> 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.
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?"
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.