone of their liberty would you go to - to prevent someone from killing your parents or children?

I would not break the law, and any actions I might legally take would be with the sole intent of stopping the threat with the least amount of force necessary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The reason for the company bailouts is not so they can survive and stay in business.  The reason is to stimulate the economy, prevent a lasting depression and maintain a free economy from being destroyed by a pandemic. 

 

The Traveler

That's what governments like to say.  Governments always do things in the name of "compassion" or "societal safety" or "economic prosperity"... like they know better than the public.  What ends up happening is the government picks winners and losers according to who gets to donate the most money to their campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering, to what extent - including breaking the law and depriving someone of their liberty would you go to - to prevent someone from killing your parents or children?

 

The Traveler

Any extent within the bounds of God's covenant and no farther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find the discussion on this thread interesting.   I am not sure I know the answers but the science dealing with infectious diseases tells us that those unwilling to comply with steps to keep society safe are more dangerous  than a serial killer or a terrorists.   Also having served in the military during a time of war - I was trained and taught to follow orders and sacrifice my personal liberties and freedoms (even my life) for the safety of our country and society.

I have posted this before - that one of the great principles I learned about fight a war - was that it is better to be united and work as a team than for one individual to argue that they are right.  We are told in scripture that Christ sacrificed even his own will for a higher cause.  The scriptures say that Jesus condescended for our sake.   Condescending implies giving up freedoms and liberties - and in the case of Jesus - to suffer and die at the hands of not just the lawless of the society of that time but even lawless towards the just and true G-d.

I am quite sure that exercising  our rights to assemble and letting the virus run it course will end in greater loss of liberties for all that die.  And so it appears to many that their right to assemble and party is a greater right than letting the current older generation collect Social Security.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I have to differentiate the two.  The difference is VERY SIGNIFICANT.

I believe that a government shutting down a business has to pay the business for redress - same as a government confiscating property for government use.

I believe that is not the function of government to save a business from capitalistic economic downturns or to save them from their stupidity regardless of how many people are employed by such business.

Fair enough, but the Goverment (at least the Feds) didn't shut those businesses down, they only cautioned people against going.

It is also worth mentioning that the cruise companies register their ships outside the country so they don't have to pay taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Fair enough, but the Goverment (at least the Feds) didn't shut those businesses down, they only cautioned people against going.

It is also worth mentioning that the cruise companies register their ships outside the country so they don't have to pay taxes.

The bailout to corporations is not a bailout but a loan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The bailout to corporations is not a bailout but a loan.

OK, but why should we bailout (even if it is a loan or whatever) cruise ship companies at all?

Most cruise ships register outside the US; therefore are not American companies.   They pay zero federal income tax.

If they are not American companies and don't pay income tax then I disagree that they should be bailed out (not to mention all the other scummy things cruise ship companies do).

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/23/21187076/cruise-line-industry-bailout-trump-coronavirus-us-companies-tax

If they must be bailed out, have the countries that they register their ships in  bail them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

OK, but why should we bailout (even if it is a loan or whatever) cruise ship companies at all?

Most cruise ships register outside the US; therefore are not American companies.   They pay zero federal income tax.

If they are not American companies and don't pay income tax then I disagree that they should be bailed out (not to mention all the other scummy things cruise ship companies do).

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/23/21187076/cruise-line-industry-bailout-trump-coronavirus-us-companies-tax

If they must be bailed out, have the countries that they register their ships in  bail them out.

Sure.  If you're going to target just Cruise Lines instead of the Travel Industry.

But if we're going to do targetting like that, then we'll have to take all matters into consideration and one of those matters would be Trump paving the way for cruise lines to be sequestered to use their ships for public resource (ICU hospitals).  If you're going to declare that they can't avail of the loans because they are foreign registries then the government can't sequester them for use as public resource in a national emergency.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Just now, anatess2 said:

But if we're going to do targetting like that, then we'll have to take all matters into consideration and one of those matters would be Trump paving the way for cruise lines to be sequestered to use their ships for public resource (ICU hospitals).  If you're going to declare that they can't avail of the loans because they are foreign registries then the government can't sequester them for use as public resource in a national emergency.

 

OK, then have then turn over the ships (or at least agree to) for public resources before getting the bailout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, then have then turn over the ships (or at least agree to) for public resources before getting the bailout.

Let's put it this way... we don't know the intricacies of what's happening in the CoVID task force.  If all it is is Trump trying to give money to cruise lines because he has close ties to them, that's one thing.  But we don't know anything.  All I know is that Trump - as a principle from his remarks on the 2008 mortgage crisis "bailout" - is not fond of government bailouts but is willing to give it a shot if it shows a bit of promise in helping individuals.  He thinks Keynesian injection into the economy to stave off recession is more complicated than sending a rocket to the moon...

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Loading...
 Share