undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBitwiseFool4y ago0 comments

In essence, closing the gyms is a straightforward action the government can take. The government is exercising their power, but the scope is limited.

By allowing the gyms to remain open only if they implement a multitude of restrictions based on a tier system seems like the government is intervening with a greater scope. Closing the gym is simple, they have the authority to do that. Telling gyms they cannot run treadmills past 6 km/h and cannot play music faster than 120 bpm seems like a much bigger exercise of power than telling the gyms they can't be open. Was the ability to make such detailed restrictions granted by law? Or only assumed to be allowable in the name of public health?

Does my perspective seem a bit more approachable using that lens?

0 comments

yongjik4y ago

Well, I do agree that this restriction sounds ridiculous (and frankly it also sounds ineffective), but the thing is, the reason for this half-ass measure is that so many small businesses (like gyms) are already terribly hit by COVID, and there's a limit on how much the government can push before people decide "Ah fuck it, I'm opening my shops anyway! And have a drink with my buddies while I'm at it."

So you might as well ask "Does the people (i.e. gym owners or partygoers) have too much power?" A compromise means there are two sides.

spuz4y ago

> Telling gyms they cannot run treadmills past 6 km/h and cannot play music faster than 120 bpm seems like a much bigger exercise of power than telling the gyms they can't be open.

This is an interesting perspective and helps to explain a little more your original comment.

It seems that your objection is not necessarily the government's authority being excessive but rather too micromanaging? This is a sentiment I think most people can relate too - in our work, we'd rather our boss give us a straight no than make us jump through a dozen hoops and red tape. But in the real world where many different liberties are at stake such as the ability for businesses to make money and citizens to stay healthy, then policing in minutiae could have real tangible benefits.

I'm not saying that I agree with this policy - just trying to highlight your sentiment about not wanting to be micromanaged might be orthogonal to your stated desire not to be oppressed by an overreaching government.

BitwiseFoolOP4y ago

I really appreciate the way you're looking at my post even though you do not share my views. Yes, I am somewhat worried about micromanaging in-and-of-itself, but my main concern is that the kinds of controls the government is imposing here don't seem to come from a legitimate basis, a law passed by representatives.

I don't think every single thing an executive does needs to be explicitly enumerated, but in this case forbidding songs above a certain BPM just seems excessive. I do not think public health and safety laws had such finely detailed actions in mind when they were passed decades ago. And as a measure to try and stop COVID, what they're prohibiting is very indirect and hard to effectively measure.

I don't think these restrictions are the kind of government oppression worthy of throwing tea into harbors for, but I do worry just how much we allow governments to control in a state of emergency. Especially stuff like this, which make you wonder "who gave you the right to ban this stuff in the first place?"

throwawayboise4y ago

Closing the gym means the gym owner cannot earn a living, or pay his rent, or make his loan payments on the gym equipment.

Allowing the gym to remain open with restrictions helps the owner survive until the restrictions can be lifted.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse