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.

Good quote. But it doesn’t sum up Hayek’s view on emergency powers.

The patriot act, the war on drugs, the war on terror, anti-communism, the pandemic—no shortage of state aggrandizement exists. It reminds me of Madison’s quote from a letter he wrote to Jefferson, “you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government”. I fear we see that here.

I don’t see how my point of view leads to an authoritarian state, one that is able to resist the common will. It does not follow that my view of proper government precludes others erecting a different system. And the idea that we can “achieve the good” (whatever that means) through statist tinkering seems to me absurd. Maybe some more demonstration is in order.

The better students don't need tutoring, so they won't receive it.

I think it's fair that only you receive it because you're the one who needs it. Do you disagree with that?

I do disagree with that because it is unfair to deny people access to tutoring because you believe they do not need it. it is also unfair to the lesser student because you don't consider whether he wants it.

I’ve already stated my problems with state control. Its tendency to fail is just another problem with state control.

I think the only hole I’ve dug myself into is this conversation. So let’s just leave it at that.

That’s just false. The failure of state control is no refutation of the existence of state control. First a no true Scotsman then a non sequitor. It’s just getting weird at this point.

I never said that. No, I’m speaking of the one you fell for.

It’s like the no true Scotsman fallacy. The trick to refuting my examples of state control is to assert that it is not true state control.

If it was a true example of state control and censorship, the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already...

Countless prisons have had massive outbreaks, so I’m not sure a “true example of state control” would help any.



I don’t think that it is unfair so long as others can receive tutoring. Do you think it is fair that I should be the only one allowed to receive tutoring?

It’s the opposite. Treating people differently isn’t fair.

I’m not sure how “I see nothing political in it” means “political distinctions don’t exist”, but doublethink is rife in clownworld. What’s left but to make things up?

That’s a lie. I never denied political distinctions didn’t exist. I was merely stating that all political distinctions employ Covid fascism, and your attempt to make it a left vs. right thing is stupid. Yet here you go.

Your help is not required. Your political distinctions are meaningless here, but you cannot help to evoke them, for whatever reason. I’m not sure how stating that fact is risible.

What problem do you have with it?

I see nothing political in it. Reactionary right and left wing politicians have brought upon us this Covid fascism. There’s no escape into blame-games for this one. You’re either for freedom and fundamental human rights or you’re for Covid fascism, discrimination, and state power. Which is it?

Seeking for happiness is a dead-end, anyways, just like nihilism. Seeking for an incline in the decline is a fools’ errand. I found that it is better to return to the objective, to remember that each of us is a visible object that will inevitably affect the lives of others, and to make that object as interesting or as beautiful as possible, even if it results in our own pain and suffering. The only way to create tangible value in that sense is to become valuable.

All this science on your side and look how well you’ve done. Mass death, the denial of fundamental liberties, medical discrimination, huge transfers of wealth, police states, rampant authoritarianism. Defenders of freedom? More like defenders of regimented societies, segregation, state control, censorship.

That’s right, you can only imagine. Perhaps those that require a politician to tell them how to protect themselves are the problem to begin with.

Vaxxed, masked, boostered, locked-down…the pandemic continues. The epicenter, once again, is Europe. What will be the new state boondoggle?

For Austria it’s another lockdown and the harshest vaccine-mandate in the western world. Inject these chemicals or face a fine. Inject these chemicals or you are not allowed to leave your house. And all this after the citizens were promised that lockdowns were a thing of the past. Without irony, Germany might follow.

In Ireland, with one of the highest vaccination rates in Europe, new curfews in pubs and clubs.

In the Netherlands it’s another lockdown. Encouraging signs of civil disobedience now fill the streets.

Almost invariably, the reasoning for more restrictions is to protect the state healthcare system. No one is surprised that rather than strengthen their precious systems, the politicians would rather control the lives their citizens.

Yes, we need to observe the stone, otherwise we have no data to work with. When we investigate in close detail what this stone is made of, we discover it is made of colourless, odourless, insubstantial particles. So the stone is made of stuff that lacks the qualities we attribute to them in ordinary life.

So close investigation reveals the stone to be a projection, yet without this projection, we wouldn't be able to get to the stuff that makes up the stone.

Hence the paradox. As I understand it

I think that’s what Russell was getting at. But is it true? I don’t know if naive realism leads automatically to physics or some form of atomism. I would also say the stone does not lack the qualities we attribute to them in orderly life. So the paradox exists more in physics or atomism than naive realism.

I don’t know why I called it “Russell’s stone”. I mean the stone that Russell was speaking about in this quote.

"Scientific scripture, in its most canonical form, is embodied in physics (including physiology). Physics assures us that the occurrences which we call "perceiving objects" are at the end of a long causal chain which starts from the objects, and are not likely to resemble the objects except, at best, in certain very abstract ways. We all start from "naive realism'', i.e., the doctrine that things are what they seem. We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow, are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we knpw in our own experience, but something very different. The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false naive realism, if true, is false : therefore it is false.”

Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth

I’ve always wondered how one would observe the effects of Russell’s stone without observing the stone. It seems to me “observing the effects” says more about the way we observe the stone, and utilizing the means with which we observe do not preclude observing the actual stone.

It is clear the language and technology has advanced, but it is not clear that man himself has evolved any further beyond man in Aristotle's time. We just have more to play with these days.

A great read. Thanks.

It is largely a problem of identity and self-hood, I think. I say this because the belief that one is not his body, but only a limited and mostly arbitrary part of it, begets all notions of perception, representation, idealism, and so on.

Whether it is a Cartesian or materialist dualism, or wherever one identifies with some amorphous locus within the body (consciousness, the brain, the mind), they are left with the implication that they are not in direct contact with the rest of the world, but are subject only to what the body allows them to see. If they were to extend the limits of their self to the boundaries of the body, the implication that there is a barrier or buffer or Cartesian theater between them and the rest of the world begins to dissolve.

The article was The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, by Carlo Cipolla

I wouldn’t apply Cipolla’s classifications to human beings because they are unjust, impractical, and largely nonsensical.

They are unjust because they lead us to observe the results of certain acts, apply utilitarian considerations, and use them to judge the intelligence of the actor, as if the intelligent cannot make mistakes, and so on. One could never know whether a situation will be better or worse beforehand, in any case, so expecting people to understand the situation before it occurs is to believe in omniscience.

It is impractical because, using Cipolla’s graph, one would have to record every act a person makes in a lifetime in order to determine whether one is stupid or intelligent.

It is nonsensical because one can occupy all categories at once. If someone makes his own and another’s situation worse with one act and better with the next, he is, accordingly, both stupid and intelligent.

Those who would utilize this method in order to discriminate against other human beings would lead me to classify him as stupid.

It’s either true or false. That’s enough of a difference for me.

Censure doesn’t involve removing people from committees. This particular resolution includes both the censure and removal in two different parts, but the removal doesn’t follow from the censure.

Gosar is the 24th House member to be censured. Though it carries no practical effect, except to provide a historic footnote that marks a lawmaker's career, it is the strongest punishment the House can issue short of expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/house-to-vote-on-censuring-gosar-over-tweeting-violent-anime-video

A censure resolution, if brought to the floor, could pass by majority vote. (Expelling a member requires a two-thirds majority.) A censure would have no practical effects on the GOP congressman, but it would a permanent scar on Gosar's record.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1283716

Censure still has zero effect.

That’s the effect of their blind, censorial rage. Censure requires no compulsory action.