I’m well aware of that. Might makes right. The state can do no wrong. We’ve seen countless examples of it.k throughout history.

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. But all men can grant rights.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.

No you miss and evade my point, Tim.

Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it.

Do you need an authority to tell you when and where to shit, or are you an adult?

If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution.

It’s easier to ask instead of making things up. Just looking out for you.

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy.

Let’s get those facts straight, pal.

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

How many black people did he shoot? And why would you assume their skin-color?

Here’s a recent case that ticks all the racial boxes for you. This case in particular shows how malicious the State is. They tried to convict him for murder even though it was the police who gunned her down.

https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself.



A poll or appeal to majority is no repudiation of rights being violated, I’m afraid. Neither is it an example of democratic policy. But you’re right. There is no reason to think they’ll change so long as they are bolstered by public opinion and motivated to retain political power.

We agree. Maybe somewhere people are voting for these policies, but none that I have seen. I also don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.

Of course there is a problem, but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it. All they’ve done, apparently, is to completely dismiss human rights in favor of regimenting society and treating the populace as prisoners in their own countries. This will be the greatest peace-time policy failure in human history.

When the state forces you indoors, orders you to close your business, prohibits you from travel, do you tell yourself it’s like mum making you go to your room?

A jury of your peers, the evidence, and the trial all disagree with you. One was armed and then subsequently, quite literally, disarmed. Rittenhouse provoked none of it. The pedophile and other rioters who attacked him should have known better.

Violent mobs were roving around town burning down people’s property and livelihoods. Your “professionals” could do and did do little to stop it.

Rittenhouse was clearly responsible for defending himself against violent attack, exercising his most basic rights.

When 17-year-old kids have to stand up to defend the community from violent mobs I think immaturity is the least of your worries.

It was good to hear the verdict because the American justice system is usually a woke joke. It’s not surprising that state’s case resembled the media’s narrative, which was so obviously threadbare and unhinged from the start.

You used to obsess about fascism and racism until the exact moment it took power.

Oh, ok. Well, he differentiates between spontaneous and designed order. I can’t see how a centrally-planned economy can come from the former without first coming from the latter.

I guess I don’t understand the question.

I was responding to the question: “Hayek's views would say that central planning is fine as long as it emerged naturally, like in a mir?” That contradicts his view that central planning cannot work.

Military is not an incidence of central-planning because military planning has nothing to do with markets and economy, and is limited in activity and scope.

There is supply-side and demand-side economics. So-called “trickle” kinds of economics are pejoratives, and not actual theories.

Hayek would point to his Local Knowledge Problem, which suggests that the vast majority of the knowledge required for rational planning exists outside the grasp of any central authority. The knowledge is dispersed among all people, decentralized.

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html

I miss the times when business deals between a president’s son and foreign state entities would result in wall-to-wall news coverage, SNL skits, condemnation from celebrities, late night talk show jabs.

When the mine was sold, Mr. Biden’s father was near the end of his term as vice president. In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Hunter Biden’s business ties in China were widely publicized.

But BHR’s role in the Chinese mine purchase was not a major focus. It has taken on new relevance because the Biden administration warned this year that China might use its growing dominance of cobalt to disrupt America’s retooling of its auto industry to make electric vehicles. The metal is among several key ingredients in electric car batteries.

NYT: How Hunter Biden’s Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese

We should always remember: though a woman is more free to abandon her traditional role and seek protections from the state over other human relations, she has the corresponding and growing freedom to do the opposite. The point of it is that the realm of conduct is expanded. It’s better this way because only by free choice can a woman—or anyone—educate herself to this or that desirable end with dignity, by force of her own reason and conscience.

None of this is to say that women should or should not abandon “social responsibility”. I just wouldn’t say a fear of the conditions are really warranted.

I think this has always been the case, frankly, it’s just that nowadays no one is insulated from popular opinion. Information travels so quickly that one can expect an accounting of his words almost immediately.

Orwell mentioned a problem like yours in his article “Through a Glass, Rosily”. Both sides of any culture war would apply the suppression of truth before saying anything that might aid the enemy.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

He concludes that it all leads to violence, in the end. “The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end”.

Agreed. As a more recent example, too much ink was spilled about the rise in authoritarianism in the lead up to the pandemic, how it was such a threat to liberal democracy. But they were wrong about where it would come from. They never predicted that it would come from the institutions of liberal democracies themselves.

We agree that we should limit the spread of the virus, but perhaps we do not agree that you can control a virus by controlling the citizenry.

Covid-19 was a masterclass in government failure, whether it was the suppression of those who rang the alarm in Wuhan, the failure of global health officials to warn in time, the failure of adequate testing, the failure to prepare, the failure to procure PPE, the failure of health systems, the releasing of patients into care homes, the weak vaccines, the failure to work with their peoples. We can add the rise in extreme poverty, mental illness, economic uncertainty, the loss of education, all of which are a direct result of their policies. Not only that, if certain theories prove to be true, it was their stupidity that created and released this scourge in the first place.

We can only imagine what might have happened had officialdom stayed out of the whole thing, but I bet we would have faired better without it.

Your description of the state as an overbearing parent is quite apt, so I can appreciate the analogy. But the fact you see it as your daddy does not entail that everyone else should or does. I don’t think you’re telling me how it is; I think you’re describing how you rationalize its behavior.

And it’s not a good rationalization in my opinion. The problem, as it has always been, is confusing the unvaccinated with the infected, giving yourself licence to call former murderers and treat them as undesirables even if they are unable to infect anyone, let alone kill them. But your murderers exist among the vaccinated as well. In truth, without antibody and other testing you do not know who is murderer, who is not. Of course, not knowing is ignorance, and discrimination premised on ignorance is folly.

So it’s a fictional tale, but worse, one that leads to discrimination and vilification of others. Without irony the same people decried as murderers in this story are also the greatest victims of this disease, yet the so-called civic duty is to force them like pariahs to the margins of society, only to embolden their hesitancy into outright refusal. We’ll lament them taking up precious space in hospitals, while saying nothing of the state’s failure to provide it, and this in countries with so-called “universal healthcare”. And while governments force private citizens to apply their discrimination policies, thereby making them unpaid state enforcers, they let the infected right through the door. What a sham this daddy of yours is.

"Basic civics" now becomes "civic duty", as if the two were the same. The former is the study of citizenship while the other is a collectivist dogma. Your example speaks of Mohammed Ali being jailed because he refused the draft. I'll pass.

What of that which I enjoy has the left, society, and civic-minded people brought to me?

Basic civics according to Mussolini.

There is a Liberal theory of freedom, and there is a Fascist concept of liberty. For we, too, maintain the necessity of safeguarding the conditions that make for the free development of the individual; we, too, believe that the oppression of individual personality can find no place in the modern state. We do not, however, accept a bill of rights which tends to make the individual superior to the state and to empower him to act in opposition to society. Our concept of liberty is that the individual must be allowed to develop his personality in behalf of the state, for these ephemeral and infinitesimal elements of the complex and permanent life of society determine by their normal growth the development of the state. But this individual growth must be normal. A huge and disproportionate development of the individual of classes, would prove as fatal to society as abnormal growths are to living organisms. Freedom therefore is due to the citizen and to classes on condition that they exercise it in the interest of society as a whole and within the limits set by social exigencies, liberty being, like any other individual right, a concession of the state.

Jackboots, brown shirts, service.

You tried, I guess, but the teaching is so authoritarian and statist that I cannot help to reject it. The parallels between your beliefs and that of fascism are frighteningly similar, I’m afraid, that my revulsion is visceral. So it goes, I guess.

But lockdowns, limitations on travel, gatherings, industry, trade, have and are occurring worldwide. All I can say is that it is weird that you pretend they don’t exist, even as an exercise in casuistry.

How are compulsory vaccinations, lockdowns, limitations on travel, gatherings, not state control?

Can’t answer or refuse to answer?

Why would you want to know someone’s private health details?



Earlier I was speaking about the compulsory vaccination in Austria.

Austria plans compulsory Covid vaccination for all

I guess it was in one ear and out the other. So much for your lessons.

Your evidence for state control not existing is to list evidence of state control. Brilliant.

I don’t see it because you cannot show it. You’ve taught nothing. You’ve only asserted without evidence. Is compulsory vaccination not state control? Is the limitations on travel and gathering not state control? Is the mandates and lockdowns not state control? Continue your lessons.

Your claim that the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already if there was censorship and state control is nonsense. Not only is it counterfactual, but manifestly untrue. States worldwide have shut down entire industries, travel, religion, and most gatherings, and the pandemic continues.