Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.
Click to expand...
Except it’s not. That’s exactly what happened to push for fire codes. Entire cities being wiped out and it’s only after the fact that someone has to pay up. That money has to come from somewhere and if it’s not there are dozens or hundreds or even thousands of victims all left with nothing. An an IOU that will never be paid isn’t exactly going to help with your losses.
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Tom P. said:
Please answer my question.
Click to expand...

Your question was one big logical fallcy, but here goes: Restrictions end when the virus stops being a major threat. If 500,000+ people are dying from it each year for the next 3 years, then you keep some level of restrictions in place. Realistically, that's not likely to happen, which is why I said your point was flawed. You assumed a worst-case scenario and tried to use it as justification for not taking preventative measures now.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
I once asked, many posts ago, "how many deaths are acceptable to you?" and got very few responses from people.

Thanks for being honest, now we know your personal number is 10,000,000.
Click to expand...
Again, I feel that you're missing my point.

I am against lockdowns, period. I have no number. The number could be 7 billion and I still would be against lockdowns.
 
Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
Chip Chipperson said:
2. What about people who are among the first to enter one of these businesses that are violating safety standards and don't know that the management intends to ignore those standards? You could enter a bar thinking it's safe and then an hour later find yourself in a fire hazard. I don't think anyone entered the venue the night of the Great White concert fire thinking they were in danger of being burned alive.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought as well. I've been to at least 1 questionable concert venue since then and it was beyond disturbing to be aware of what could occur. Enough to say nope and leave 15 minutes before the first band. Some piece of paper saying it's safe or up to code wouldn't have made me feel any better.
Odd as it sounds I still have a habit of looking for exits even when we go in show buildings.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Patcheslee said:
That was my first thought as well. I've been to at least 1 questionable concert venue since then and it was beyond disturbing to be aware of what could occur. Enough to say nope and leave 15 minutes before the first band. Some piece of paper saying it's safe or up to code wouldn't have made me feel any better.
Odd as it sounds I still have a habit of looking for exits even when we go in show buildings.
Click to expand...
Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.
 
sullyinMT

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
havoc315 said:
And thus, the debate of essentially pure libertarianism collides with the tragedy of the commons.
When we presume our consequences of our actions and choices can be solely isolated onto ourselves, total liberterianism seems pretty appealing. Why not let people assume risks. Under such a theory, at most laws should require disclosures. Taken to the extreme form, you don't even need police or Judges -- they can be privatized.

But the reality is, the consequences of so many actions and choices impact not just ourselves...
Click to expand...
I won’t speak for anyone who considers themselves a pure libertarian, but this is why in a limited scope, regulating businesses as individuals makes some sense. Fire codes, employee (workplace) safety, etc etc. Allowing business to act recklessly with human life is no different than one individual acting in a way that endangers another’s liberty (or life and it’s pursuit).

Specifically to WDW and travel, companies have gone to great length to try and maintain some level of operations and safety. It’s not inexpensive for them, but the opposite (just opening back up full bore) would have been flat out reckless.

The debate of what should open when and how and what should change going forward is a fair point of debate. But to say with a straight face that places of any type of gathering should be operating like they were in Jan 2020 right now (especially after what we’ve seen and learned) is just ignorant or head in the sand.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
Except it’s not. That’s exactly what happened to push for fire codes. Entire cities being wiped out and it’s only after the fact that someone has to pay up. That money has to come from somewhere and if it’s not there are dozens or hundreds or even thousands of victims all left with nothing. An an IOU that will never be paid isn’t exactly going to help with your losses.
Click to expand...
And the money sure as heck isn't going to come from the insurance companies. Insurance contracts make coverage contingent upon the insured's compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
 
Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
So guess doctors shouldn't need licenses to practice then either? Let's just publish their diplomas, proof of malpractice insurance, and how success stats. People can decide if that's safe enough for them. :facepalm:
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.
Click to expand...

People can be sued into bankruptcy now, but they still do stupid and selfish things and justify it by saying things like, "Nothing bad has happened yet so nothing bad will happen this time, either." People drive drunk at 100+mph and if they're lucky enough to not kill someone else then it's all good? And if they kill me then my family can sue and hope that whatever money they eventually collect makes up for my absence!
 
H

havoc315

Well-Known Member
sullivan.kscott said:
I won’t speak for anyone who considers themselves a pure libertarian, but this is why in a limited scope, regulating businesses as individuals makes some sense. Fire codes, employee (workplace) safety, etc etc. Allowing business to act recklessly with human life is no different than one individual acting in a way that endangers another’s liberty (or life and it’s pursuit).

Specifically to WDW and travel, companies have gone to great length to try and maintain some level of operations and safety. It’s not inexpensive for them, but the opposite (just opening back up full bore) would have been flat out reckless.

The debate of what should open when and how and what should change going forward is a fair point of debate. But to say with a straight face that places of any type of gathering should be operating like they were in Jan 2020 right now (especially after what we’ve seen and learned) is just ignorant or head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Agreed, there can be a good faith debate and disagreement about the degree to which personal liberty could/should be compromised to protect the public good. This is an ongoing debate, not just about Covid. And there is plenty of room for good faith disagreement.
But *most* people would agree that the extremes on both sides are not tenable.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Chip Chipperson said:
People can be sued into bankruptcy now, but they still do stupid and selfish things and justify it by saying things like, "Nothing bad has happened yet so nothing bad will happen this time, either." People drive drunk at 100+mph and if they're lucky enough to not kill someone else then it's all good? And if they kill me then my family can sue and hope that whatever money they eventually collect makes up for my absence!
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about lawsuits after the fact, I'm talking about lawsuits in advance of the fact.
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.
Click to expand...

What do the dead ones get? And what happens when the person/business responsible doesn't have enough money to pay everyone?
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
CaptainAmerica said:
Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.
Click to expand...
Class action lawsuits are probably the most inefficient, time-consuming and ineffective ways of enforcing public safety. Not to mention that if you're seeking compensation for a child killed as a result of public safety violations . . .
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.
Click to expand...
File a lawsuit and get nothing. You’re taking about letting people engage in activity that risks and destroys huge swaths of life and property and then essentially get away with it. That is not protecting rights. It is selfishness of the worst sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom