[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> It's possible that if you pursued corporations and a small number of individual defectors with the liability system and asked normal people nicely, you would be able to handle it.

So, this doesn't seem like an approach that has a materially different desired effect from what we're already doing. The policy's goal is to achieve temporary shutdown of businesses and prevent transmission of the virus. You're just using a more convoluted, less effective route to get there. As an added drawback, limited liability almost guarantees that many companies would cease respecting the rules (since their value will be zero if they respect the rules, due to bankruptcy, it costs nothing to go about business as usual and just shut down if you get unlucky).

I guess what I was asking was whether you have any ideas that have any likelihood of being more effective than current approaches. I can think of dozens of things that would be less effective than what we are currently doing. That doesn't really help us very much, though.

[whatshisface]

>I guess what I was asking was whether you have any ideas that have any likelihood of being more effective than current approaches.

Well, what we're talking about is how to keep civil liberties while also effecting a quarantine. I think if we came up with a solution that was as good as the current solution but that had less risk of giving the government abusable and sticky power, that would satisfy the goal of the discussion.

I could offer some changes to the idea I proposed that would address some of your concerns (as well as argue that there are some effectiveness benefits over the current policy to balance out the downsides), and we could have an insightful discussion going over it, but that would distract from the broader point of "if we put our heads to it we might be able to avoid an expansion in government power while not making any unacceptable sacrifices."

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> the broader point of "if we put our heads to it we might be able to avoid an expansion in government power while not making any unacceptable sacrifices."

And I guess my point is that I admit that possibility, but I consider the likelihood very low.

[whatshisface]

>but I consider the likelihood very low.

But you just said that the tort scheme would do the same thing in a more inconvenient way! Surely inconvenience is not an unacceptable sacrifice.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

That's not all I said. "You're just using a more convoluted, less effective route to get there. As an added drawback ..." To be very explicit: I think the tort scheme would achieve lower compliance, cause excess deaths, and would also be more expensive and less just in implementation.

And atop all that I don't consider the libertarian ideal to be a goal worthy of pursuit. So yeah. Not a fan.