Healthcare Workers should be Fired

[commonsense]

Do I care about things that don't affect me? Do I care for people outside of me and mine?

Yes, I do.

I guess you want me to prove it, right?

Ah, well that's great to hear! It doesn't come across in your typical rants. For further explanation, can you provide some examples of how/when you care? Just a few would be lovely.

*sigh*

You're a pip, Lace: a predictable pip.

I'll throw you a bone: go read my back & forth with various folks in this thread (in particular, an exchange with veg, up-thread)).

As for my rants: those all involve some aspect of my natural rights libertarianism. As a kind of moral realism it applies to everyone. For example, when I write...

A man belongs to himself.

....that means any man; it applies to everyone (even predictable pips).

When I write...

A man's life, liberty, and property are his own.

....that means any man; it applies to everyone (even predictable pips).

When I write...

A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, of liberty, or property.

....that means any man; it applies to everyone (even predictable pips).

I write about, rant about, principles thru which all are recognized as persons, and -- predictable pip that you are -- you only see selfish bastid.

I also rant against those who'd lay claim to a man (to any man, to all men, includin' predictable pips). I call these people slavers. They don't believe you, for example, are yours. Instead, you are a resource they can exploit, a commodity to sell or buy. You're meat to them. Look to China as the most obvious example of a slaver state (but it ain't the only one).

Again, I argue from principle against evil people who'd leash everyone, includin' pips, but all you see, as a predictable pip, is a ranty guy.

-----

Seems I've participated in your lil trial after all. The above is my closing, you pip.

Judge me as you like.

The fact that your rants refer to anyone, instead of just to you, just means that your rants refer to yourself, along with others.

[commonsense]

Do I care about things that don't affect me? Do I care for people outside of me and mine?

Yes, I do.

I guess you want me to prove it, right?

The thing is, I quoted you saying no, you don’t.

Your comprehension is lacking.

pip

You can see where someone might be confused by your writing one thing at one time and writing the opposite at another.

[commonsense]

Here are a few reminders for anyone who needs them in this discussion:

Yeah, I'm not particularly impressed by your, or her, memory (or comprehension), guy.

As I say (in an email)...

My natural rights notions have at their core 'a man belongs to himself'. His life, liberty, and property are his. His life, liberty,
and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

When I refuse to mask up, or lock down, or accept the jab, this -- I believe -- moral fact (a man belongs to himself) is my rock solid foundation. I am mine. I choose. I don't ask that my fellows, or the State, accept this. I demand they recognize it.

This conversation is about, I think, a person's claim to himself vs the claim others believe they have on him. I say others have no claim on him. You seem to be sayin' they do have a claim on him.

As I reckon it: even in a true Caronapocalypse (sumthin', in my view, that we are not in), TPTB ought do nuthin' but act as a clearing house for information and advisement. Free men don't become wards of The State, they're supposed to be its employers. And here's where we perhaps differ on that subject: I see a purpose to the minimal Nightwatchman affair, its purpose expressly bein' the investigation of, and the adjudication of, claims of life, liberty, or property violation. You mebbe see this as inadequate preferrin' the wider, deeper State with its legislators, executives, judicials, bureaucrats, technocrats, and the like. You prefer The State and work to shore it up; I work to see it *dismantled.

First, I'm not anti-vaccination, I'm anti-mandate. Second, best I can tell, many anti-vaxxers are refuseniks solely becuz they believe the beer virus jabs are ineffective and harmful; this not my primary focus.

To be clear: we could indeed be in the midst of a True Coronapocalypse and the jabs could all be 100% effective with zero side effects and I would still oppose mandates. My ownness is nonnegotiable and not on the table. There is no I am my own except for when....

I am my own. I belong to me. My life, liberty, and property are mine. I've authorized no one to direct me. I don't recognize the moral authority of anyone (save for one) who claims power over me.

Some here say in a public health crisis such things have to take a backseat to controlling the disease. I say, no, in such a crisis the last thing we ought do is set aside principle. In setting aside principle we relegate man, each other, to meat, meat that must be preserved at all costs and to hell with personhood.

Living as preserved meat is not preferable to dying as a human being, a person, not to me.

This is my position, even if I'm the only one in the whole of the world who holds to it.

Exactly. You decided to get jabbed, for whatever reason you sussed out for yourself. Not becuz you were guilt-tripped into it by some immuno-compromised person, and not becuz a government told you had to, and not becuz an employer threatened to fire you if you remained un-jabbed. You decided: which is how it should be.

I must seem, then, awfully uncompassionate: I can live with that.

One gnat is nuthin'; a swarm is irritatin'. Is honor the new look down on? Never been.

1. So, to you, the *above means **I only take care of me and mine, and, **I don't care about anything that isn't affecting me, yeah?

2. So: if a man defends himself against what he views as an over-steppin' State, if he defends himself against defenders of what he views as an over-steppin' State, if he refuses to be guilt-tripped by a fragile stranger into doin' sumthin' he doesn't want to do, if he issues insults when he's insulted, if he declines to submit, well, hell, that man is nuthin' but a selfish bastid, right?




*never mind that much of what you cite applies to all men and women

** Lace's assertions

1. yeah.

2. Let’s see it happen first before calling it altruistic or not.

[Lacewing]

Do I care about things that don't affect me? Do I care for people outside of me and mine?

Yes, I do.

I guess you want me to prove it, right?

Ah, well that's great to hear! It doesn't come across in your typical rants. For further explanation, can you provide some examples of how/when you care? Just a few would be lovely.

go read my back & forth with various folks in this thread (in particular, an exchange with veg, up-thread)).

Why can't you just answer? What's all of this "as I say..." and "go read my blah, blah, blah" stuff you always try to use instead of having an actual back-and-forth cooperative discussion?

As for my rants: those all involve some aspect of my natural rights libertarianism.

I understand. And I agree with some of them to various degrees. I'm simply pointing out that you do not come across as caring about anything or anyone other than how it benefits you. And you made a statement about 'not being that way anymore', and so I asked about it.

Seems I've participated in your lil trial after all. The above is my closing, you pip.

It's not a trial, and you are mischaracterizing me. I am a thoughtful person who reasonably questions the things that people (including you) claim on this forum, as well as posting my own viewpoints for consideration. What else are we here for? I've been around long enough to have experienced the typical platforms/dances that people use. Still, I'm open to experiencing extraordinary shifts or connections with people, even if momentary, because I have experienced it... and it seems to always be a potential. (Except in the case of people who are being mentally spun out in some way -- I may avoid them altogether if there's no value or fun in engaging with them).

You and I agree on some things, Henry. We challenge each other when we think we see bullshit. I like it when we have a reasonable back-and-forth discussion -- because I like to see that it's possible even when people may seem somewhat different in their perspectives. I live next door to a gun-toting, Trump-supporting, self-acclaimed redneck... and we care about each other, and stick to the discussions we can enjoy together.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

I am my own. I belong to me. My life, liberty, and property are mine. I've authorized no one to direct me. I don't recognize the moral authority of anyone (save for one) who claims power over me.

Individualism was not always a virtue but became prominent as a direct result of the break-up of traditional close communities when the industrial revolution forced young workers to quit their traditional homes and parents for big industrial centres. They had to justify this move morally. Similarly in America during the colonisation of the West, young people left their old communities where the old people lived and had to justify their bold efforts to better themselves. America was a colony almost within living memory, and the original economic migrants to America were nearly always those who were young and ready to justify the break with the old homeland.

It is easy to see how individualism is prominent in the American psyche. The successful individualist, such as Henry seems to be, can exert his power either to stay socially isolated with his family, or he can use his powers of independence to participate in the larger society.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you?

Do I care about things that don't affect me? Do I care for people outside of me and mine?

Yes, I do.

I guess you want me to prove it, right?

Ah, well that's great to hear! It doesn't come across in your typical rants. For further explanation, can you provide some examples of how/when you care? Just a few would be lovely. (Or if you prefer to wade through posts, you can point to places where you've expressed it already.)

He cares, but he just doesn't like being TOLD what/who to care about, which is something I can relate to.

[Lacewing]

It is easy to see how individualism is prominent in the American psyche. The successful individualist, such as Henry seems to be, can exert his power either to stay socially isolated with his family, or he can use his powers of independence to participate in the larger society.

Very good point, Belinda! An individualist who participates in the larger society can model the power and potential of an independent, forward-thinking and creative mindset. Other people are inspired by this. In contrast, and ironically, an isolationist who sees the rest of the world through an endless series of conspiracies, may not be as independent as they think they are... since they are actually tied to, and increasingly dependent on, that narrative for validation.

Rather, a person who can stand back from ANY platform and all of its influences is an independent person/thinker. Every bit of news/opinion/tradition/belief they hear is taken with a grain of salt, and understood for what it is: a narrative in service to an agenda. From there, they can assess any value for the moment. Subscribing to any more than that does not demonstrate as much independent-thinking.

[Lacewing]

He cares, but he just doesn't like being TOLD what/who to care about, which is something I can relate to.

Sure, me too. I'm not sure that most people would like being told that. It might be that some people are framing it that way, as "they're being told...", when actually it's just a natural effort to protect people.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He cares, but he just doesn't like being TOLD what/who to care about, which is something I can relate to.

Sure, me too. I'm not sure that most people would like being told that. It might be that some people are framing it that way, as "they're being told...", when actually it's just a natural effort to protect people.

You know when you are 'being told' something... Some people even enjoy that, others do not.

[Dubious]

Often being told relates to being corrected. No one is infallible, but all that has no effect on a brain with no moving parts. Programmed once and you're programmed forever. The Ram turns to Rom. If there could be a virus that deletes these defective specimens of the human race that would be one act of god to vastly improve the species.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Often being told relates to being corrected. No one is infallible, but all that has no effect on a brain with no moving parts. Programmed once and you're programmed forever. The Ram turns to Rom. If there could be a virus that deletes these defective specimens of the human race that would be one act of god to vastly improve the species.

There's a big difference between education and being told what your opinion is 'supposed' to be. One is neutral, the other is brainwashing.

[Dubious]

Often being told relates to being corrected. No one is infallible, but all that has no effect on a brain with no moving parts. Programmed once and you're programmed forever. The Ram turns to Rom. If there could be a virus that deletes these defective specimens of the human race that would be one act of god to vastly improve the species.

There's a big difference between education and being told what your opinion is 'supposed' to be. One is neutral, the other is brainwashing.

I agree, but how does that relate to what I wrote? Merely being "told" another opinion doesn't correct the wrong one.

[Lacewing]

You know when you are 'being told' something... Some people even enjoy that, others do not.

True.

I think there's an epidemic of people blowing things way out of proportion (for one conspiracy/agenda or another) -- and they, themselves, are spreading misinformation and telling people (wrongly) what to think.

Personally, I rarely watch TV, and I do not automatically believe "the experts" they employ -- not because I think the experts are lying, but because I don't think they know as much as they are presented to know. I think most people think they're doing the right thing, even when they are terribly or foolishly mistaken. I think that's what creates misinformation MORE than some kind of devious intent. So, we have to think for ourselves, and avoid jumping onto ANY extreme bandwagons because they're all essentially short-sighted and stupid. Moderation and balance are generally more sane and truthful.

[henry quirk]

Do I care about things that don't affect me? Do I care for people outside of me and mine?

Yes, I do.

I guess you want me to prove it, right?

Ah, well that's great to hear! It doesn't come across in your typical rants. For further explanation, can you provide some examples of how/when you care? Just a few would be lovely. (Or if you prefer to wade through posts, you can point to places where you've expressed it already.)

*He cares, but he just doesn't like being TOLD what/who to care about, **which is something I can relate to.

*Yep.

**Common ground.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

I am my own. I belong to me. My life, liberty, and property are mine. I've authorized no one to direct me. I don't recognize the moral authority of anyone (save for one) who claims power over me.

Individualism was not always a virtue but became prominent as a direct result of the break-up of traditional close communities when the industrial revolution forced young workers to quit their traditional homes and parents for big industrial centres. They had to justify this move morally. Similarly in America during the colonisation of the West, young people left their old communities where the old people lived and had to justify their bold efforts to better themselves. America was a colony almost within living memory, and the original economic migrants to America were nearly always those who were young and ready to justify the break with the old homeland.

It is easy to see how individualism is prominent in the American psyche. The successful individualist, such as Henry seems to be, can exert his power either to stay socially isolated with his family, or he can use his powers of independence to participate in the larger society.

Thanks for the history lesson and musings, B.