Did anyone see the piffle from the self-proclaimed “American Civil Liberties Union” on vaccine mandates?

In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take/

What may have been a decent argument, an opportunity to further the reasoning behind taking a vaccine, quickly becomes a justification for the government to assert its power and mandate people taking them.

That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take/

Novelist Salmon Rushdie would demote the ACLU to what he calls the “But Brigade”. Out of one side of the mouth they champion your rights while out of the other they nullify them. We either have “the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health decisions”, or we do not. To the ACLU, we do not.

In this authoritarian fantasy each of us are a risk, a latent vector of danger, a potential Typhoid Mary in some fear-ridden, hypothetical future. Whether we come into contact with the disease or not, whether we are infected or not, it is possible we will be. And because such a scenario is possible, it is further possible we will spread it to granny and [insert at-risk group here].

This is a sort of mealy-mouhed, authoritarian racket, of course. Even if you never come near to becoming infected with the disease, and thus never come near to infecting anyone, let alone the at-risk group, sophists have long since absolved themselves from the evil involved in trading the ACLU’s and the government’s will for your own. When so-called civil liberties groups bend the knee to state power, it’s basically over.

Could it be possible that some folks would rather err on the side of caution when being coerced into injecting biological agents into their body?

The state is operated by men. It was also built by men. So you are subordinate to men. But these men don’t act like men, like your neighbor might. They act like officials. So you are subordinate to a lower form of man, the official. The statist is little more than a stooge or thrall in that sense.

In a free world we’d build roads together in common enterprise. But since we live in a statist world we cannot. So your property is declared eminent domain, the state’s property, and a road goes through your property without your say in the matter.

Also, it should be noted, that Kemalism of Kemal Atatürk was for westernization as a way to defend Turkey from outside powers and the religious aspects of the Ottoman Empire was seen as a reason for the weakness of the Empire.

If Kemalism was in any way inspired by Ataturk's agnosticism, and Ba'athism inspired by Aflaq's Christianity, it could be said that these types of Arab-nationalist ideologies (inspired by Western thought) were against Islamism in state affairs.

L'état, c'est moi

Wherever the state relinquishes power, whether through privatization, deregulation, or cuts in spending and taxation, there is no shortage of critics lamenting the process. But why? If the criticism is not so servile as to be the knowing and explicit defence of state power, then it teeters on one flimsy assumption: that what the government loses so too does the governed.

This assumption brings to mind Ortega Y Gasset’s "The Revolt of the Masses". In it he distinguishes between the superior man and the “mass-man”. Man is naturally-inclined to seek a higher authority. “If he succeeds in finding it of himself, he is a superior man; if not, he is a mass-man and must receive it from his superiors.”

According to Ortega Y Gasset, one should watch with interest the attitude mass-man adopts before the state:

“He sees it, admires it, knows that there it is, safeguarding his existence; but he is not conscious of the fact that it is a human creation invented by certain men and upheld by certain virtues and fundamental qualities which the men of yesterday had and which may vanish into air to-morrow. Furthermore, the mass-man sees in the State an anonymous power, and feeling himself, like it, anonymous, he believes that the State is something of his own”

“The mass says to itself, “L’ État, c’est moi,” which is a complete mistake. The state is the mass only in the sense in which it can be said of two men that they are identical because neither of them is named John. The contemporary State and the mass coincide only in being anonymous. But the mass-man does in fact believe that he is the State, and he will tend more and more to set its machinery working on whatsoever pretext, to crush beneath it any creative minority which disturbs it—disturbs it in any order of things: in politics, in ideas, in industry.”

I suppose this is why, in statist terms, the “state sector” is synonymous with the “public sector”. The state thrives when the public believes it is the state, that the ruling class and its mechanisms of power represents the public en masse rather than its own interests. But when one recognizes the parasitic nature of this relationship, who is host and what is parasite, it becomes difficult to sustain it, or at any rate, to maintain the faith in symbiosis.

It’s easy to fall pray to statism. We are born in it, moulded by it, and forever governed by it. So we should always remember, like Proudhon, what it means to be governed.

“To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so…. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. And to think that there are democrats among us who pretend that there is any good in government; Socialists who support this ignominy, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; proletarians who proclaim their candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic! Hypocrisy! …”

The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century

These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them.

Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. For instance, I’m not a believer in the canard of “neoliberalism” and see any liberalization during the past 75 years as mere attempts to pull man from the ruins of statism—fascism, socialism, communism, dirigisme, and Keynesianism. But despite these attempts, government spending, interventionism, taxes, welfare statism in general, have only increased. So I think that, despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated.

Given my diverging views, I cannot see any hope for saving time and energy. That’s why I think any goal of coming to some sort of agreement in discourse should be abandoned. But it is not a complete waste of time. What was said or written should stand on their own, not for the benefit of the participants in the discourse, but for those others who might come across it.

I said, “ For the last few years many of these states have pressured social media companies to censor “fake news” and “misinformation”. I gave you an example. How is that misleading?

I am against censorship. I’ve already stated this. I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with here.

You thought, wrongly, that the HRW article pertained to the “liberal countries” I wrote about below, and not the authoritarian countries I wrote about above. That’s your misinformation, not mine.

First you accuse me of misinformation; now you accuse me of being against media literacy. Of course, you’re lying. I’m against censorship, as I’ve always said.

Most children throughout history have spent their formative years under the tutelage of their mothers. The rapid cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development of children occurs in their cauldron. All systems are, in this sense, matriarchal.

If you justify an action before committing it, doesn’t that imply free will? If you cannot justify it, you act in a different manner.

It is obvious by what I wrote that my point about more liberal countries was that “For the last few years many of these states have pressured social media companies to censor “fake news” and “misinformation”, the newest bogeyman. In compliance, they have employed an army of busybodies and algorithms to root out speech that is not first approved by the state.” Your own misinformation is betrayed by your comprehension, it seems.

Here’s a map if you’re unsure.

https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/anti-misinformation-actions/

One example would be the United States. The surgeon general called misinformation an “urgent threat” and called on tech companies to take action. European countries have long been waging battle against social media companies over “misinformation”.

I think you’re right. Social media is more anti-social media than anything. Bleating on Twitter or some other platform has become the substitute for many social activities, political action included. There are some egregious examples of censorship, like the concerted effort to ban the American president from online discourse, but for the most part social media companies want us on their apps.

Censorship is still quite severe, and has only increased since governments sieved absolute control over their citizenry. An example would be the suppression of Dr. Ai Fen and Dr. Li Wenliang in China during the start of the pandemic. In Australia you can be put in jail for organizing a protest under the guise that you’re violating restrictions. There are more examples.

At least 83 governments worldwide have used the Covid-19 pandemic to justify violating the exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said today. Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health. The victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the coronavirus.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/11/covid-19-triggers-wave-free-speech-abuse

But it is also quite ubiquitous across more liberal governments. For the last few years many of these states have pressured social media companies to censor “fake news” and “misinformation”, the newest bogeyman. In compliance, they have employed an army of busybodies and algorithms to root out speech that is not first approved by the state.

There was a spicy Biden leak about his last phone call to Afghan president Ghani, days before the Afghan disaster.

Exclusive: Before Afghan collapse, Biden pressed Ghani to ‘change perception’

The odd thing about it is Biden's demand for a shift in "global perception", proving once and for all why America is one of the world's largest public relations firm, and why no one should trust a word this man says.

In much of the call, Biden focused on what he called the Afghan government’s “perception” problem. “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”

Biden told Ghani that if Afghanistan’s prominent political figures were to give a press conference together, backing a new military strategy, “that will change perception, and that will change an awful lot I think.”

“I’m not a military guy, so I’m not telling you what a plan should precisely look like, you’re going to get not only more help, but you’re going to get a perception that is going to change …,” Biden said.

His Joint Chiefs of Staff also focused on "narrative".

In this call, too, an area of focus was the global perception of events on the ground in Afghanistan. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Ghani “the perception in the United States, in Europe and the media sort of thing is a narrative of Taliban momentum, and a narrative of Taliban victory. And we need to collectively demonstrate and try to turn that perception, that narrative around.”

None of it worked, of course, and we get to watch as they pick up the pieces of their "narrative".

If one had to choose between denying people healthcare and procuring more beds, procuring more beds is the moral option. Absent that, give healthcare anyways, on the floor if necessary. That was my only point.

You’ve taught me nothing but to enjoy the benefits of Trump’s Operation Warpspeed, or unscrupulous actors will deny people healthcare if they don’t.

Henry Dunant wasn't a doctor and he started the Red Cross.

Why not yourself?

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.