• Dine-In Restauranting Is A Non-Essential Service For YourEntertainment - It Doesn't Build The Economy.

    From Intelligent Party@Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.guns,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.media on Fri Oct 30 18:24:07 2020
    From Newsgroup: alt.politics.media

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113