Here’s the thing, though — the lions we’ve been waiting for are in the mirror. There we see the lions who have been willing to delve beyond the paid-off propaganda peddlers and presstitutes. In the mirror we find the lions who stood up to the most intense peer pressure in the history of the world. The lions who were the first to stand up and ask what can be done to remedy our maladies. You’re the lions, and from what I gather you’re pissed off. You want justice.
In the linked article, you said (I'm paraphrasing) that lockdowns should be used only if "we" knew for sure they would make the difference between overwhelmed hospitals and or not.
More or less, yes. It definitely should have been the START of the conversation -- followed quickly by proof that hospitals were never in danger of being overrun. This should have stopped lockdowns in their tracks. Of course this should have only been one aspect of the attack on lockdowns, one disappointing aspect of 2020 was how few argued that government has no right to declare entire industries 'non-essential' or shut down a business. (Especially without actually proving the open business is a danger in the first place.) And I still maintain that if covid were as dangerous as the media wanted you to believe, people would have done their own 'distancing' and mandates would have still been unnecessary.
Knowing what we know now (that the virus was likely here long before March 2020), it's clear that we were ALREADY living with the virus all winter and we didn't even notice until governors threw covid patients into nursing homes, effectively speeding up the curve by infecting all the at-risk at once. Therefore it was obvious that lockdowns weren't the difference between an overwhelmed system and a manageable one.
With all due respect, the "lockdown" of living, breathing, free people should have been received with outrage. You're sick? Stay home? You've crapped your pants that you might get sick? Figure it out -- and leave me out of it. Afraid you're going to die? Guess what? We're all going to.
If in fact the decrepit and corrupt "hospital system" in the U.S., put on life support thanks to "Obamacare," would have resulted in the existing facilities becoming overwhelmed, then we figure out what to do about that when/if it looks like it's going to happen. Order the shutdown of commerce and tell people to limit their movements because of what -- in the world's lone "superpower"? Because doctors and hospitals might get overworked?
The lockdown of free people and the destruction of commerce and basic human rights I shall remember forever, including those who ordered it, supported it, and enforced it.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (Maybe the first time I've said that seriously!)
Although I wish that we lived in a world in which freedom-based arguments would win the day, that is not the world in which we live. We need all sides of the argument in order to win over the most people possible (all IMO). Remember how "muh free-dumb" was the trendy insult for a while? I couldn't believe it! People literally mocking freedom, after decades of "I AM FREE TO BE THE REAL ME AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!"
For some people, data-driven arguments will win the day. Arguments like "if we've got to be locked down to save the hospitals, why the heck are we not using this time to expand hospital capacity?!??!?!"
The people you describe -- those who have displayed their inability to live up to the ideals of liberty as many in that same cohort simultaneously and publicly expressed their disdain for it -- have done us all a big favor. We can now safely jettison any silly ideas that the people of the "exceptional nation" will defend liberty. Gee, thanks, Dad, for "fighting for freedom" the way you did. "The people" really appreciate it.
I long ago lost any notion that in order for freedom to succeed the majority needs convincing of its value. Untrue. That horde merely goes where it's led; they'll go any which way because they anchor to nothing. Oh...maybe they do...to such things as their own immediate survival or the feeling of being in the "club" or the immediate gratification they get from indulging their sanctimony toward those who would value freedom over mere survival. Damn, that's annoying. Public chastisement for you, cretin!
To suggest that the ordering of the large-scale suspension of human freedom "just for a few minutes" while "we get things in order" during the "emergency" could 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 lead to a happy ending is to reveal, IMO, a dangerous naiveté.
During a speech in the British House of Commons in 1783, William Pitt (the Younger) said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” I made a point about this in my newsletter, "Obedience".
I credit -- to a point -- those who pursue attempts to convince/persuade "the horde". I learned the hard way 'tis better to leave the horde to itself. Better to seek, find, and support those who need no convincing about the value of liberty first.
"Liberty is the great engine of value in the world. It is what allows people to pursue their discoveries of value. Take away people's liberty and they cannot be productive. They cannot create their lives or make their contributions. Only with liberty can people make progress in the discovery and pursuit of valued ends. That makes liberty the necessary foundation for valuing peoples choices, which establishes the priority of liberty as a fundamental principle." - Alec Rawls
It's time to let the lions loose.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-drill-part-2
Here’s the thing, though — the lions we’ve been waiting for are in the mirror. There we see the lions who have been willing to delve beyond the paid-off propaganda peddlers and presstitutes. In the mirror we find the lions who stood up to the most intense peer pressure in the history of the world. The lions who were the first to stand up and ask what can be done to remedy our maladies. You’re the lions, and from what I gather you’re pissed off. You want justice.
In the linked article, you said (I'm paraphrasing) that lockdowns should be used only if "we" knew for sure they would make the difference between overwhelmed hospitals and or not.
Did you actually mean that?
More or less, yes. It definitely should have been the START of the conversation -- followed quickly by proof that hospitals were never in danger of being overrun. This should have stopped lockdowns in their tracks. Of course this should have only been one aspect of the attack on lockdowns, one disappointing aspect of 2020 was how few argued that government has no right to declare entire industries 'non-essential' or shut down a business. (Especially without actually proving the open business is a danger in the first place.) And I still maintain that if covid were as dangerous as the media wanted you to believe, people would have done their own 'distancing' and mandates would have still been unnecessary.
Knowing what we know now (that the virus was likely here long before March 2020), it's clear that we were ALREADY living with the virus all winter and we didn't even notice until governors threw covid patients into nursing homes, effectively speeding up the curve by infecting all the at-risk at once. Therefore it was obvious that lockdowns weren't the difference between an overwhelmed system and a manageable one.
With all due respect, the "lockdown" of living, breathing, free people should have been received with outrage. You're sick? Stay home? You've crapped your pants that you might get sick? Figure it out -- and leave me out of it. Afraid you're going to die? Guess what? We're all going to.
If in fact the decrepit and corrupt "hospital system" in the U.S., put on life support thanks to "Obamacare," would have resulted in the existing facilities becoming overwhelmed, then we figure out what to do about that when/if it looks like it's going to happen. Order the shutdown of commerce and tell people to limit their movements because of what -- in the world's lone "superpower"? Because doctors and hospitals might get overworked?
The lockdown of free people and the destruction of commerce and basic human rights I shall remember forever, including those who ordered it, supported it, and enforced it.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (Maybe the first time I've said that seriously!)
Although I wish that we lived in a world in which freedom-based arguments would win the day, that is not the world in which we live. We need all sides of the argument in order to win over the most people possible (all IMO). Remember how "muh free-dumb" was the trendy insult for a while? I couldn't believe it! People literally mocking freedom, after decades of "I AM FREE TO BE THE REAL ME AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!"
For some people, data-driven arguments will win the day. Arguments like "if we've got to be locked down to save the hospitals, why the heck are we not using this time to expand hospital capacity?!??!?!"
The people you describe -- those who have displayed their inability to live up to the ideals of liberty as many in that same cohort simultaneously and publicly expressed their disdain for it -- have done us all a big favor. We can now safely jettison any silly ideas that the people of the "exceptional nation" will defend liberty. Gee, thanks, Dad, for "fighting for freedom" the way you did. "The people" really appreciate it.
I long ago lost any notion that in order for freedom to succeed the majority needs convincing of its value. Untrue. That horde merely goes where it's led; they'll go any which way because they anchor to nothing. Oh...maybe they do...to such things as their own immediate survival or the feeling of being in the "club" or the immediate gratification they get from indulging their sanctimony toward those who would value freedom over mere survival. Damn, that's annoying. Public chastisement for you, cretin!
To suggest that the ordering of the large-scale suspension of human freedom "just for a few minutes" while "we get things in order" during the "emergency" could 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 lead to a happy ending is to reveal, IMO, a dangerous naiveté.
During a speech in the British House of Commons in 1783, William Pitt (the Younger) said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” I made a point about this in my newsletter, "Obedience".
I credit -- to a point -- those who pursue attempts to convince/persuade "the horde". I learned the hard way 'tis better to leave the horde to itself. Better to seek, find, and support those who need no convincing about the value of liberty first.
"Liberty is the great engine of value in the world. It is what allows people to pursue their discoveries of value. Take away people's liberty and they cannot be productive. They cannot create their lives or make their contributions. Only with liberty can people make progress in the discovery and pursuit of valued ends. That makes liberty the necessary foundation for valuing peoples choices, which establishes the priority of liberty as a fundamental principle." - Alec Rawls