# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash on the response to the virus

## Swordsmyth

https://twitter.com/user/status/1240331015832428546

----------


## Theocrat

> We also need to give Amash some credit.  When people are buying the devil's own dogma, sometimes it helps one tear it apart to say, "Let's suppose your belief has merit.  Wouldn't it lead to this more sensible thing?  And if your leaders in your dogma aren't doing that, does that not mean your leaders don't believe what they preach?"
> 
> Is Amash trolling Congress and the electorate?  Yes, yes he is.  Accidentally or on purpose, he's playing some actual, useful, helpful chess against the fascists.


Your scenario assumes the rationality of the general public that they would perceive Justin Amash's support for cash relief as "a reduction ad absurdum" against cronyism. However, I don't think the average American is that keen towards such tactics, especially given the fact that this crisis is being blown to proportions that increasingly try to justify more government involvement.

But even so, Amash is supporting, de facto, socialism by his appraisal of cash relief to Americans. And that's all the electorate will see, especially "progressives" out there who are already praising Trump for his UBI talk.

----------


## acptulsa

> Your scenario assumes the rationality of the general public that they would perceive Justin Amash's support for cash relief as "a reduction ad absurdum" against cronyism. However, I don't think the average American is that keen towards such tactics, especially given the fact that this crisis is being blown to proportions that increasingly try to justify more government involvement.
> 
> But even so, Amash is supporting, de facto, socialism by his appraisal of cash relief to Americans. And that's all the electorate will see, especially "progressives" out there who are already praising Trump for his UBI talk.


It may blow up in his face.  But face it:  The only problem these Trumpublicans have with him is he's sounding a damned sight more populist than Trump is.

----------


## idiom

What are the deflationary effects of shutting in so much production and demand?

----------


## tod evans

> If government is ordering property owners to shut down their business, why shouldn't people be compensated?


I want government employee pelts as compensation.

Instead of cash (FRN's) fire five government employees for every small business that closes and forbid government from replacing them.

This is the only mandate that would make both financial and ethical sense.

----------


## tebowlives

> Property owners also have the right to challenge the federal government on what constitutes an "emergency," especially if it affects their "bottom line." In any case, the responsibility to close business lies with the business owner, not the federal government, and because of that, business owners can refuse to comply, if they have better information or discernment that a shutdown is unnecessary.
> 
> The fact that many states are designating certain businesses as "essential operations" reveals that property owners ought to have the freedom to remain open, of their own prerogative, without government interference. Private owners should decide whether their business is essential to the consumer, employees, and stakeholders, even in cases of public, medical concerns. And during such concerns, employees and customers have the liberty to decide if they want to work or buy/sell to those businesses. But the reality that businesses have to wait for a government entity to label them as "essential" in a crisis before they can continue their own business of their own capital and free will is the revelation that we're enslaved by the State.
> 
> And that's my point. It *is* socialism in action by the fact that the federal government has arrogated to itself the authority to shut businesses down, at the behest of the federal government's own perception that a medical crisis exists, not of the property owner's discretion based on his or her own research, discernment, etc. It's not like federal governments don't lie about emergencies (false flags) and work their best to "never let a crisis go to waste." Private owners have the freedom to create their own "redress of grievances," too. But, no, we're seeing socialism rear its ugly head through the skin of a "national crisis," and even people like Justin Amash have to gaze in awe at it.


It's not a perception that a medical crisis exists. It's a reality.

----------


## tebowlives

> shouldn't this be considered eminent domain?


That's what I equated it too. Granted government has over reached with eminent domain.

----------


## Theocrat

> It's not a perception that a medical crisis exists. It's a reality.


That's not the issue. The real issue is who's ultimately responsible for the affairs of a business during any crisis, and if you think the federal government has any authority to shut down a business against the would-be wishes of the property owner to stay open, then you're opening the door to allow socialism into the affairs of private individuals. The federal government, though properly instituted to defend against foreign enemies and administer justice within the jurisdiction of those employed by it, has no right to try to protect people and businesses from themselves. A "medical crisis" doesn't give them the authority to order a shutdown of a business because it's not their property.

----------


## PAF

> That's not the issue. The real issue is who's ultimately responsible for the affairs of a business during any crisis, and if you think the federal government has any authority to shut down a business against the would-be wishes of the property owner to stay open, then you're opening the door to allow socialism into the affairs of private individuals. The federal government, though properly instituted to defend against foreign enemies and administer justice within the jurisdiction of those employed by it, has no right to try to protect people and businesses from themselves. A "medical crisis" doesn't give them the authority to order a shutdown of a business because it's not their property.


++++++ REP !

----------


## tebowlives

> That's not the issue. The real issue is who's ultimately responsible for the affairs of a business during any crisis, and if you think the federal government has any authority to shut down a business against the would-be wishes of the property owner to stay open, then you're opening the door to allow socialism into the affairs of private individuals. The federal government, though properly instituted to defend against foreign enemies and administer justice within the jurisdiction of those employed by it, has no right to try to protect people and businesses from themselves. A "medical crisis" doesn't give them the authority to order a shutdown of a business because it's not their property.


Your confusing two issues by combining them. It's about the fact that government has shut down those businesses. Those businesses had no choice. At least that's my point.

Being in favor of allowing government to have emergency powers is another matter.

----------


## trey4sports

no federal money for individuals or corporations. plan, save, and recover. Simple as that.

----------


## Theocrat

> Your confusing two issues by combining them. It's about the fact that government has shut down those businesses. *Those businesses had no choice.* At least that's my point.
> 
> Being in favor of allowing government to have emergency powers is another matter.


[Bold emphasis mine]

That's what I'm contending against. Of course, businesses had a choice whether to shut down or stay open during this pandemic; it's their property, after all. They could've challenged the federal and state governments by simply refusing to comply, and then settled the issue in the courts.

But the fundamental principle of this issue is the right of private property and the freedom to keep it as the owner pleases. The federal government has no right to force a business to close its doors, but if a business owner does so, then the consequences of that fall on him or her, not the federal government because the owner always had a choice.

That choice to close business by complying with a federal mandate shouldn't be rewarded by bailouts which come from further destruction of our currency through Fed-induced inflation.

----------


## tebowlives

> [Bold emphasis mine]
> 
> That's what I'm contending against. Of course, businesses had a choice whether to shut down or stay open during this pandemic; it's their property, after all. They could've challenged the federal and state governments by simply refusing to comply, and then settled the issue in the courts.
> 
> But the fundamental principle of this issue is the right of private property and the freedom to keep it as the owner pleases. The federal government has no right to force a business to close its doors, but if a business owner does so, then the consequences of that fall on him or her, not the federal government because the owner always had a choice.
> 
> That choice to close business by complying with a federal mandate shouldn't be rewarded by bailouts which come from further destruction of our currency through Fed-induced inflation.


lol No a business told by government to shut down, has to shut down. They don't have a choice. I don't think there is a judge that would allow a business to continue to operate while the case was ongoing.

Again this isn't about what you think should be done, it's about what should be done after a business is shutdown.

----------


## Theocrat

> lol *No a business told by government to shut down, has to shut down.* They don't have a choice. I don't think there is a judge that would allow a business to continue to operate while the case was ongoing.
> 
> Again this isn't about what you think should be done, it's about what should be done after a business is shutdown.


[Bold emphasis mine]

No, they don't! Are you seriously going to defend the action of a federal government to shut down a private entity for its own *purposes? Can you not see how that is an act of socialist imposition upon the business affairs of a property owner?

This is absolutely relevant to what should've been done, in the first place, because if the right of private property had been honored and upheld by the federal government, instead of reacting to a panic (provoked by the mainstream media, no less) by the call for more socialist policies through manipulation of monetary policies, then we wouldn't have to be here now trying to justify inflationary measures to prop up losses from businesses that were ordered to shut down *arbitrarily*.

*I understand there is a public health concern from the federal government's perspective; however, the decision to close the doors of a business ought to stay with the owner of the business, for it's *his* prerogative to determine whether a health risk is sufficient to shut down production.

----------


## tebowlives

> [Bold emphasis mine]
> 
> No, they don't! Are you seriously going to defend the action of a federal government to shut down a private entity for its own *purposes? Can you not see how that is an act of socialist imposition upon the business affairs of a property owner?
> 
> This is absolutely relevant to what should've been done, in the first place, because if the right of private property had been honored and upheld by the federal government, instead of reacting to a panic (provoked by the mainstream media, no less) by the call for more socialist policies through manipulation of monetary policies, then we wouldn't have to be here now trying to justify inflationary measures to prop up losses from businesses that were ordered to shut down *arbitrarily*.
> 
> *I understand there is a public health concern from the federal government's perspective; however, the decision to close the doors of a business ought to stay with the owner of the business, for it's *his* prerogative to determine whether a health risk is sufficient to shut down production.


Again my comment isn't about what you think should have been done, *it's about what should be done after a business is shutdown.
*Are you seriously going to keep ignoring that? And your response is absolutely not relevant, since it has nothing to do with me commenting on what to do after government shuts a business down.

----------


## Theocrat

> Again my comment isn't about what you think should have been done, *it's about what should be done after a business is shutdown.
> *Are you seriously going to keep ignoring that? And your response is absolutely not relevant, since it has nothing to do with me commenting on what to do after government shuts a business down.


I'm not ignoring your premise about what should be done after a business is shut down; I'm challenging the _a priori_ notion that the federal government was *in the right* to order businesses to be shut down, in the first place, and whether private owners were *in the right* to comply. Once those two issues have been understood and resolved, then we can deal with the presumption that eminent domain has taken place by the federal government, which basically, is that it isn't a matter of eminent domain.

The businesses who shut down by complying with federal government mandates (based on arguable evidence and public appeals to fear through the media), instead of their own decisive, informed choices based on their own conclusions of the risks of Coronavirus, are responsible for the losses that come with shutting down from compliance with federal mandates. Therefore, what needs to be done is simple: no bailouts for businesses nor workers, both of which should've planned ahead by having their own cash reserves in preparation for emergencies. It's not the Fed's role to devalue currency in order to subsidize poor planning nor poor decision-making by private entities.

----------


## PAF

> I'm not ignoring your premise about what should be done after a business is shut down; I'm challenging the _a priori_ notion that the federal government was *in the right* to order businesses to be shut down, in the first place, and whether private owners were *in the right* to comply. *Once those two issues have been understood and resolved, then* we can deal with the presumption that eminent domain has taken place by the federal government, which basically, is that it isn't a matter of eminent domain.
> 
> The businesses who shut down by complying with federal government mandates (based on arguable evidence and public appeals to fear through the media), instead of their own decisive, informed choices based on their own conclusions of the risks of Coronavirus, are responsible for the losses that come with shutting down from compliance with federal mandates. Therefore, what needs to be done is simple: *no bailouts for businesses nor workers*, both of which should've planned ahead by having their own cash reserves in preparation for emergencies. *It's not the Fed's role to devalue currency in order to subsidize poor planning nor poor decision-making by private entities.*



Exactly!
  @tebowlives - Instead of kowtowing government abuses/endless bailouts, we should be standing on principle, promoting and educating to take back our rights.


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

----------


## tebowlives

> I'm not ignoring your premise about what should be done after a business is shut down; I'm challenging the _a priori_ notion that the federal government was *in the right* to order businesses to be shut down, in the first place, and whether private owners were *in the right* to comply. Once those two issues have been understood and resolved, then we can deal with the presumption that eminent domain has taken place by the federal government, which basically, is that it isn't a matter of eminent domain.


You're still not getting it. It's not like eminent domain, it's the same thought process as eminent domain. An emergency. Like during WW2. A state of emergency allows things like the suspension of laws and orders of evacuation.
If you want to say it really hasn't reached that level, understood. 




> The businesses who shut down by complying with federal government mandates (based on arguable evidence and public appeals to fear through the media), instead of their own decisive, informed choices based on their own conclusions of the risks of Coronavirus, are responsible for the losses that come with shutting down from compliance with federal mandates. Therefore, what needs to be done is simple: no bailouts for businesses nor workers, both of which should've planned ahead by having their own cash reserves in preparation for emergencies. It's not the Fed's role to devalue currency in order to subsidize poor planning nor poor decision-making by private entities.


You keep repeating yourself and have not presented anything new. An emergency based on the choice to shut down vs because government said to do it. It's that simple.

----------


## tebowlives

> Exactly!
>   @tebowlives - Instead of kowtowing government abuses/endless bailouts, we should be standing on principle, promoting and educating to take back our rights.
> 
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Theocrat again.


 @PAF Instead of making things up and creating fake drama like kowtowing to government abuses/endless bailouts, cats and dogs living together, how about responding to the topic?

It's not about anything but this one event.

----------


## Theocrat

> You're still not getting it. It's not like eminent domain, it's the same thought process as eminent domain. An emergency. Like during WW2. A state of emergency allows things like the suspension of laws and orders of evacuation.
> If you want to say it really hasn't reached that level, understood. 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself and have not presented anything new. An emergency based on the choice to shut down vs because government said to do it. It's that simple.


I don't think you understand that I'm criticizing the *assumption* that it's "an emergency based on the choice to shut down," which, of course, ties into their saying to businesses, "Do it." There are prerequisites to my argument.

----------


## tebowlives

> I don't think you understand that I'm criticizing the *assumption* that it's "an emergency based on the choice to shut down," which, of course, ties into their saying to businesses, "Do it." There are prerequisites to my argument.


Don't understand your post here. You are criticizing because you don't think it's an emergency or are you saying government should not be able to shut down a business based on emergency or at least they can't until they meet certain prerequisites?

And no I'm not assuming it's an emergency. I'm saying if it's been declared an emergency then government can pay people.  I thought I was clear. Guess not

----------


## Theocrat

> Don't understand your post here. You are criticizing because you don't think it's an emergency or are you saying government should not be able to shut down a business based on emergency or at least they can't until they meet certain prerequisites?
> 
> And no I'm not assuming it's an emergency. I'm saying if it's been declared an emergency then government can pay people.  I thought I was clear. Guess not


I'm saying that before we can determine whether a government can order a business to shut down because of an emergency, we have to, first, resolve whether a business has the right to determine on its own that such an emergency is sufficient to close its doors, independent of a government mandate. *That's* the prerequisite of dealing with what to do when a government shuts down a business based on an emergency.

If businesses have a right to not comply, based on their own research and convictions that a "crisis" isn't detrimental to staying open to the public (and I believe they do), then the issue of what to do when a government shuts down a business takes care of itself.

----------

