Our current justice system sometimes allows for the guilty to go free and sometimes convicts the innocent. These are simply unavoidable evils, and in lieu of a more practical alternative, is something we just have to accept. And the same is true of our COVID regulations. — Michael

Sure, but then the government rhetoric should reflect this harsh reality. Although it's not actually harsh, it's the reality of living on this planet.

And the public discourse should reflect this as well.

The government is a repressive institution that is at least nominally interested in the wellbeing of the state, and for this it is willing, ready, and able to sacrifice the lives of some of its citizens, and citizens need to be aware of this, rather than thinking of the government as some kind of friend, older brother, or parent.

Here's another question for you, since it's clear not enough people will distance our take a vaccination, how do you propose to deal with the fall out that causes? Eg. overrun healthcare systems.

I would not propose any government solution beyond the ones I have always stipulated: the protection of human rights. As for dealing with the potential of disease and infection, I deal with it by protecting myself.

It seems to me that the solution to overrun healthcare systems are better healthcare systems. This is especially true of so-called "universal" systems, where everyone is assured healthcare. The people pay for universal healthcare and they are owed universal healthcare. If a government has to restrict and confine people because of their failure to uphold their end of the bargain, then they are the problem. But if the lockdowns are any indication, the government would rather violate the most basic of human rights to skirt that responsibility.



I cannot see it like you because I’m left wondering how someone like you or me “gives rise” to a 30 zone, as if I had any hand in legislation. Do I give rise to a 70 zone if I drive too slow?

As for rights, I speak only of the negative rights, not the positive privileges.

I cannot see it like you because I’m left wondering how someone like you or me “gives rise” to a 30 zone, as if I had any hand in legislation. — NOS4A2

You and me give rise to a 30 by driving irresponsibly (too fast) in that zone, and killing or injuring others and depriving them of their rights.

Do I give rise to a 70 zone if I drive too slow? — NOS4A2

You do if it's been proven to be too slow. We have zones in the U.S. with minimums for that very reason.

As for rights, I speak only of the negative rights, not the positive privileges. — NOS4A2

Help me out here, with an example.

But what if the overwhelming majority who do not kill or injure others? What do they give rise to?

Positive rights confer a duty to act upon another person. So if you believe in positive rights such as the right to healthcare, welfare, employment, you also believe in the duty to provide them. Negative rights confer a duty to refrain from acting upon another person. So if you believe in the right to free speech, conscience, liberty, you also believe in the duty to refrain from suppressing them.

But what if the overwhelming majority who do not kill or injure others? — NOS4A2

It's up to the people as to whether they want to impose upon their government the burden of screening each and every individual, and then providing the responsible one's with a florescent orange car, so the cops know those people are responsible drivers and to not bother pulling them over, just to have others cry out about unequal treatment of the laws, and how they did their own research, and how they know that a faster rate of speed can safely be sustained on that road.

The people have decided not to do that. They decided instead to have a driver's license vetting process that teaches people what signs mean and how to read them. They decided to have the state hire experts, engineers and scientist who run calculations that are beyond guys like me to discern the nature and radius of the curve ahead, the slope of the road, the width, the number of lanes, etc. and then calculate a safe limit of speed based upon billions of miles of experience that are way beyond any who are not experts in the field.

So if you believe in positive rights such as the right to healthcare, welfare, employment, you also believe in the duty to provide them. — NOS4A2

Thanks.

So if believe a person does not have a right to employment, then you can place conditions upon that employment? Like masking, distancing, vaxxing? If a person does not believe in healthcare, can their access thereto be conditioned upon vaxxing? In other words, if there are no positive rights, then we simply have privileges? Privileges which can be denied without the violation of negative rights?

So if you believe in the right to free speech, conscience, liberty, you also believe in the duty to refrain from suppressing them. — NOS4A2

Are those rights unlimited? Can the exercise of those rights infringe upon the rights of others?

Do rights (positive or negative) come with responsibilities? Or can you run around exercising your rights, carte blanche, while interfering with the rights of others?

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. Most are just corporatists. All are capitalists through and through.

But if you want to go on believing the standard lines about “freedom,” you’re welcome. — Xtrix

You've obviously never met an Libertarian and only understand Libertarianism as it has been provided to you by others that don't understand it either. Plutocracy is plutocracy. Libertarianism is libertarianism. They are two distinct ideas.

Most people don't really know enough about what it is they are talking about when defining their political stances. Just look at the authoritarian socialists that label themselves as "liberal progressives", and are the same ones that mis-identify libertarians and their stance. Even self-proclaimed libertarians still try to dictate to others how to live their lives, so by definition they aren't libertarians.

If you are equating libertarianism with plutocracy, then what is the label you assign to those that believe individualism trumps collectivism and that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same?

You've obviously never met an Libertarian and only understand Libertarianism as it has been provided to you by others that don't understand it either. — Harry Hindu

Yes, “obviously” that has to be true.

(At least in your world.) Funny that Trump people often say the same. I let them go on believing it, as I will with you.

Even self-proclaimed libertarians still try to dictate to others how to live their lives, so by definition they aren't libertarians. — Harry Hindu

Too bad they don’t have the philosophy forum guy to help them differentiate.

If you are equating libertarianism with plutocracy — Harry Hindu

Try reading better before giving sophomoric lectures:

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. — Xtrix

That’s not equivalent by any means.

then what is the label you assign to those that believe individualism trumps collectivism and that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same? — Harry Hindu

A person taking one side of a false dichotomy.

Yes, “obviously” that has to be true. — Xtrix

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck...

A person taking one side of a false dichotomy. — Xtrix

Are you suggesting that individual-collective is a false dichotomy?

that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same? — Harry Hindu

We can't speak of libertarians in a vacuum, otherwise we tread on the borderline of anarchy. Libertarianism is best understood when contrasted with the state. A true libertarian competes as an individual against other individuals at all times, and ideally for the betterment and upbuilding of the nation. Ideally, an individual's "restricting" of others is not for the purpose of destroying or diminishing of the nation, but a matter of stimulating creativity and innovation in the face of competition. The libertarian is always in favor of the sovereignty of the individual and minimization of state authority - the state's only purpose, to regulate the competition between individuals in order to prevent an outbreak of anarchy, and also to prevent the formation of an oligarch.

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. Most are just corporatists. All are capitalists through and through. — Xtrix

Sounds like me...when I say: "democracy is a cover for marxism". Just another slave morality underscoring a mass of codependent bleeding-heart pussies.

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck... — Harry Hindu

it's Donald Duck or Daffy Duck or any other anthropomorphized duck.

Only the state gets to legislate. In the absence of referendum the “people” have had no say in any of it.

As for rights, in my view no right shall be infringed. One should not exercise a right that would infringe on the rights of others.

Perhaps it is noble that Trumpists are willing to die for their beliefs?

One should not exercise a right that would infringe on the rights of others. — NOS4A2

We're not talking about what one should or should not do. We are talking about what one does; and what, if anything, should be done about it. If you don't think anything should be done about it, then just say so.

As for rights, in my view no right shall be infringed. — NOS4A2

So all rights are unconditional?

Only the state gets to legislate. In the absence of referendum the “people” have had no say in any of it. — NOS4A2

So the people have no say in a representative democracy? And you would champion direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy?

Perhaps it is noble that Trumpists are willing to die for their beliefs? — praxis

I don't know if it's noble, but it can't be good for their base.

P.S. Why hasn't ISIS, et al, weaponized Covid? You'd think they'd have a bunch of guys walking around like Republicans.

Are you suggesting that individual-collective is a false dichotomy? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes.

I’m talking about what one should or should not do.

Indirect democracy can do no better than to legitimize authority and give a man or party the right to control us and steal the fruits of our labour. Representative democracy is democratic in name only.

I’m talking about what one should or should not do. — NOS4A2

Okay. I think we can both agree that everyone should be kind, respectful and considerate of everyone else. Were it so. Were it so. In the mean time, back in the real world . . .

Indirect democracy can do no better than to legitimize authority and give a man or party the right to control us and steal the fruits of our labour. Representative democracy is democratic in name only. — NOS4A2

If everyone did what they should or should not do then yeah, no need for any of that state stuff.

the solution to overrun healthcare systems are better healthcare systems — NOS4A2

Very much so. Currently my province has, roughly, 4.5 million residents. We also have, at normal operating levels 173 ICU beds. So one bed for every 26,011 people. I have worked different areas that have had 1 ICU bed for every 6000 people. Not surprisingly, the area with 1:6000 has less concerns about overwhelming the system. I find it terrible that the general population of my province is faced with such restrictions and demands by the government because that same government has refused to put in a robust system. The healthcare system here was always inadequate, logically, if a bus accident can result in a code orange (hospital overwhelmed, divert to neighbouring hospitals), then any viral outbreak will do the same. Norovirus and C-diff shut down multiple units annually, demonstrating the following: Our universal precautions don't work for shit (as staff are spreading it from patient to patient, and giving it to themselves, usually 25% are home with whatever is running amok), our isolation procedures suck, and most units are too tightly packed so it is very easy for bugs to spread.

Really, if the system is garbage from the outset, why are we working so hard to save it? Rebuild the damned thing properly and stop patching garbage.

Are you in the middle of nowhere?

It seems to me that we were promised something that they are unable to deliver. Given the denial of rights and other sacrifices the tax-payer has to make, we are also left to pay for these shortcomings, sometimes with our lives and livelihoods. Even the mask mandates and vaccine passports are left to the tax-payer to enforce at their own expense.

Aren't you at the Arctic Circle now?

It seems to me that we were promised something that they are unable to deliver. — NOS4A2

Entitlement mentality. (How much of their failure to deliver is due to tortious interference with their efforts to deliver?)

Given the denial of rights and other sacrifices the tax-payer has to make — NOS4A2

I know, right. Life is so unbelievably hard, as we pound away on our keyboards, with our full, warm and rested bellies. A billionaire paying a million in taxes is like an income of 100k paying 100. :cry:

we are also left to pay for these shortcomings, sometimes with our lives and livelihoods. — NOS4A2

You mean externalized costs? Welcome to the club! :rofl:

Even the mask mandates and vaccine passports are left to the tax-payer to enforce at their own expense. — NOS4A2

That's just another example of being nice and letting the individual decide how best to enforce. But yeah, that's a burden, so we should demand the military come in and enforce at government expense. :roll:

That’s not the case. Where I live, if the business doesn’t enforce the government edicts, it is subject to fine. No individual gets to decide on any of this. This is just another example of the government skirting its duties, working around human rights, and forcing the burden on citizens.

That’s not the case. Where I live, if the business doesn’t enforce the government edicts, it is subject to fine. No individual gets to decide on any of this. This is just another example of the government skirting its duties, working around human rights, and forcing the burden on citizens. — NOS4A2

So, the government mandates that you post an imposing asshole at the door, acting like a total jerk, ordering compliance under threat of a beating or getting 86'd? Or does the government allow the business to do what the government does, and respectfully and politely request compliance in order to maintain the privilege of operating a business without fines? I suppose the the government could assume the burden, post troops at the door and demand compliance at the point of a gun. That way the business owner would not be put-upon and subject to the impositions you complain of. Hmmm. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Tortious interference with the efforts will have the latter coming to a store near you. Then we will really hear the hew and cry, the moaning and complaining.

The government is forcing businesses with the threat of fine. The edict is the imposition. There is no “allowing” involved here.

The government is forcing businesses with the threat of fine. The edict is the imposition. There is no “allowing” involved here. — NOS4A2

The government is not "forcing." Perhaps you have never experienced forcing? A cloistered life?

There is not only the option of paying the fine, but there is considerable leeway in how to comply. Considerable "allowing", as I laid out for you in my previous post.

You can't exceed 70 mph in a 70 mph zone without paying a fine (if caught) but, so long as you don't exceed 70 mph, there are 70 options and all the fractions thereof.

There is no point in bringing up speed zones and other false analogies, nor quibbling about terms, unless this is an exercise in casuistry. I am saying why it is wrong to threaten people with fines if they don’t comply with what I consider a stupid mandate, so maybe you can tell me why it is right. Until then…