Less consistent. — 180 Proof

Since you didn't explain why, I will assume because the homicide would create more pain (among the remaining loved ones) than it would remove by the killing? If so, wouldn't that apply to suicide also? And what if more people are killed than are left to suffer because of the killing? (i.e. pressing the button in D.C. and Moscow.) Again, I'm new to this antinatalist stuff so I'm trying to understand the various arguments.

Corollary: The only consistent-from-first-principles antinatalist is the successful suicide who has not procreated. Otherwise, it's just bullshit sophistry. — 180 Proof

Would successful homicide, suicide who has not procreated be even more consistent?

I didn't know all that about him. Cool. I'll let him have Canada.

Would any of the anti-having-kids people change their minds if it was discovered that we were the only technologically advanced species in the galaxy? — RogueAI

It wouldn't change my mind. But I have to qualify my position here: I'm not necessarily antinatalist. I'm more for rolling population back to a sustainable level, like 35 people per 10k square miles of temperate zone, or less than a million world wide. That's assuming our current rate of consumption for each individual foot print. If we could scale back the sucking rate of resources, then maybe more people.

When I was a little boy some guy from the Fish and Game came to our school and taught us about the food pyramid, with very few apex predators at the top, and an ever-widening structure as it went down the food chain, with countless trillions of tons of insects, grasses, etc. When you turn a pyramid upside down, it won't take much of an earthquake to knock it all over. I figure with 7b+ apex predators sitting atop an ever-shrinking prey base below, we are looking at what Wall Street would call a "serious correction."

Anyway, I've spent a great deal of time roaming "wildlands" (HA!) of the American West. I think about 35 people could travel 50 miles from the center of their territory to link up with another group doing the same, once a year, to trade mates and keep the gene pool viable. That would be ideal for a hunter-gatherer society. So with today's tech, we could live in a few cities around the world and continue our tech advancements, etc. while still living a great lifestyle and not jeopardizing the Earth upon which we depend.

But, short a compromise like that, if it came down to 1. self-induced, intentional extinction vs 2. continuing on our current trajectory, I'll take what's behind door number 1.

Jefferson, the Founding Fathers... to whom patriarchal obsequience is owed. Hrmph. — Banno

HA! I know those boys were fallible. I just like the idea of telling the King where he can stick his immoral laws.

The best definition of "state" that I know of is "those who have a monopoly on coercion". Yes, the state is reliant on authority. Excessive? Depends on which state. — Banno

Where a state is reliant on authority, must it reduce it to writing (an X in the dirt) or is coercion and use of force enough? I understand a state might want to justify itself, or give "fair" notice to individuals, but that seems to me to be the state talking to itself. Though, apparently I was off on the wrong track when picking that nit. If it's all about the "should we obey" question, I think I'd roll with Gandhi over Socrates, and then Thomas Jefferson over Gahdhi.

It depends on whether space-faring creatures would evolve again — RogueAI

And assuming there is not life on other planets that we'd ruin too if we get there.

Excessive reliance on authority has led him astray. Simple respect for others should prevent him hitting you. — Banno

So he draws Xs' and the State writes laws. Is the State excessively reliant on authority? Would simple respect for others prevent the State from punishing people?

That is one of the issues that Ciceronianus the White would have us address: ought we do what the law - the "X" - says? — Banno

The most I've gleaned is something like "the law is the law", not "should we obey it." Perhaps I missed that. It's a totally different question. Socrates would say yes, as would many a Greek of his day. I would not obey the law because it's the law. F that. I would only do what the law says out of fear of the State punishing me if I did not. Or, upon reflection, if I found myself in agreement with the justification for the law, then I would act accordingly (i.e. "simply respect for others" as you put it). But not because "the law is the law."

HA!

I guess if you think something exists only when it's reduced to writing, you are welcome to think so. If my son draws an X in the dirt and says "There's my authority to hit you with the stick." I'm going to say he has no such authority. But he's going to point to the X and say "How can you deny it? It's right there?" I'm going to say the X is there, but it doesn't give him authority. He then hits me with the stick and says "See?" I'm going to say his hitting me with the stick did not spring from the X. It was him acting independent of the X. So we are back to what you said: "If you believe that something exists only when someone thinks it exists, you're welcome to think so." He thinks it's the X but it's not. It's something invisible in his head. Something I deny. I deny the X, while admitting he hit me with a stick. He can try to use the X as justification all day long, and as a warning to me (notice and opportunity to be heard), but that changes nothing. It's all in his head.

If someone says there's something invisible that's actually the true law or something along those lines, or there's something invisible which should be visible and part of what I call the law, but isn't, we obviously disagree on what the law is, but I don't think I must explain why the invisible isn't the law. — Ciceronianus the White

That was my point about writing. In your view, the law must be reduced to writing to be the law? I don't pretend to be a Constitutional Law expert, but it was my understanding the founding fathers merely reduced to writing (as a way of guiding government, often limiting it) that which they believed already existed. In that regard, the law is merely for those who can't take a hint.

I'm just struggling to figure out the point you are trying to make, if you are even trying to make one. It seems that when I boil your posts down to the nut, all you are saying is the law exists. Okay, so what? It seems we are in agreement. You just said that you think I'm saying "something exists only when someone thinks it exists." Isn't that what you are saying? There are those who think Natural Law exists, so by the foregoing reasoning, it exists. I confessed early that I wasn't getting the issue. If there is one, pray tell. Maybe dumb it down for me.

I'm assuming everyone (most? some?) would agree that's something we should avoid. — RogueAI

Why? Not why the assumption, but why the agreement? If life itself is good, and if diversity of species is conducive to life, wouldn't life be better off without us?

:up: Thanks, I'll check that out.

Well, I do think it's inappropriate to speak of rights which aren't legal rights, as I think very little is being said in that case beyond "X should be a legal right", something I find unhelpful. — Ciceronianus the White

That position seems to be to a "higher law" what the law would be to one who does not believe the "law is law." Thus, if a champion of "law is law" ever really cares to know how one who does not believe "law is law" can justify his position, then he, the champion, need only look at how he perceives "higher law." Very little is being said by a champion of "law is law" who discounts that which has not subordinated itself to mere law. Higher law, by definition, does not need to be reduced to writing. To do so would be to stipulate to jurisdiction of mere law. Whereas higher law is higher law, whether mere law stipulates to higher law's jurisdiction or not. Simply saying "law is law" is unhelpful.

And we're off to the races! heliod, you're on fire!

What next? — emancipate

There is no such thing as "you." That's not France. There is no drinking. That's not expresso. There is no reply. Nothing is stupid. There is no thread. There is no "what." There is no "next." But none of that is true: there is, and is not, and everything in between, all at once, now, never and forever. We are not there, behind the not you, on the back of your not head, under the absent skin, watching.

When my niece started getting concerned I told to watch this: Access to food, medicine and electricity. If those all go and it's not explicable due to some regional BS, then things are not good. Until then, don't get all spun up about the shit going down. In addition to watching those indicators, I'll be a bit worried if I see rich folks taking off for New Zealand or some similar place. While Israel may not seem safe or isolated, you know they will muscle up and nobody will F with them so that's another place to watch people bailing too. Personally, I hope I have to balls to help instead of hide. But for right now, I look to the future with optimism. I'm liking what I see with a lot of the kids these days.

George Clooney in "Tomorrow Land". Yes.

It's also about balancing the personal worries and the wider collective ones. — Jack Cummins

I understand history, somewhat. And I understand, somewhat, human nature. But I'm no expert. So what I do on such occasions is defer to the experts. I think there is a substantial "never again" crowd out there; primarily Jews. I kind of look around and see how worried, or not worried they appear to be. I'm prepared to go all Lt. Aldo Raine on some fascist ass, but I don't want to jump the gun, either. We want to stay out in front of evil so we can head it off long before the trains start pulling up. We really don't want to get to that point. But we don't want our own government treating us like vigilantes and coming down on us either. The line is not one I'm schooled in discerning. Hopefully there will be a "heads up" from someone. Otherwise, we are left to trusting government, or our own devices.

This conversation seems to flying over my head. If something exists regardless of any import, or lack thereof, which might be attached to it, then one can only ask “who cares?” I’d say any law that is extant belongs to Caesar’; like the coin. It may mean a lot to Caesar and his minions, but it is not his law that comes down upon me. It is Caesar and/or his minions that come down upon me. His law is merely what he uses for justification to himself and/or his minions and/or his enemies. But it’s not the law to anyone who doesn’t think it is.

I could be wrong, but the whole notion that “the law is the law” seems akin to the logical principle of A = A. It seems to be expecting some kind of acknowledgement to which it is not entitled. Punishment, like anecdote, or “self-evidence” or “because I said so” does not constitute a proof in logical argument, the burden of which lies on Caesar. Caesar does not appear inclined to explain himself.

So, in conclusion, just because the law exists for those who think it does, does not mean it exists for those who don’t think it exists. It’s like the question of jurisdiction: If you even open your mouth in court to say anything other than to deny jurisdiction, then the “law” will deem you to have submitted to it. However, that’s the law talking to itself; something the law loves to do.

If we have more of it, we'd be able to clearly see that individuation is something we to do the world, that does not belong to it originally. — Manuel

I would place my emphasis on the word "world" that you use there. In that light, it's not merely "different people" which is an illusion, or that individuation is intra-specific.

Maybe "All" is one, and our artificial (perceived) separation from it is original sin. Maybe domestication of species, where we took something (a wolf?) and deprived it of it's essence, making it a dog, is where that misperception of separation began. I agree with you that love may be the way back ("If we have more of it, . . . ).

I know it's coincidental, but it's interesting to simpletons like me that Scotus is spelled the same as the acronym of for the Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS. HA!

Anyway, there are those that believe our Constitution here (U.S.) is a document which does not create rights, but which merely acknowledges pre-existing (natural) rights, and then sets out government's relation to those rights (defending, extending, infringing, etc.). Then John Marshall, first Chief Justice said something like "It is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is." Marbury v Madison. Some argue that he pulled that out of his ass, but it's the law now because, well, he said so.

A medley of multiple posts I had already made at this site, so not organized in a seamless linear argument, and much of the material is very spatial, requiring the reader to spend some effort envisioning the image I have in mind, so I'm not that surprised. To really get it I think the reader has to pause at points and give the thought experimentation some deep contemplating. — Enrique

I've been following this thread, but I confess I do appreciate the dumbing-down and the visuals associated with what one wag on this forum called "pop physics." I assume he was referring to "Science" or "Nature" or Neil, or Carl, or Steven, et al. But I do appreciate the challenge of trying to figure our what you are saying based solely on the King's English. Carry on.

Not necessarily. Pessimism or nihilism can be connected to the feeling of not having hope about what the future holds but this context doesn’t make me have fear. — javi2541997

The fear comes first. It is only because you are afraid that you lack hope for the future or what it holds, hence the pessimism or nihilism. That is my opinion, anyway.

I don’t see the correlation between love and fear with feelings as uncertainty, pessimism, nihilism, etc.. — javi2541997

They are all manifestations of fear.

You had a lot of emotions about it. But they don’t come from love itself but the birth of your boy. — javi2541997

I don't see a distinction with a relevant difference.

I don’t have kids yet neither a relationship. These two factors are supposed to be connected with love... this is why I don’t want them to exist. — javi2541997

And that could very well be why it is you (the rational mind) that is beside yourself, mad, suffering from a grave (no pun intended) mental disease. That is not intended as an insult, any more than a rational mind might charge that breeding is insane, given the circumstances. However, maybe our circumstances are a result of the rational mind. " . . . serious examination should lead us to realize how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it essential to divert himself." I think that was Jose Ortega yGasset, Meditations on Hunting, but I'm not sure.

I agree with Socrates and Plato, but that does not mean mental disease and madness don't exist.

The other day I was thinking about the phrase "beside myself" and thought how descriptive that phrase is. Then I looked up the etymology and it really tracks with being out of ones mind.

I was thinking of the thread on antinatalism and how the only time I've ever felt shear, unadulterated joy was the moment my son was born. I was beside myself. It's almost like I wasn't even there. I have experienced many feelings (mostly rage, cynicism, boredom, doubt, etc.) but love is the only one where I have been beside myself. My rage, for instance, has always been checked by sanity.

And when I think of it, maybe when my son was born was the only time that I was really me. Maybe the norm is not me. Maybe it's a misnomer. Maybe being normal is mad, a disease. I think that may be why I like artists. They seem mad.

Maybe the "sane" are beside themselves, and that is why we all seem a mystery to each other.

I also believe there are different types of love. And that there are only two feelings in life: Love and Fear. All other feelings are manifestations of one of those two.

That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later. — T Clark

:100: :up:

I always try to chase things to their extreme and have concluded that it, and more (and less) than we comprehend, is all correct, and not, at the same time, and not.

But I'm not the guy with the math chops to prove it. I just know it's true, and not. And if they keep crunching the numbers and going back to make sure all they stand on is sound, they'll figure it out some day, and not.

And that, my friend, is why no one likes to talk to me. It just doesn't make any sense. It's futile.

What I'm getting at is if the two systems have some crossover in their strategies then we'd not be surprised to see some crossover in methods, even if they remain two separate systems. — Isaac

Yes, analogous to convergent evolution in biology.

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; — Ciceronianus the White

I can believe the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, while still not ignoring it. A refusal to submit to jurisdiction does not equal an ignorance of the pretense to it by some sovereign.

it doesn't explain it. — Ciceronianus the White

The burden would not be upon them to explain that which they don't recognize. And the sovereign, of course, does not always feel compelled to explain itself or entertain any arguments against it.

It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation. — Ciceronianus the White

Those who deny the law are not ignorant of it's nature or it's operation. They usually know it's nature and it's operation better than the sovereign that brings it down upon them.

Good question. What I'm trying to get at is a possible bias we have for people we perceive as having more productive capacity or insight into "how-things-work" in a way that affects us tangibly. — schopenhauer1

I have a rant on "gravitas." When I think of guys like Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley Jr., Justice Scalia, and others like them, I perceive this deep-voiced, contemplative, paternal, relaxed, calming fount of wisdom. So good is the show that many "lesser" people want what he has and aspire to it (Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden, et al). But when you look at Henry's record, some might say he's been flat out wrong on just about every policy position he's ever held.

So yes, in my opinion, we do have the bias you mention. A guy can be a mile wide and an inch deep, all hat and no cattle. Then you've got a guy like Ben Stein who is extremely intelligent and an encyclopedia of knowledge but, in my opinion, lacking wisdom. But, because he's got "gravitas" he get's an ear just like Henry, Bill, et al.

I was taught that in logic you consider what is said, not who said it. It's hard to do, but it can be done.

With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? — schopenhauer1

Credibility and legitimacy is relative. Thus, I would answer you question "No." They don't. Not necessarily.

Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy? — schopenhauer1

It certainly helps, but it's not necessary.

I knew a sniper once who had all the dope down pat, and he could shoot, too. But philosophical insight would seem to go more to the who, what, where, when, why, how, and should of his employment.

That's why I think STEM should follow the natural intellectual curiosity that springs from the Liberal Arts, rather than preceding it. That used to be the U.S. advantage. Not so much any more.

The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system. — synthesis

I disagree. Transparency does not translate into an ability to do anything about an asshole who is exercising freedom to shit in the river. Unless, of your course, you are granting me the freedom to shoot him through his brain housing group. Lots of misuse of freedom are out in the open. We try to regulate those misuses, but the offender then whines about regulation. At least that regulation works in favor of the integrity of his skull.

Isn't this the entire point of every social institution that ever was, that is, getting something for nothing (somebody else footing the bill). — synthesis

Yes and no. Yes, in that every social institution that ever was tends to want to get something for nothing from nature. But no, as between the members of society. The point of society has at times been to spread both the profit and cost among all the members. An example would be the corporation. Big Government (society) decides to protect the shareholder from having to take personal responsibility for his own actions (making a car that pumps poison into the air) in return for a social good of transportation, and a taxation on the profits to allay some of the costs of the poison. Otherwise, the investor would indeed pass on the costs to those who don't drive, or who would never agree to sell what they (and a court) might perceive to be their right to breathe. (Nature be damned).

The problem is when the shareholder and his peers make so much money they can buy off their obligation to pay taxes or provide good transportation. But that is not society's fault. That might be the fault of politicians and people that allow that to happen, and maybe society sits back a lets themselves get screwed, but that is not society's point. The point, and the individual reliance on and participation in the social contract, was to protect the individual; not make him pay for some jerk's adventure.

In other words, there is no doubt that people often get together and agree to look the other way while the Earth, or some other poor sap or people bear the brunt of their adventures. But that is not the point of society.....

:up:

The mere thought of Hegel being an attorney inspires terror. — Ciceronianus the White

LOL! The mere thought of Hegel inspires terror in me. I've been beating my head against a translation for years. He put me to sleep last night.

I do not believe a "social contract" exists in any case, and is little more than statist apologetics, so maybe our differences here lie in the general principles. — NOS4A2

That's the thing about the social contract: it's a contract of adhesion and it exists whether anyone believes in it or not.

I always thought "limited sovereignty" was a joke. It's like limited infinity. While I will entertain it for philosophical discussion, the individual, the State, the Indian Tribe, will play ball. Either that or we are back fighting wars that were already fought and won. The individual is no different.

Every restriction on freedom has been implemented by those in power who believe they know what's best for everyone else, and is therefor the consequence of their actions, not of the free man — NOS4A2

Just out of curiosity, can you show me a policy or regulation or law that popped out of a vacuum? I'm not saying it's not out there, but the only people I see generating anticipatory limitations are the the slippery slope people. Everyone else implements limitations based upon a collective human experience with humans who are left to their own devices. Most of my limited experience comes from ten years of environmental/administration/litigation in the U.S. Federal Courts. Everything was always a response to some idiot who decided to shit in the river just because he thought it was his right to do so. After all, if the guy down river didn't want to drink this shit, then he could pay Uncle Sugar to get the damn river off his property.

Freedom can be bridled by choice and responsibility, — NOS4A2

Yes, it can be. Human experience show that is a risk not worth taking.

if we hand off these choices and responsibilities to some central authority we do so at our peril. — NOS4A2

True. That should be kept in mind when deciding whether or not one wants to externalize the costs of his actions upon the backs of everyone else. But human experience shows most of those "muh freedom!" guys don't think that deep.

A slight digression, but here's something for you to think about: I would come across onerous environmental regulations that were actually dreamed up, and championed by industry. They knew their competition, and especially start ups, could not compete with them if they had to comply with X regulation. So, the industry got the benefit of both worlds: 1. They kept competition out of the market; 2. They got to parade their "green" all over the public; 3. They got to use the money they made to support tax laws that allowed them to write off all the foregoing as a business expense; and 4. They got to complain behind closed doors to guys like you about how they were put upon by big an evil government which interfered with job creation, kept your wages low, and stalled the economy. LOL! Genius, really. they could also use the profits to prime the well.

I discussed, in a another post or thread, the notion that someday we'd have to choose the Plutocracy or the Cartels as our "side." But both the Plutocracy and the Cartels would keep government (neutered, of course) extant as a punching bag for the minions. That's whole regulatory BS is part of it.

But when it comes to freedom, just remember what Aldo Leopold said: "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" In other words, freedom ain't worth shit if you don't have a place to be free in. No one can tell me that some guy long in city pent, who ostensibly has all the freedoms I have out here in the sticks, on paper, is really as free as I am. A lot of that may have to do with a distinction between "freedom from" and freedom to" and what kind of freedom one wants. But any who wants libertarianism can move to Somalia or some place like that.

especially if new variants arise — Jack Cummins

I know new variants can and will arise on their own, but it sure doesn't help when all the petulant folks won't follow advice.

even if the ideas of digital passports or biometrics were introduced as a temporary measure, is it really likely that this would ever end? — Jack Cummins

No, it's not likely to end. The toothpaste rarely gets crammed back into the tube. It's unnatural to relinquish intelligence/power.

One idea which I have come across in Britain is the possibility of sugar tax, with restrictions on what food people can buy. — Jack Cummins

When individuals refuse to internalize the costs of their actions, then yeah, gov't can tax them. So, if I produce a widget that harms people, and people buy that widget and hurt themselves or others, and if I then look for tax reductions or bailouts, or my buyers look for medical services or subsidized insurance premiums which other people have to pay for, then I say make me pay for it.

Also, bearing in mind that we are a long way from totalitarianism now, if that was a direction in the futue, would we even have the freedom to express ourselves on sites like this? — Jack Cummins

Yeah, anything could happen. I see a greater threat arising from the "slippery slope" argument, where that which is relatively innocuous or beneficial is avoided just because some paranoid person thinks it's the first step on an inevitable ride to the bottom.

Yeah, I must live in a free zone. All of the curfews, stay at home orders, etc. were more or less strongly recommended, based on an appeal to citizenship and science. If you didn't feel like you wanted to comply, you were not rounded up, no one slowed your internet access or delayed your flights, etc. And the lines, if any, were due to individual stupidity, like runs on butt-wipe and whatnot. You know; panic.

A digression here, for my own trip down memory lane: When the pandemic first became "a thing", I remember a trip to town to buy some air-tights and whatnot. I remember the streets were nearly empty. I was still served by essential workers at a fast food place, and all the stuff I wanted was in the store, except paper products. Luckily, we have a huge supply of such, due to our former business which we had just retired from. But everything else had been delivered to the grocery store by the essential-worker truckers who got it from people who were apparently still working, producing the essential stuff I needed. Mind you, most of those essential people were getting paid shit, but they still showed up to serve me in my privilege. But the best thing, that I still look back on with fondness, is the empty streets.

When I was young I could drive for hours and hours at night without having to flip between high beam and low beam. This was like that. When I was a little boy I would awake long before everyone else and walk my suburban/rural, dew-covered street before and at first light. Before the milk man came around to make his delivery, the whole neighborhood was dead of humanity. Only the birds would sing. Maybe a dog would bark. I would wonder if everyone had left. I would wonder if I was the last person on earth. I absolutely fucking loved it! My heart would always fall a little bit when some guy in his underwear stepped out on his stoop to grab a news paper that had been tossed to him before even I was out and about. The beginning of the pandemic flashed me back to that.

Then I think of the wisdom/meme circulating on social media saying something to the effect: "In your rush to get back to normal, think about what is worth rushing back to."

So I, living in privilege now, with my nearest neighbor about two Klicks away, on an inholding, surrounded by miles of river and mountain, dreading a trip to the city to get serviced by essential workers, think yeah, there ain't no totalitarianism here. I could be naïve. And even if not, I could be lucky while my fellow man suffers, but I do know for a fact that he who thinks he can go it alone is full of shit. Society, and the social contract exists for a reason. And when "freedom" permits each person to sling his semen all over hell and gone, then he has to be prepared to live with the consequences of his freedom. You put too many rats in a place, even free and uncaged, they will start eating each other. And they will have brought that, or the totalitarian system which prevents it, upon themselves.

Those who whine about totalitarianism have often brought it upon themselves through their exercise of unbridled freedom, a lack of enlightenment in their pursuit of self-interest, and their externalization of costs onto the backs of others, without supporting those others politically or in some other form.

Man, I loved the beginning of the pandemic! But the teaming masses have been out and about doing the same old shit as far as I can tell. Check that! I haven't been to a movie theater in over a year. And I love movie theaters. Woe is me.

And it is totalitarianism. — NOS4A2

I disagree. Witness 500k dead, invasion of the capital, spring break parties, etc. I go to town and see the maskless, and Trump flags flying, and open carry all the time. I hear of people (on both the left and right) invading government buildings with relative impunity (especially if white), and marching in the streets destroying shit. Granted, it's just the U.S., and granted, my perceptions are based on what the "news" tells me, so I could be duped.

And it might be possible that the Totalitarian State wants people to die. You know, cull the herd. But I don't think so. From what I've heard from those who have lived in states that are more totalitarian than ours, we are a very long way from it.

Whenever I see some hot young lawyer chick take off her high heels in the airport line, I can't help but think of Mohamed Atta smiling in his grave thinking "I did it!" In reality, as you said, we did it to ourselves. It is our reaction to stuff that enslaves us, if we are enslaved at all. But I don't think we are.

There are also cultural distinctions, where some societies are more inclined to be socially conscious and play ball. Hell, I remember 40 years ago, when I was young and eons before Covid, I'd see news from the far east (especially Japan), in pieces entirely unrelated to disease, and I'd see folks walking around with masks on. I thought "WTF? I'd never do that! Why are they doing that? They must be doing it because they are trying to protect themselves from something." Then I heard those folks have a cold, or some other disease and they are, out of common curtesy, wearing a mask to help protect others. That won't fly in the U.S. If there is anything we hate more than foreigners, it's each other.

Anyway, who's to say that in foreign lands it's the heavy hand of the state, or just people being considerate of others?

Totalitarian State? No. Not yet. Our state checks itself because, to a large extent, it fears us, as well it should. We are supposed to be it, the state. And like I said, we hate each other, especially the left (cats). Where conservatives love a strong leader, our American traditions and culture and heritage is killing strong leaders (unless we can buy them).

It goes something like "it sucks, but it is beautiful" — Nagel

In the special operations community we have a saying "Embrace the suck."

A great cartoon (for the Army side of the house) is a grunt standing in the rain saying "This sucks!" The next frame is a Ranger up to his waste in the rain and mud saying "I like the way this sucks!" The next frame is a Special Forces guy up to his neck in the rain and mud, a snake in his teeth saying "I wish this sucked more!" The next frame is a pilot flying over, looking down and saying "Sucks down there." The last frame is a pouge back in the barracks who can't get the cable tv to work saying "This sucks!".