Dine-In Restauranting Is A Non-Essential Service For Your Entertainment
From
Intelligent Party@21:1/5 to
All on Fri Oct 30 18:24:24 2020
XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion
The Restaurant industry employs 10% of the workforce, and 4% of the U.S. GDP, is
an $899 Billion industry with 15 million workers, including 2.5 million waiters,
and more busboys, waiters and busboys are not producing any equity, but rather are
performing a non-essential service and committing self-danger and self-harm, for
other's entertainment.
COVID regulations should all be based on employee and consumer protections.
Consumers merely need advisement. Prohibition has no place for consumer's sake.
Yet employment of self-harm would be rightfully prohibited, but if you are to take
someone's job away, and other people's opportunities away, be they already unemployed; you must provide society with education, and ability to find new employment - that means cash at the bottom.
COVID, and other national emergencies and travails, exemplify the hardships of poverty. Socialism of my sort, has merit in the first place, in times of trouble
it becomes all the more pertinent. Refer to my "SAFETHIC " acronym posts for a definition of my sort of socialism.
Nepotism - favoritism to your relatives, is unfair. It is unjust. If socialism
is right, it is owed, not given.
You have a right to free association, you have a right to go to Church. But you
should intelligently temper your exercise of these rights yourself. Just like smoking kills, don't smoke. You have a right to suicide, yet we'd all encourage
you not to commit it. But Corporations are marketing cigarettes as recreation and
not as a suicide act. Restaurants and bars and nightclubs are marketing dinning-in, and commercial parties, as recreation, and not as suicide acts. Consumers merely need advisement. Prohibition has no place for consumer's sake.
Theoretically. But there's not enough advisement on cigarettes.
Prohibition for the sake of consumer's can't work, whenever a black market would
spring up. But prohibition for the sake of employees is another thought, especially when there is an employing middle man between the employee and the consumer, as there usually is. Hiring a prostitute, then, could be like paying someone to self cut, for your amusement, rather than for a profit. That is where
things get more tricky. That is, being both the employer and the consumer at the
same time, is where prohibition of employment gets more questionable. Madams and
Pimps wouldn't much exist if prostitute's individual right to sell were protected.
And if they are not of a criminal element, those such as Madams and Massage Parlors can be put out of business, through fines against their business, not their person.
I mean, the point is, that you could prohibit employment for a reason. For the sake of stopping employment of needless self-harm, if it is so determined it is,
and prostitution, like being a Waiter, is a non-essential service for entertainment. And neither produces any equity nor builds the economy. But both
the employee and the individual, must always be protected, and the business the target of the legal object.
COVID will come right back after any renewed shutdown.
COVID grew from a few cases in the first place. You're not going to eradicate for
three months 100%. So everything must be sustainable, or it's on/off, off/on, on/off, off/on, forever.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)