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.

Biden is back at camp David, and has yet to speak to any world leaders. What a disgrace.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/568228-biden-yet-to-speak-with-world-leaders-after-fall-of-kabul

I have a cynical view. As others have already noted, the Afghan war can be seen as a massive money-funnelling operation. The best way to erase the evidence of such a scheme, in my mind, was what happened. Hence the horrendous intelligence and the Biden lies.

Thank god. All you can produce is snark and statism. It’s boring.

The idea that government is a cooperative endeavor, and that politicians represent their voters, is a complete farce. If your idea of cooperation is to mark a piece of paper and step aside then I would never want to embark on any endeavor with you whatsoever.

I don’t think we can transition out of state dependency save for it’s complete collapse. And because we rely on governments and have done so for so long, we’re never going to take it upon ourselves to fix it. Personally I’m optimistic, but if I adopt the doom and gloom I’d say we’re screwed.

The leaders of governments. And here I was told no one was raised to believe the government will solve all our problems.

A great irony is that Taliban are running much of their operation through WhatsApp, an American company with American servers, owned by Facebook.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/world/asia/afghanistan-whatsapp-taliban.html

I hope not. But when I wrote that Greta Thunberg was petitioning world leaders to mitigate climate change and she received massive fan fare for it. She got her start protesting outside Swedish parliament. I wonder why she did that if she didn’t think government could solve her problems? Whatever makes you feel better.

It is unjust to force or coerce another to make a choice. But you cannot force or coerce another to make a choice if that other doesn’t already exist. The question arises as to who it is we’re being unjust to.

Religious enthusiasm and secular enthusiasm are nearly indistinguishable, no matter the contents of their thoughts. I would prefer some religion to Juche socialism.

But I think one can appeal to the conscience no matter the content of one’s beliefs. I seem to carry around this unseen witness to keeps tabs on my own behavior.

The soldiers abandoned by leadership; the weapons, aircraft, and ammunition left behind for the Taliban; the utter failure that was the withdrawal. 20 years, unfathomable tax-dollars, and many lives for nothing.

When Biden told allies, “America is back”, he wasn’t kidding. It’s more of the same piffle that got us into this mess in the first place.

You can’t even fathom such an idea. What a drone.



Confusing having a vote with ownership, control and autonomy is little more than casuistry in my mind. In practice you own and control nothing, and your autonomy extends as far as the mark you make on a piece of paper, the parameters of which are decided without you.

The problem is, unlike yourself and 180proof, I am incapable of envy and don’t feel entitled to owning someone else’s business.

My opinion hit quite the sore spot. Sour grapes, no doubt.

I don’t conform to anyone’s decision unless I agree with it. If authority cannot justify itself and its efforts I refuse to obey, whether it is a boss or some collection of human beings. If I don’t like the situation in the workplace I bargain for different conditions, find preferable conditions, or better, make my own. That’s how autonomy works. Your autonomy, on the other hand, extends only as far as your vote, a mere entitlement for signing up, which is discarded the moment it conflicts with the majority. With no one to bargain with, no one to appeal to but some vote-tallying machine, you’ll pay lip-service to democracy and be content that your choice was treated like rubbish, no doubt. Meanwhile your conditions are decided by others.

It is a viable system of corporate management, but it suffers the same pitfall of political democracy: mob rule.

Personally I wouldn’t want to work at a cooperative because I would have to conform to the decisions of the majority, whether I agreed with them or not. That, to me, isn’t “by the people, for the people”, but “by the majority, for the majority”.

But I’m sure it would be a nice place to work for the conformist.

I see it as a problem of identity. You are “wired up to receive the world”, which is presumably hidden beyond your vat, the skull. In this story you identify as the brain or some locus within. If you expand your identity to include the rest of you, you’ll find that you are in direct contact with the rest of the world. From there the “essential epistemic connection to make out there come in here” falls apart.

In this case the soldiers are there to enforce the state’s orders.

The police minister said, “As I have said previously, support from the Army will add another line of defence to the NSW Government’s crackdown on COVID-19 compliance.”

You may evoke euphemisms about keeping me safe, but it’s untrue.

An unvaccinated person cannot be a threat if he doesn’t have a virus.

The assumption is that something exists between perceiver and perceived, that some kind of medium makes what appears to be direct observation of the world, indirect observation. So what is it exactly that prohibits you from directly observing the world? What is it, exactly, that exists between you and what you perceive?

I was talking about military knocking on people’s doors, enforcing compliance orders. You’re talking about…me.

I love knowing I upset you more than the jackboot.

They have military policing the streets in Sydney, Australia, stopping people from doing things like going to their beach houses. Nanny-state gonna nanny.

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/another-500-australian-defence-force-personnel-to-hit-sydney-streets-as-part-of-nsw-covid-19-compliance-crackdown-c-3656569

If one’s identity is expanded to include the entire body, beyond the surface of the brain and nervous system to the surface of one’s skin, observation of the external world is direct. There is no longer some medium or veil between perceiver and perceived.

So perhaps the compromise is, anyone has a right to refuse to be vaccinated, but by so doing they forfeit the right to move freely in society.

What if they do not have the virus and present no risk to anyone?

The ethical implications of quarantining Typhoid Mary are one thing—her activities infected others—but removing the right for the healthy to move freely in society, where no one is at risk for interacting with them, could never be more than a policy premised on the ignorance and fear of those in power. In short, you would be discriminating against the wrong people.

Besides, it’s far better to protect oneself than expect everyone else to protect you. That way lies tyranny.