I like arguments like these. By fantasising about the authoritarian extremes to which government coercion can be ‘ethically’ justified they unwittingly produce an argument that the concept of “public good” is itself unethical, universally harmful and dehumanising, and that it is morally imperative to reject all government authority that uses it as a justification for coercive action. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386912/
PubMed Central (PMC)
An Argument for Compulsory Vaccination: The Taxation Analogy
I argue that there are significant moral reasons in addition to harm prevention for making vaccination against certain common infectious diseases compulsory. My argument is based on an analogy between vaccine refusal and tax evasion. First, I discuss ...
If private property can be taxed for not being used in a particular way then it is no longer private; it is partly collectivised. On the other hand, if the State does not like how private land is ‘not used’, then they can use public land somewhere else to their liking. Build your own communist city and prove by example that it works better, without subsidies (stealing) from others.
Every protest, insofar as the intention is to protest, is a re-action to an action of another. Every re-action, insofar as it is consciously provoked, is an action of another. Contemporary rulers aim to provoke everyone who can be provoked, and thus politically control them. Anyone who can be provoked but is not provoked by the ruling power, will be provoked and thus controlled by someone else. Everything the government does is a provocation. Everything the corporate media does is a provocation. Your re-action to every news story, law or event is the purpose of the story, law or event. The degree to which a person can be provoked is the degree to which they lack the capacity to be free.
Democracy is no longer realised through voting, but by reciprocal provocations. A power that provokes can only be influenced by itself being provoked. When mutual provocations fail to have a deterministic effect, we would have approached the state of rational discourse.
I started reading this: https://ia601000.us.archive.org/7/items/RulesForRadicalsSaulAlinskyOCR/Rules%20for%20Radicals%20-%20Saul%20Alinsky%20-%20OCR.pdf we can discuss in a few days.
The government must stop suppressing the faces of the 14 people who were officially identified by the TGA as killed by Covid vaccines. Show us their faces, show us their happy snaps, like you do with every human tragedy that supports your agenda. #showustheirfaces
It is not good to have two or three politicians who speak out against tyranny; this is the perfect number the government needs to simultaneously legitimise tyranny, make freedom and human rights seem like a fringe theory, while giving the tyrannised opposition the illusion of representation. If you cannot have 50+ politicians on the side of humanity then it is better to have NONE, better to be oppressed without the illusion of representation. The kind of representation that is always bound to lose is an expression of the logic of dictatorship.
The fact that “white” Indigenous Australians are in positions of power while "black" Indigenous Australians are sidelined and spoken-for by these self-proclaimed leaders proves that the indigenous rights movement is a white supremacist idea.
There is no such thing as ‘collective agency’ or ‘group action’ for the greater good. Humanity does not go to jail when it is accused of ‘collectively’ killing some humans for the benefit of the majority; only those who use the pretext of ‘collective agency’ for killing others do. The victims did not kill themselves by ‘collective action’.
If you have certain rights on account of being human, they you also have the right to take them when they are denied to you, without asking for permission. The proof of those rights is you, your humanity.
If you are discriminated against in the provision or access to services, denied the right to work, denied the right to travel, only because of your innate human characteristics, then you are denied the right to equal treatment and equality before the law for being born that way. You were born with your immune system evolved to fight and adapt to disease, unvaccinated, and your inborn characteristics are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Nothing discredits authority more than disparaging an opponent who makes sense.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Questions for Lawyers.
Do you agree with the following statement:
1. If the vaccine mandates would cause some poeple who did not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine, then the mandates would violate their right to life.
If you agree, then the only possible point of contention is whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine. It is not in dispute whether Covid vaccines kill a percentage of people, since this is acknowledged by the health authorities, so the above point of contention can be reduced to whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Do you agree with the following statement:
2. Vaccination mandates intentionally cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated.
If you answered YES to 1 and 2 then it necessarily follows that the mandates violate the right to life. This does not imply that those who created the mandates are therefore guilty of intentional killing; this secondary question is distinct from whether the effect of the mandates is contrary to the right to life. Any objections?
Do you agree with the following statement:
1. If the vaccine mandates would cause some poeple who did not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine, then the mandates would violate their right to life.
If you agree, then the only possible point of contention is whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine. It is not in dispute whether Covid vaccines kill a percentage of people, since this is acknowledged by the health authorities, so the above point of contention can be reduced to whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Do you agree with the following statement:
2. Vaccination mandates intentionally cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated.
If you answered YES to 1 and 2 then it necessarily follows that the mandates violate the right to life. This does not imply that those who created the mandates are therefore guilty of intentional killing; this secondary question is distinct from whether the effect of the mandates is contrary to the right to life. Any objections?
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Every government uses the national identity of the people they govern, their ethnic insecurities, habits and biases, against them. The stronger the national identity the easier it is to deceive them and send them to their deaths.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The ultimate test of moral conscience for all humans is to reject every group-identity and stand alone with other humans. Only then we become fully human. For some it will be like stepping off a cliff, for others it will be like flying. Humanity is one because rationality is one.