A moral and compassionate act would be to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Delegating such moral and compassionate acts to a government monopoly reeks to me of immorality and heartlessness, in my mind.

Italy was well known for its universal healthcare system, yet the pandemic proved its flimsiness, with its hospitals unable to provide the basics. Most countries with such systems had to lock down society just to keep them afloat.

Beds? It seems to me a moral person would procure more beds before denying people healthcare.

We’re in the midst of another wave. Where I live, “vaccine passports” have been mandated by the provincial government as an interim solution until the country transitions to a federally compliant proof of vaccine.



Why would you discriminate against the unvaccinated and vaccinated, when only the infected pose a risk?

Do you believe hospitals should deny people healthcare because they are unvaccinated?

I thought it was implied in my answer that I am against the board of hospitals making such a decision.

If there isn't enough resources to provide healthcare then that represents a failure on the part of the hospital or healthcare system. Mandating vaccine passports because the hospital or healthcare system is failing to provide healthcare is a ridiculous, if not stupid policy, especially when unvaccinated ≠ infected.

The assets, the cash, the strategic air bases—all of this looks intentional, and it's difficult to avoid conspiracy theorizing on the issue.

A proper pull-out, I believe, would have happened in a different order: evacuate Americans and allies, evacuate assets, destroy base, pull out of Afghanistan. But for whatever reason they tried it other way about.

I'm against denying people medical services.

Quick follow-up, FMI.
Suppose a family had decided not to let unvaccinated (or untested / unmasked / not following protocols) into their home.
Would you be against that?
(I mean, not so much a matter of "it's their choice in their own home", but in terms of reasons for being "Vehemently against")

I'm not against that. I'm against governments forcing people to do that.

Yes
Vehemently against
Vehemently against

Using Covid-19 vaccine passports to tailor restrictions, however, has drawn staunch opposition based on several weighty concerns.1 First, while vaccine supply remains limited, privileging people who are fortunate enough to have gained early access is morally questionable. Second, even after supply constraints ease, rates of vaccination among racial minorities and low-income populations seem likely to remain disproportionately low; relatedly, if history is a guide, programs that confer social privilege on the basis of “fitness” can lead to invidious discrimination. Third, the extent of protection conferred by vaccination, particularly against new variants, is not yet well understood, nor is the potential for viral transmission by people who have been vaccinated. Fourth, privileging the vaccinated will penalize people with religious or philosophical objections to vaccination. Finally, we lack a consensus approach to accurately certifying vaccination.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289

And the Biden-approved talking points have run out. I wager that noise you hear is a sucking one.

He didn’t commit to it. To commit to the agreement would be to enforce the conditions. The conditions of the agreement were not met by the other parties, but he went through with it anyways. Why would you abide by the same agreement if other parties didn’t? Only because you’re an idiot or a coward, or both. That’s what Xiden is.

As for the MIC, Bush and Obama military brass excoriated Trump and endorsed Biden for president. Look at them now.

Biden did not enforce the agreement or negotiate a new one, and abandoned Afghanistan and our allies despite the lack of Afghan/Taliban negotiations, which was a condition of the agreement. He then blamed the Afghans for all of it.

Of course I expect you to blame others for the failings of your guy.

Republicans rebuked Trump’s efforts to withdraw. It's true he made a deal with the Taliban, but the "intra-afghan dialogue", the "Doha agreement", prove the Afghan government did have a seat at the table. The deal was endorsed by NATO and the UN Security Council.

So what happens when the other party break the conditions of the Doha agreement? A competent human being might go back to the agreement and note that the other parties did not abide, and declare the rest null and void. A competent person would not have given the other parties what they wanted. Except Biden did not enforce the agreement or negotiate a new one, and abandoned Afghanistan and our allies despite the lack of Afghan/Talbian negotiations, which was a condition of the agreement. In any case, it's impossible to blame Trump for what Biden had done.

I think the answer to that question is in the realm of the military and intelligence services as to why the Afghan military quickly surrendered with all the American equipment.

A "no" would have sufficed.

You don't think Biden bears any responsibility?

"The buck stops with me", says POTATUS, the commander-in-chief.

The Biden administration fully armed the Taliban.


The Sunday Times

The US military leadership abandoned Bagram Airforce Base, like cowards, in the middle of the night without telling their Afghan allies.

The US military launched a drone strike at an alleged suicide bomber, but killed 10 civilians, most of whom were children.

No one has resigned; no one has been impeached; no one has been held accountable.

They are one and the same.

Two points I think should be included.

We cannot separate the doer from the deed. Since someone brought up Nietzsche, one cannot separate the lightning from its flash, the subject from its predicate. They are one and the same. Both the thinking being and that which is thought is the human organism.

Can the brain think without the heart? the lungs? the endocrine system? The metabolism? Though we could do away with a less vital part of our body and still be able to think, the human organism is so complex and integrated that to attribute an act to a single part which only a functioning whole can perform is to misapprehend both doer and deed. At the very least, the concept of “that which thinks” must extend to all the parts involved in thinking.

Throughout the world, Tim, governments have taken measures to restrict the the movements and rights of their citizens. Whether it’s conducting business or going to school or travelling, there are countless activities we might have done before that officials prohibit we do now.

Of the 40,000 people who have died in Florida, there's bound to be a fair number of children who have lost parents. That'll hurt them a lot more than being made to stay at home during an epidemic.

It’s the same with children in New York, who have had more deaths along with more stringent lockdowns. Compound the deaths of their parent with the negative effects of totalitarian, nanny-state lockdowns and you could hardly have it worse as a child.

Nonetheless, comparing a sparsely populated, island continent to a densely populated state is an odd choice, even if I assume political motivations.

NSW (Australia) is about to hit 1,000 daily cases, probably (today's number was 919). Still, Florida USA, similar population, is hitting around 21,000 per day, with 42,000 deaths (Australia has had 924 fatalities to date.) I guess the libertarians think that the Florida numbers are better, on account of death and serious illness is nobody's business, or that lockdowns are bad for busines. Or something of the kind. But it does seem to me that many on the 'right' are indifferent to human suffering and that trying to prevent it should always take a back seat to individual rights. (There's a comparison here.)

I'm not sure where the idea of totalitarianism as a life-saving mechanism came into the public consciousness, but it appears to be regnant in some circles. Granted, it makes sense that if we put everyone under house arrest and turn a nation into a hermit kingdom they get the benefit of being protected from an infectious disease, but the adverse effects of restricting life, many of them as yet unknowable, will also have far-reaching and dire implications, especially among those who are not wealthy enough to retreat into a comfortable Netflix/Amazon livelihood whenever they choose.

So while you can say I am indifferent to suffering resulting from an infectious disease, I can say that you're indifferent to the effects of totalitarianism on children, the poor, mental health, human rights, the abused, and so on. I don't think we should play that game, personally.

Tax-funded healthcare isn't free, by any means. It's just that the money to pay for it has been taken from others. To provide free healthcare one must do so through his own efforts and charity.

When you ask someone to pay for his health, Isn't that abandonment? When that someone has 0 money?Of course I don't know all health care systems all over the world. Some might be free already.

But for me health care should be totally free everywhere worldwide. Here in my country you have to pay if you don't have insurance (working insurance) . And only a small amount of health care services are totally free. Which aren't enough and not important either.

What, if anything, is stopping you from offering free healthcare?

Socialism for the poor and free enterprise for the rich.

I never said that. Trade is good because it is one of the few means to acquire goods and services without resorting to immoral behavior.

The “wealthy get wealthier” is a play on a saying from Hanoverian England. “Trickle-down economics” is a democrat sneer from the 80’s. “Market fundamentalism” is a neologism from the 90’s. Your sloganeering is quite diverse.

Now that's progress! Another couple of years of therapy and maybe you can go outside. Btw, can you describe your last experience in or with a free market - or any such experience?

I’ve never experienced the free market.

Pretend that current conditions are such that economies are a mixture of state intervention and private trade. You don’t like the current conditions, so you’d like to see it go in a different direction. Which direction would you like to see it go?

Can we see the human eye as a video camera? the leg as a kickstand? the skull as a hat rack?

Tools such as the computer can at best mimic the activity of the human body, but are never accurate representations of it. The question should be the other way about: is the computer a brain? The answer is always no.

For me trade is good because it is the only means with which I can buy and sell goods and services. There are other means to acquire goods and services, for instance through robbery and coercion, but I oppose such activity for moral reasons. Perhaps you have a better idea? Or do you expect things to fall in your lap?

I still see nothing wrong with wealth. A wealthy person presents an opportunity to me. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game so you shouldn't have much to fear save for your own envy.

Trade has been an important aspect of humanity since time immemorial. It's probably hard-wired into our DNA. Whether good or bad its just what we do.

I'm well aware that there is no free trade in the world, but that isn't to say that there should or shouldn't be. The fact that slavery was commonplace was no valid argument that abolition wasn't possible.

You lack the data to make such decisions. That's ok, though, everyone lacks that knowledge.

I choose free markets because I cannot think of anyone or any group, past or present, with the knowledge and foresight to plan any economy. Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase, and therefor only I am the one competent enough to make that decision.

The great thing about "markets" are that they represent the space in which goods and services can be bought and sold. Without markets there is no such space.

That's not much of a victory in my mind. You're just an unarmed victim.

It is easy, and that's the point. Guns are an equalizer to might makes right. A frail old woman can instil fear into the most dangerous attacker.

I believe everyone should have the right to carry a firearm, both to defend their lives and property and to dispose of despotism. Despots and criminals do not fear principle and moral arguments; they fear force, and the gun is the best way to deliver it.

Yes, some people suffer the risk of certain behavior while others learn from their example. While you may blame yourself and society for the conditions of some, I refrain from idealizing my object, and am still capable of knowing that some happen to bear the penalties of their misdeeds.

Is misery not a natural consequence of certain behavior? The assumption that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of the state (never yourself) to remove it, is as artificial as it is false. All you can do is penalize society for the wretchedness of a few.

Let's back away from social engineering via heartless and criminally inclined paramedics.

Why should a drug addict be more responsible for herself than we are to her? What's the principle?

There is nothing criminally inclined about saving lives. The man is a saint.

The principle is that there are risks to certain behavior, and if people do not suffer them society will never learn to avoid them.

When Aussie nanny-state agents aren’t fighting covid-19 by shooting protesters with rubber bullets and teargas, arresting pregnant women over Facebook posts, jailing people for organizing protests, they are shooting dogs:

Several impounded dogs due to be rescued by a shelter have instead been shot dead by a rural council in NSW under its interpretation of COVID-19 restrictions, alarming animal activists and prompting a government probe.

Bourke Shire Council, in the state’s north-west, killed the dogs to prevent volunteers at a Cobar-based animal shelter from travelling to pick up the animals last week, according to council’s watchdog, the Office of Local Government.

Rescue dogs shot dead by NSW council due to COVID-19 restrictions.

I don’t think so. The simple reason is that wherever the state is responsible for health care—for anything—we aren’t. When we delegate our essential responsibilities to one another to a “grinding ruthless piece of machinery”, a state monopoly, we also lose any will to maintain those responsibilities in our own relationships and communities.

What do you think?

As I see it, one problem with state welfare is that it has abolished the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. An EMT friend of mine has had to resuscitate the same reckless, criminal drug user seven times, essentially eliminating the gravest penalties to his kind of lifestyle. I’m not so cold hearted to think this man should suffer the worst consequences of his activities, but it is clear that vast resources are spent trying to eliminate the consequences of reckless behavior, and I wonder the societal effects of that.

Society is composed of individuals; it isn’t itself an individual. So until one regards the individual, the human being, as the only unit worthy of concern, he isn’t much concerned with society at all.

The problem with the solipsistic types is they put little effort into reminding themselves that much of their existence lies outside their immediate periphery, the perils of an animal who cannot see its own ears. I think that’s why it is odd to see oneself on video.

It was a good read.