Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

On 1/13/2022 at 7:28 PM, anthony said:

Each person will bear any consequences of his choice).

Is a business owner, an individual person? Of course. And they have rules. I agree that after hire, and a hard copy or implied contract to work is agreed to, then "new rules" piled on top, muddy the waters . . . yet times and conditions change. I think government should stay out of business for the most part, but I bet there are exceptions.

This is an old funny story of mine. After high school, I traveled to Japan and I needed shots to go, and I got them. After getting back to the States, I became a soldier and I was given more shots. And when I was ready to fly to South Korea, all of us privates and Spec 4's had to pull our pants down, right on the tarmac before boarding the plane to get another shot in the butt.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 8:47 PM, Marc said:

Thanks SCOTUS.

President Trump's Supremes selections will have lasting effects. I got an actual letter from "him" today to give to the Republican National Committee, for the 2022 midterm elections. The lowest suggested donation amount was 55 bucks.     

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Why the window must always move left is that it is essentially moving towards equality. How do you get the public to push back on equality? Well, I think the first thing that has to happen is the right has to stop pretending they are actually pro-equality, just in a different way. You will be familiar with the distinction between equality and 'equity'. Or equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

 

The problem is that if there isn't an unequivocal alternative offered, people don't really know why they shouldn't be pro-equality. After all, the difference is apparently semantical.

 

The modern right wants unequal outcomes, but a fair system for achieving those outcomes. The fair system is what they argue for, which is still a form of equality. A real alternative would be to focus on the unequal outcomes and why they are essential. Why is it better for human beings to have a hierarchy? A fair system would be nice, but that should be secondary. When people try to achieve equality, as we can see they naturally do by the continual shifting of the Overton Window to the left, they create power vacuums that get filled by the worst types of people. This is why we should forget about equality of outcomes, equality of opportunity, all of it. The alternative to equality is leadership. When people actually think about who they want to lead, and not who they want to help achieve equality (the Justin Trudeau types), we can move the window in the other direction...

For some time there's been a window of opportunity to bring the Right on board, behind full individual rights. IF - the case were presented to them by clear-sighted Objectivists - instead of the petty sniping at and demeaning of conservatives, seen for years and ongoing, from ARI's scholars. Apparently in total denial of a much greater and increasing problem from the 'other side'. Conservatives everywhere know they and their values are under severe attack, but are struggling to find a cohesive, moral-social-political response. As have some smart, outlying Oists indicated: enlist them to the good cause. No it's not 'selling out', this is what Rand envisaged a society to be, all 'types' included. Unless anyone actually thinks there would be no religious people left in her society! (or any socialists, etc., for that matter). Only the "rational" Objectivists! Then we'll wait til the cows come home for individual rights.

Mainstream Objectivists need to get over themselves and contact and connect with conservatives, in this regard alone (regardless of major differences), and actively promote the unique solution to them. The upside, given a growing, majority conviction in individual rights would be a tremendous boost to freedoms, liberties and capitalism, thwarting the Left's collectivist ambitions and control.

Individual rights, specifying property rights "without which no rights can exist", is the answer to Leftist's "equality" and the right's dilemma. Equality is individual equality and justice before the law, exclusively. An objective concept which the Left has subjectively twisted to wanting parity through *re-distribution*.  I.e. 'Equality' through force.

If the individualist rationale doesn't appeal to the Right at this time of collectivist insanity, what will?

What's clear as always, the Left-socialists demand the self-contradiction: 'collective rights'. So that any random group du jour, usually made up of some superficial and physical identity gets its own 'rights' - burying individuals and individualism.

The plain objective is dominance by group. Many are fooled by 'equality', employed as a tactical step in the direction of supremacy, attracting sympathizers to their cause from those who feel "equality" sounds like a fine thing (and after all, the fuzzy perception goes, "those people" are, or were once, oppressed victims - by group).

Next up, as Rand warned, a nation ends up composed of warring 'groups'. Finally, after "divide" comes "rule".

Strong doubts about "equality of opportunity" which should also be done away with, along with dismissing 'equality of outcome'. Here's an anti-concept, I think. Sounds good in theory, rationalistically, but what does it mean in reality?  How is an "opportunity" defined? Opportunity - for whom and why?  And how, possibly, can opportunity be 'equalized'? Or measured and equally distributed? By whom? An authority figure, an institution? Maybe someone needs to decide who has too much and who has too little "opportunity", and evens it out. We find ourselves back where we started.

The idea rests - implicitly - upon the same 'group-ist' distinctions - as equality of outcome. Far from being 'identity-blind', a businessman, say, would always have to be aware of granting 'equal opportunities', to e.g. women/men/blacks/whites (etc.etc.) when hiring an employee.

That's a ¬social justice¬ construct - anti-individualist and non-objective.

Ultimately, it's not for any individual to balance out (or mete out) "equality" among all people in society. Impossible, irrational and self-sacrificial. As individualist he/she views every other to be one, while favoring and holding select persons in high regard.

And 'a leader' and the govt. of a free country ought -only- concern themselves with equality of all citizens "before the law", never equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome.

Individualism and the Objectivist theory of rights washes that erroneous dichotomy away. You act in reality, seeing, finding, taking and making your own opportunities; you deal individually with others as they with you, by choice, on merit. Many times, by simple preference. Your positive freedom to *act* has to be protected, no more no less. One makes one's own justice-in-reality, while there are no guarantees of gaining desired outcomes, in every instance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Peter said:

Is a business owner, an individual person? Of course. And they have rules. I agree that after hire, and a hard copy or implied contract to work is agreed to, then "new rules" piled on top, muddy the waters . . . yet times and conditions change. I think government should stay out of business for the most part, but I bet there are exceptions.

This is an old funny story of mine. After high school, I traveled to Japan and I needed shots to go, and I got them. After getting back to the States, I became a soldier and I was given more shots. And when I was ready to fly to South Korea, all of us privates and Spec 4's had to pull our pants down, right on the tarmac before boarding the plane to get another shot in the butt.      

Getting shots as the Army ordered is what you implicitly agreed to when signing on, Peter. A capitalist businessman worthy of the name is observant of the rights of his employees, as he is of his own. He understands "a contract" is the mainstay of capitalism. He would hardly change conditions of employment in mid-stream, resorting to his employees working "by permission". With diseases, simply, like every time anyone gets sick with flu, they voluntarily stay home for several days. A simple consideration for others that doesn't suffice for the vaxx fanatics. (Anyway, who will as easily be infected by someone who's also vaccinated).

There can't be exceptions to government involving itself in business, outside of breaking the law*, that "exceptions" slippery-slope is how every place got to statism and mixed economies, or socialism. *(Mass vaccinating is not objective law, it is subjective decree. Or, rule by men).

You might have noticed, yet another 'group' distinction has been solidified, the vaccinated v. the unvaccinated. Quickly, vaccines have been shown to be absolutely meaningless re: the pandemic spread. A fact unrecognized still, by vengeful authoritarians. The former are permitted to have xyz freedoms of action, the latter are still denied them, with no end in sight I can see..

If the principle of individual freedoms were one's concern, that collectivizing of some and that loss of liberty - for some - would be anathema to everyone. First, 'them' over there, later coming to oneself and one's group here. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Peter said:

President Trump's Supremes selections will have lasting effects. I got an actual letter from "him" today to give to the Republican National Committee, for the 2022 midterm elections. The lowest suggested donation amount was 55 bucks.     

Can a Canadian donate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, anthony said:

For some time there's been a window of opportunity to bring the Right on board, behind full individual rights. IF - the case were presented to them by clear-sighted Objectivists - instead of the petty sniping at and demeaning of conservatives, seen for years and ongoing, from ARI's scholars. Apparently in total denial of a much greater and increasing problem from the 'other side'. Conservatives everywhere know they and their values are under severe attack, but are struggling to find a cohesive, moral-social-political response. As have some smart, outlying Oists indicated: enlist them to the good cause. No it's not 'selling out', this is what Rand envisaged a society to be, all 'types' included. Unless anyone actually thinks there would be no religious people left in her society! (or any socialists, etc., for that matter). Only the "rational" Objectivists! Then we'll wait til the cows come home for individual rights.

Mainstream Objectivists need to get over themselves and contact and connect with conservatives, in this regard alone (regardless of major differences), and actively promote the unique solution to them. The upside, given a growing, majority conviction in individual rights would be a tremendous boost to freedoms, liberties and capitalism, thwarting the Left's collectivist ambitions and control.

Individual rights, specifying property rights "without which no rights can exist", is the answer to Leftist's "equality" and the right's dilemma. Equality is individual equality and justice before the law, exclusively. An objective concept which the Left has subjectively twisted to wanting parity through *re-distribution*.  I.e. 'Equality' through force.

If the individualist rationale doesn't appeal to the Right at this time of collectivist insanity, what will?

What's clear as always, the Left-socialists demand the self-contradiction: 'collective rights'. So that any random group du jour, usually made up of some superficial and physical identity gets its own 'rights' - burying individuals and individualism.

The plain objective is dominance by group. Many are fooled by 'equality', employed as a tactical step in the direction of supremacy, attracting sympathizers to their cause from those who feel "equality" sounds like a fine thing (and after all, the fuzzy perception goes, "those people" are, or were once, oppressed victims - by group).

Next up, as Rand warned, a nation ends up composed of warring 'groups'. Finally, after "divide" comes "rule".

Strong doubts about "equality of opportunity" which should also be done away with, along with dismissing 'equality of outcome'. Here's an anti-concept, I think. Sounds good in theory, rationalistically, but what does it mean in reality?  How is an "opportunity" defined? Opportunity - for whom and why?  And how, possibly, can opportunity be 'equalized'? Or measured and distributed? By whom? An authority figure, an institution? We find ourselves back where we started.

The idea rests - implicitly - upon the same 'group-ist' illogic as equality of outcome. Far from being 'identity-blind', a businessman, say, would always have to be aware of granting 'equal opportunities', to e.g. women/men/blacks/whites (etc.etc.) when hiring an employee.

That's a ¬social justice¬ construct - anti-individualist and non-objective.

Ultimately, it's not for any one citizen to balance out (or mete out) "equality" among all people in society. Impossible, irrational and self-sacrificial.

And 'a leader' and govt. of a free country ought -only- concern themselves with equality of all citizens "before the law", never equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome.

Individualism and the Objectivist theory of rights washes that erroneous dichotomy away. You act in reality, seeing, finding, taking and making your own opportunities; you deal individually with others as they with you, by choice, on merit. Many times, by simple preference. Your positive freedom to *act* has to be protected, no more no less. One makes one's own justice-in-reality, while there are no guarantees of gaining desired outcomes, in every instance. 

 

Org'Oism, in its TDS, would rather push against the likes of Jordan Peterson and co. while holding up Fauci and his minions as "heroes of science" (not to mention their long-standing advocacy of voting Democrat, because they believe that the Right does MORE damage to capitalism than the left), because, in their own words, they don't want to be seen as supporting the alt-right, and anyone who disagrees is a "fifth columnist Objecivist", according to Yaron Brook. (But when you ask them about Peikoff's donation to the Trump campaign? "Blank-out.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Org'Oism, in its TDS, would rather push against the likes of Jordan Peterson and co. while holding up Fauci and his minions as "heroes of science", because, in their own words, they don't want to be seen as supporting the alt-right, and anyone who disagrees is a "fifth columnist Objecivist", according to Yaron Brook. (But when you ask them about Peikoff's donation to the Trump campaign? "Blank-out.")

Quite, smear the entire right by way of any extremists associated (as related by the pristine and upright mainstream media - as we know them to be) with the right. I can only hazard a guess what Brooks is after. Are there big money payoffs coming from big tech and the 'capitalist' Left? Does The Org crave the intellectual recognition they see others commanding? Hard to explain their deafening silence about what they also must be seeing, contrary to every O'ist standard I know.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think nearly all of the excellent thinking and fine values are captured by conservative writers and speakers nowadays. I read of many and quoted some here. Even at times where I totally disagree with their premises or methods I can respect their integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Quite, smear the entire right by way of any extremists associated (as related by the pristine and upright mainstream media - as we know them to be) with the right. I can only hazard a guess what Brooks is after. Are there big money payoffs coming from big tech and the 'capitalist' Left? Does The Org crave the intellectual recognition they see others commanding? Hard to explain their deafening silence about what they also must be seeing, contrary to every O'ist standard I know.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think nearly all of the excellent thinking and fine values are captured by conservative writers and speakers nowadays. I read of many and quoted some here. Even at times where I totally disagree with their premises or methods I can respect their integrity.

To be fair, it's nothing new. Even Peikoff once advocated voting "democrat" across the board. There may be "reasons" why Yaron Brook and co. do so today, involving funding (China? Soros?), but philosophically, it goes back to Rand herself, with her disgust at what she saw as betrayal by the Right. And the rationale that the right does more damage to capitalism than the left does, by undermining it (whereas the left is just nihilistic and such). I get the idea behind it, to let the left do its damage so that the people will see just how bad they are, but I really think OrgOists severely underestimate the Left in terms of sheer evil, and just how far they'll go to keep power, even if it means destroying America in the process. And those Oi'st advocating to vote Democrat just become useful idiots, in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, anthony said:

If the individualist rationale doesn't appeal to the Right at this time of collectivist insanity, what will?

Any rationale is irrelevant, because what comes first is structure. If you do not even have a structure that can facilitate the process of exploring ethics on a large scale, then that is what should happen first. You cannot have a discussion of ethics with the lowest common denominator of 100s of millions of people.

Quote

What's clear as always, the Left-socialists demand the self-contradiction: 'collective rights'. So that any random group du jour, usually made up of some superficial and physical identity gets its own 'rights' - burying individuals and individualism.

The plain objective is dominance by group. Many are fooled by 'equality', employed as a tactical step in the direction of supremacy, attracting sympathizers to their cause from those who feel "equality" sounds like a fine thing (and after all, the fuzzy perception goes, "those people" are, or were once, oppressed victims - by group).

The objective may be dominance, but the purpose of the ideology is not that, and that is not what makes it successful. The individuals may think the way you imagine, but leftism is a social phenomenon. Before you can deal with individuals you have to detatch them from power -- they have to see that the system will never work for them. The ideal of equality is what keeps leftism so healthy in so many societies. When a citizenry has any say in their own system of governance, equality will naturally be extremely popular. The system is actually an illusion, because really we just have people doing things. It's hard to say who has power and how much... but if we were more open about it, and accepted the reality that there is power and there always will be, people could at least make decisions with their brains instead of the emotions that tell them things should be another way. We could actually think about who we want in power instead of trying to figure out a way to make it go away, when that is just not an option.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

It's hard to say who has power and how much... but if we were more open about it, and accepted the reality that there is power and there always will be, people could at least make decisions with their brains instead of the emotions that tell them things should be another way. We could actually think about who we want in power instead of trying to figure out a way to make it go away, when that is just not an option.

D,

The Founding Fathers already did this.

They called it checks and balances.

Rather than concentrate power or pretend it was not a factor, they sliced it up and pitted the parts against each other.

It works, too. At least the USA has stayed together ever since, even through some really rough times and abuses of power. 

I, personally, think the checks and balances concept was just as great an intellectual feat as individual rights were.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Any rationale is irreverent, because what comes first is structure. If you do not even have a structure that can facilitate the process of exploring ethics on a large scale, then that is what should happen first. You cannot have a discussion of ethics with the lowest common denominator of 100s of millions of people.

The objective may be dominance, but the purpose of the ideology is not that, and that is not what makes it successful.

3 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

 Before you can deal with individuals you have to detatch them from power -- they have to see that the system will never work for them.

 

As I see it, quite the reverse process. What is needed is introducing people to the marvels of *personal* power. That IS actually what individualism, rights and capitalism represent.

Which should, quite automatically "detach them from power". Specifically, from the need for political power -  in order to become dominant by 'group', and conversely, in self-defense against others' dominance by group. 

"Structure" is already in place, particularly in America with its Constitution, checks and balances and so on. The rationale, or intellectual grounds, is what's been eroding. Or never fully understood by many; or never fully appreciated, taken for granted. I can't say.

This is really not at all about ethics, per se, "on a large scale". The elegance of the Objectivist formulation of rights is that anyone of any ethics/etc. participates. All that's required is each dealing with others decently and - rationally. Live, and let live in a nutshell. The system of rights provides the space for maximum freedom of action to all and everyone, to find their own way without hindrance; then you have a dynamic society with opportunities, galore.

There's the rub, because growing numbers all over the world fear freedom more than ever. They need to be "told". (That's become plainer to me from this pandemic) Since many have lost basic human self-responsibility and self-reliance.  To return to "personal power": One has to be free to fail, and that is proper freedom.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

D,

The Founding Fathers already did this.

They called it checks and balances.

Rather than concentrate power or pretend it was not a factor, they sliced it up and pitted the parts against each other.

It works, too. At least the USA has stayed together ever since, even through some really rough times and abuses of power. 

I, personally, think the checks and balances concept was just as great an intellectual feat as individual rights were.

Michael

What The Constitution says and how things actually work are, obviously, two different things. We can see that the rules are being made by the universities and the media, not the elected officials. Power exists outside of the government, and it has not been sliced up... and it can't be. It will always exist. If you get rid of it in one place, it will pop up somewhere else. That's what happened. And the people can't do anything about it because conservatives continue to spread the myth that you just expressed. People think they can replace leadership with an objective system. It won't happen until we evolve into something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, anthony said:

The elegance of the Objectivist formulation of rights is that anyone of any ethics/etc. participates. All that's required is dealing with others decently and rationally. Live and let live, in a nutshell.

And an individual can live by this code as a subject of North Korea if they want. I am talking about a culture that can become either more healthy or less healthy.

Quote

There's the rub, because growing numbers all over the world fear freedom more than ever. They need to be told. (That's become clearer to me from this pandemic) Since they have lost basic human self-responsibility and self-reliance.  And I return to personal power. One has to be free to fail, and that is proper freedom.

They don't fear freedom. They fear losing power. If they knew for certain they had no power and couldn't get any, now individual ethics would become far more important to them. Leftists don't fear freedom... they fear being disconnected from the group that they believe is going to save the world. They think that we, as a society, can save the world. They imagine themselves as the abolitionists during slavery times, or like Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement.

 

They don't fear freedom. They fear losing their chance to matter/be part of something that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

And an individual can live by this code as a subject of North Korea if they want. I am talking about a culture that can become either more healthy or less healthy.

They don't fear freedom. They fear losing power. If they knew for certain they had no power and couldn't get any, now individual ethics would become far more important to them. Leftists don't fear freedom... they fear being disconnected from the group that they believe is going to save the world. They think that we, as a society, can save the world. They imagine themselves as the abolitionists during slavery times, or like Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement.

 

They don't fear freedom. They fear losing their chance to matter/be part of something that matters.

A culture begins and ends with the individual. I think this is the vital point you miss.

Where there is no (collective) power to be gained and taken (or lost) anywhere and anyhow - outside of that of the individual - that's a healthy culture.

Not a ¬perfect¬ culture/society. "Perfection" must first have force to be implemented and sustained, and is impossible; since human beings, fortunately, won't allow their free choices to be removed, and will revolt eventually against dogmas they don't choose to accept.

If as you say, the Left "fear being disconnected from the group ... to save the world", I wouldn't be surprised. I'm often saying that leftists depend on 'the others' to feed their sense of self-aggrandizement, a substitute for self-esteem.

They have lately (imo) emerged as the largest power-crazed element known in history. Because, they *know* what everybody else must be told to do, and want to be in on it, to be involved in that domination. Over the loathed "individualists".

For self-righteousness and an utter belief in their "faith", that is to be brought upon everyone else, they have left past excesses by the religious, way behind. (Except for the Islamists, whose "excesses" I think the Left rather both admires and fears, and almost seem to wish to emulate. And alliances are made of leftists with Islamists, so it looks like religion itself isn't the main problem; independent individuals are).

Proves my point, it's the conservatives who will find individual rights appealing. A waste of effort approaching the great majority of collectivist- leftists.

Of course they "fear freedom"! Their own, and more critically, the freedom by individualists who reject them and stand in their way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

What The Constitution says and how things actually work are, obviously, two different things. We can see that the rules are being made by the universities and the media, not the elected officials. Power exists outside of the government, and it has not been sliced up... and it can't be. It will always exist. If you get rid of it in one place, it will pop up somewhere else. That's what happened. And the people can't do anything about it because conservatives continue to spread the myth that you just expressed. People think they can replace leadership with an objective system. It won't happen until we evolve into something else.

D,

I could not disagree with you more.

And I mean in practically every word you just posted, including "the" and "and."

I think the USA system of government rocks. Not just in theory, but in practice.

It is still standing despite all the crap people have thrown at it for centuries. Even a Civil War.

I, for one, have no intention of undermining it from the inside with little bitty weak and gloomy opinions posing as facts.

I have no metaphysical negativity to contribute. And I certainly do not want to be anything other than a human being. I do not want to evolve into "something else."

You can try to become some kind of freak of nature if you like. Just leave me out of it.

 

Of course power exists outside of government. What has that got to do with checks and balances keeping the government together?

Nothing, that's what.

Even the mafia could not take out the US government.

 

You think checks and balances is a myth? It's one of the fundamental parts that took human nature into account.

The Constitution was made to organize human beings, real human beings, human beings as they exist, not opinions dressed up as humans. The Constitution is a system with enough flexibility built in to expand and contract to cover differences in humans and historical phases during the ups and downs of time. Life--including human life--happens in waves, not a straight line. The Constitution was not designed as an epistemological straightjacket to play gotchas with.

And even so, how you manage to look at three different branches of government and say checks and balances do not exist is beyond me. We're back to looking at a foot and calling it an airplane.

 

In O-Land, it's popular to derive reality from principles instead of looking at reality and getting principles from there. But as the lady said, A is A. That is not going to change no matter what your opinions are. 

From what I have been reading of your posts, I sense rationalizing from proclamations is your method of cognition for the most part.

So enjoy your semi-woke negative epistemology. See what world you build with it. Heh... I won't hold my breath.

You are right that I do not think that way.

Ever.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Of course they "fear freedom"! Their own, and more critically, the freedom by individualists who reject them.

Tony,

I going to go real Rand on this.

The people of the epistemology you and D are talking about fear something else far more than individualism, freedom, being disconnected from a group and all the rest.

They fear reason.

They are terrified of reason and of those who use it.

They know for certain they don't measure up and it kills them inside.

Reason is not something one does collectively. That is, reason in the sense I am talking about (thinking independently to the best of one's ability using reality as the frame).

Reason in that sense can only happen individually, subjectively if you will. One cannot reason for another. Each person is alone in performing it. Each person is solely responsible for his or her own brain.

If two people or more are reasoning individually, then they can reason together. Correct each other. And so on. But if one of them is not reasoning individually, then they are playing a sucker's game, not reasoning together. And the one using reason is the sucker.

From observing over a lifetime, reason scares the living shit out of them. They don't want to be the sucker and they Long for somebody else to blame for their shortcomings, insecurities and screw-ups.

And they want to spit themselves out of life where they have to die in the end. They don't know how to live, but they are terrified of dying. They don't want to see this and they hunger to blame the people who do for the fact that that death in the end is just the way it is. 

So they try to kill reason. Then they don't have to see or think when the urge for blank-out hits them.

Even when they don't use the word reason, they try to kill reason.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I, personally, think the checks and balances concept was just as great an intellectual feat as individual rights were.

Well said and thought out.

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally someone in Beijing got infected with Omicron.

Since this is 20 days out from the Olympics, and the Omicron variant infects even faster than logarithms go, this will turn the Olympics into the largest super-spreader event in history.

Then this could happen:

Prepare for the 'mother of all supply chain stumbles' if Omicron sweeps across Asia and raises the risk of factory shutdowns, analyst warns

61dd7c901025b20018bb1fe8?width=1200&form
WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM

"Asian production networks, hitherto impressively resilient, may be thrown into a funk as Omicron grips the region," an HSBC economist wrote.

 

At the very least, this is going to be the mother of all pickles for the predator class. See here:

vUK3c.qR4e.jpg
RUMBLE.COM

Beijing Olympics Will Be The Largest Super Spreader Event In History

Omicron essentially immunizes large populations against the coronavirus--and quickly--better than any vaccine ever could.

How to justify the power grab after that?

:)

 

But there's that Ebola-like thing in China. That's worrisome. And the CCP ain't talking about what it is. They're just shutting down cities with millions of inhabitants in them and they ain't talking.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You think checks and balances is a myth? It's one of the fundamental parts that took human nature into account.

No. Constraining power is a myth. You can't block power by some clever system design. If you block power in one area, you leak it into others. That is what happened and that is why areas of society that the Founding Fathers never imagined to have power now do.

 

And the part about evolving... You are the one arguing for a system over (a) human being(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Of course they "fear freedom"! Their own, and more critically, the freedom by individualists who reject them and stand in their way.

Being separated from the herd is not the same as freedom. You can have freedom and still be part of a group. You can have freedom and still have a social safety net (loved ones who will take care of you when you are weak).

They don't even consider the option that they need leadership. They have been convinced that people do not need leadership and that democracy can actually produce good, effective, moral policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now