Lets talk about this. For the record, my girlfiends got even bigger equipment than i do if you know what i mean. Certainly not conservative. Anyways, anti-scientific? No.
There is literally NOTHING more unscientific than listening to the experts. Thats exactly what the scientific method did away with. Your creditials do not matter, what matters is what you can show. And if you do not even entertain certain ideas you can not then claim them to be false, either.
Heres the world we are actualy living in: One where the governments and your "experts" are preparing the biggest genocide of human history.
Now is it true that there are also a lot of quacks coming out the woodworks? Well, yes, of course it is. What else do you expect if the mainstream no longer tolerates science?
And, yes, the people to blame for ALL OF THEIR BELIEVES AND ACTIONS are YOU. You are the one that wants to socialise medicine, i on the other hand fundamentaly oppose the very idea of public health. Under your logic you are responsible of not only the things you cause but also the things you do not fail to prevent. And in this case, you even caused a lot of shit.In fact, there are sideffects like with any medical treatment. If even one person dies from the shot then if you participated in pressuring them to get it you are a murderer. Theres nothing wrong with a medical treatment that occasionaly kills someone, it likely prevents a lot more harm than it causes, but as soon as you pressure them to do it you lack voluntary consent, making you 100% responsible of all consequences.
"...becouse i want health, justice, security and law to be private and entirely determined by free markets."
You must be new here :-) I understand and fully agree that we live in a world where governments and fake experts disseminate false ideas about almost anything; that's something I've spent many words on explaining in my blogs. There's no doubt, at least there shouldn't be, that governments will use any crisis to increase their power and control over us, like 9/11 was used to introduce the Patriot Act and take away all kinds of freedom all over the world. So too is this pandemic abused to usher in all sorts of control mechanisms, like the bar codes and passports, creating a new division within an already hopelessly divided populous. I, nor anyone else, needs a libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist?) to school us on these obvious facts. That's not where you're hopelessly wrong. You're wrong by not recognizing that the power the government has over you is actually in service of the capitalists. That the mechanisms of control used against you are in fact the source of mega-profits for these same capitalists. Government in and of itself isn't the problem here; capitalism is, and the capitalists are.
It's actually sad that I'm almost sure that if we had a face to face conversation about how we want life on this planet to look like, we would probably mostly agree. The problem is that our methods to get to that world are light-years apart. We'll probably never agree on that because you believe I'm indoctrinated by traditional institutions like the academia you demonize in your response, but I'm convinced you're brainwashed by the global paradigm of free market capitalism. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are funny to me like that, on account of the fact that they're so utterly blind to the material power imbalances that are inherent to their ideology, and fail to understand that this is exactly the unjust power imbalance they proclaim to combat. Even your handle, "reversehitler88" shows how righteous you believe you are, when in fact, in my opinion, free market libertarians uphold an ideology that is anything but righteous when practiced. But what's most disturbing of all, is that your justified suspicion of the powers that be is completely derailed into a state where you distrust all institutions; that's extremism to a tee. I was amused by your keeping score between Conspiracy Theorists and Experts, for most of the predictions you stated there were plainly wrong. Sure, mandates aren't necessary, and yes, mandates usually have the opposite effect. But there are almost no mandates. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you don't have to; you can instead get tested regularly. And if a private company demands that their employees get vaccinated, that's entirely in line with your ideology of private justice, security and law entirely determined by free markets. Right?
I won't delve deep into the technicalities of vaccines, their efficacy, side-effects and so on: you've clearly made up your mind about all that. But know this: the best place to get an honest advice about it is your doctor, just ask him or her. Also I must admit that you've made one point that I think is worth investigating further, and that is the point about the virus becoming more infectious but less deadly; this is in line with evolution's desire to survive. The virus will die if it kills all its host organisms, so it stands to reason it would evolve into a form that creates an optimum equilibrium for its growth and survival; having more host organisms alive is good, all hist organisms dead is suicide. That sounds reasonable, but then again, there's a highly deadly flu virus every 100 years or so... So I'll have to investigate, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention :-) I wish you and your "girlfriend" a happy new year!
I think you saw from how i adressed those points that you dont really understand where im coming from.
Allow me to elaborate. Why are property rights? Property rights arise from selfownership (which you literally can not argue against without being selfcontradictory) and from those the right of a worker to his produce. If i pick up an unowned stick and fashion it into a walking cane, that resulting cane is mine to do with as i please. Including selling it. Proudhon actualy while "property is theft" is regularly quoted by socialists, is part of the history of my ideas. He was in that instance specificly talking about landproperty gained through violence instead of homesteading. Capitalists would agree with him and would view the vast majority of land as unowned. Of course, proudhon also stated that "Property is Liberty" on another occasion adressing actual legitimate property.
Now, yes, i believe you are fundamentaly wrong about a few things.
What you, as well as capitalists (and, yes, many socialists) actualy have a problem with is not capitalism. Aside from general state interference it is the economic model under which we operate. Keynesian economics. Literally designed to trap our children in debt so we can now spend, spend, spend. Trying to increase the GDP is what we are doing, why would any Person actualy care about that? The state does becouse its got debt to pay and pays them with on one hand tax revenue, on the other hand, promised tax revenue in the future, thats where the fixation on the GDP comes from.
As i see it, the GDP is a massive bubble and it is a bubble by design, needs to come way down. I rather have an apple tree in my garden then buy apples, you understand? But that wouldnt be good for the GDP now, would it? Heck, have you ever thought about why so many people rent an apartment rather than build a house? Well, theres two ways to explain that, i could go into the mechanisms such as the state rejecting the homesteading principle, zoning laws and so on, but why do they want us to rent a place rather than building or buying? Simple, if i build my own house, thats at most counting one transaction towards the GDP. If i take on a loan to buy a house to rent out thats now counted at least 4 times over, once for the actual building of the house, once for me buying the house, once for me taking the rent and once for me paying back my loan.
Now im not saying landlords are illegitimate, as an arangement it may make sense for some people (namely those that dont want to take care of everything about the house themselves) but it would be a lot less common if capitalism was allowed.
Lets talk about this. For the record, my girlfiends got even bigger equipment than i do if you know what i mean. Certainly not conservative. Anyways, anti-scientific? No.
There is literally NOTHING more unscientific than listening to the experts. Thats exactly what the scientific method did away with. Your creditials do not matter, what matters is what you can show. And if you do not even entertain certain ideas you can not then claim them to be false, either.
Heres the world we are actualy living in: One where the governments and your "experts" are preparing the biggest genocide of human history.
Now is it true that there are also a lot of quacks coming out the woodworks? Well, yes, of course it is. What else do you expect if the mainstream no longer tolerates science?
And, yes, the people to blame for ALL OF THEIR BELIEVES AND ACTIONS are YOU. You are the one that wants to socialise medicine, i on the other hand fundamentaly oppose the very idea of public health. Under your logic you are responsible of not only the things you cause but also the things you do not fail to prevent. And in this case, you even caused a lot of shit.In fact, there are sideffects like with any medical treatment. If even one person dies from the shot then if you participated in pressuring them to get it you are a murderer. Theres nothing wrong with a medical treatment that occasionaly kills someone, it likely prevents a lot more harm than it causes, but as soon as you pressure them to do it you lack voluntary consent, making you 100% responsible of all consequences.
You must be new here :-) I understand and fully agree that we live in a world where governments and fake experts disseminate false ideas about almost anything; that's something I've spent many words on explaining in my blogs. There's no doubt, at least there shouldn't be, that governments will use any crisis to increase their power and control over us, like 9/11 was used to introduce the Patriot Act and take away all kinds of freedom all over the world. So too is this pandemic abused to usher in all sorts of control mechanisms, like the bar codes and passports, creating a new division within an already hopelessly divided populous. I, nor anyone else, needs a libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist?) to school us on these obvious facts. That's not where you're hopelessly wrong. You're wrong by not recognizing that the power the government has over you is actually in service of the capitalists. That the mechanisms of control used against you are in fact the source of mega-profits for these same capitalists. Government in and of itself isn't the problem here; capitalism is, and the capitalists are.
It's actually sad that I'm almost sure that if we had a face to face conversation about how we want life on this planet to look like, we would probably mostly agree. The problem is that our methods to get to that world are light-years apart. We'll probably never agree on that because you believe I'm indoctrinated by traditional institutions like the academia you demonize in your response, but I'm convinced you're brainwashed by the global paradigm of free market capitalism. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are funny to me like that, on account of the fact that they're so utterly blind to the material power imbalances that are inherent to their ideology, and fail to understand that this is exactly the unjust power imbalance they proclaim to combat. Even your handle, "reversehitler88" shows how righteous you believe you are, when in fact, in my opinion, free market libertarians uphold an ideology that is anything but righteous when practiced. But what's most disturbing of all, is that your justified suspicion of the powers that be is completely derailed into a state where you distrust all institutions; that's extremism to a tee. I was amused by your keeping score between Conspiracy Theorists and Experts, for most of the predictions you stated there were plainly wrong. Sure, mandates aren't necessary, and yes, mandates usually have the opposite effect. But there are almost no mandates. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you don't have to; you can instead get tested regularly. And if a private company demands that their employees get vaccinated, that's entirely in line with your ideology of private justice, security and law entirely determined by free markets. Right?
I won't delve deep into the technicalities of vaccines, their efficacy, side-effects and so on: you've clearly made up your mind about all that. But know this: the best place to get an honest advice about it is your doctor, just ask him or her. Also I must admit that you've made one point that I think is worth investigating further, and that is the point about the virus becoming more infectious but less deadly; this is in line with evolution's desire to survive. The virus will die if it kills all its host organisms, so it stands to reason it would evolve into a form that creates an optimum equilibrium for its growth and survival; having more host organisms alive is good, all hist organisms dead is suicide. That sounds reasonable, but then again, there's a highly deadly flu virus every 100 years or so... So I'll have to investigate, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention :-) I wish you and your "girlfriend" a happy new year!
I think you saw from how i adressed those points that you dont really understand where im coming from.
Allow me to elaborate. Why are property rights? Property rights arise from selfownership (which you literally can not argue against without being selfcontradictory) and from those the right of a worker to his produce. If i pick up an unowned stick and fashion it into a walking cane, that resulting cane is mine to do with as i please. Including selling it. Proudhon actualy while "property is theft" is regularly quoted by socialists, is part of the history of my ideas. He was in that instance specificly talking about landproperty gained through violence instead of homesteading. Capitalists would agree with him and would view the vast majority of land as unowned. Of course, proudhon also stated that "Property is Liberty" on another occasion adressing actual legitimate property.
Now, yes, i believe you are fundamentaly wrong about a few things.
What you, as well as capitalists (and, yes, many socialists) actualy have a problem with is not capitalism. Aside from general state interference it is the economic model under which we operate. Keynesian economics. Literally designed to trap our children in debt so we can now spend, spend, spend. Trying to increase the GDP is what we are doing, why would any Person actualy care about that? The state does becouse its got debt to pay and pays them with on one hand tax revenue, on the other hand, promised tax revenue in the future, thats where the fixation on the GDP comes from.
As i see it, the GDP is a massive bubble and it is a bubble by design, needs to come way down. I rather have an apple tree in my garden then buy apples, you understand? But that wouldnt be good for the GDP now, would it? Heck, have you ever thought about why so many people rent an apartment rather than build a house? Well, theres two ways to explain that, i could go into the mechanisms such as the state rejecting the homesteading principle, zoning laws and so on, but why do they want us to rent a place rather than building or buying? Simple, if i build my own house, thats at most counting one transaction towards the GDP. If i take on a loan to buy a house to rent out thats now counted at least 4 times over, once for the actual building of the house, once for me buying the house, once for me taking the rent and once for me paying back my loan.
Now im not saying landlords are illegitimate, as an arangement it may make sense for some people (namely those that dont want to take care of everything about the house themselves) but it would be a lot less common if capitalism was allowed.
In any event, thats all keynesian economics.
Thank you for posting this, you're a great writer!
Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving these kind words, @wedacoalition :-)
I am a truthteller what can I say :)