A violation of the right to life does not require an actual killing of the person, but only the denial of the relevant ‘right’ of that person. The ‘right to life’ means that no person may be arbitrarily killed. If a person is coerced to accept conditions under which they may be arbitrarily killed, that person's ‘right’ to life has been denied, therefore violated. Vaccine mandates amount to coercing people to accept conditions under which any person may be arbitrarily killed, thus denying their individual right to life. Moreover, vaccine mandates deny the right to life in principle, therefore they deny the right to life of all people, even if they are not subject to the specific mandate.

The argument that a country under attack by an adversary using human shields has the right to kill those human shields in order to defend its innocent civilians implies that their own citizens have priority in regard to the right to life over the innocent human shields, which is racial or ethnic or nationalistic supremacism. It also implies that the right to life is not a human right but a privilege of the victor, might is right, therefore the law of the jungle, therefore neither moral law nor humanity matters, therefore the party making the argument are savages.

The view that ‘vaccine mandates are morally wrong because they amount to killing some people for the benefit of others’ is logically incompatible with the view that ‘proportionate killing of civilians for the sake of national security is morally right’ (unless the person holding these views does not regard the killed civilians as human).

Martin J didn't in his reasons for rejecting a breach of s 16, expressly consider Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) (2020) 5 QR 623 at [291]-[292], which held that a human right, as identified in the Act, will be engaged if its violation affects a class of persons.

There is no victory through violence.

The systems we have can only be as good as we ourselves are. In this sense, Reality is the only form of objective justice; it does not respect individuals apart from
challenging us and giving us feedback. The justice we get is blind and brutal because we, as a kind, are for the most part still blind and brutal.

The manufactured outrage about murderers who are long dead diverts outrage from murderers who are ruling today.

All categories of identity in the public domain are constructed and marketed by the mass media. Someone comes up with ideas of what people should identify as, and people falsely believe those identities to be their own. Read the news and see what they want you to identify as today. It is always some artificially defined group, never just Human, never just a rational being, never just You.

Ambiguity is the mother of invention.

If ‘the end justifies the means’ then what justifies the end?

The common function of propositional speech (opinion) is to submit incomplete sense to the scrutiny of others in order to integrate it at a higher conceptual level by means of argumentative responses. It defies the sense of speech to regard the incomplete sense of an opinion as true by consensus.

From the legal perspective justice must be individual and specific. This is certainly true in regard to the liability for the reasonably predictable consequences of individual intentions, but since individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient but socially mediated, where ignorance and unconsciously committed moral errors have unintended consequences for everyone else, there is also a systemic effect of individual actions. The systemic effect of wrong actions is a consequence of our ignorance and unconscious tendencies that evade the formal/legal idea of guilt and justice and yet we are indirectly harmed by it and can learn from it. Whereas the legal concept of justice is in part conventional, culturally constructed and to a significant degree normatively arbitrary, therefore unjust, at best a ‘good enough looking’ pretence to justice, the consequences of socially mediated moral wrongs are perfectly objective, real, hence just, even if this picture of justice does not fully resolve our individual culpability or provide immediate restitution. The restitution it offers is conditional on everyone overcoming their moral errors, including the judges and the jury, and nobody is free of them; it is an ideal we imply when we think about justice but erroneously remove ourselves from the sphere of complicity.

There is no higher test of ‘things as they should be’ (justice) than logical necessity, systemic necessity. Consequently, justice done to the unjust may seem like injustice, and be interpreted by them as injustice.

The official reality became Where’s Wally; contrived to look informative to the ignorant and to look contrived to the informed.

The issue with Bitcoin is rather obvious: why invest in “digital gold” when you can buy real gold, which is also easier to use than Bitcoin. The idea of spending as much of good money on a digital token as the price of one kilogram of gold is mind boggling.

In our time every continent, every island, every country has strategic, economic and military significance. The idea that indigenous tribes could be “decolonized”, returned to their natural state on their ancestral land and then left alone by everyone else is preposterous. “Decolonisation” is just a euphemism for colonisation by a new master.

A system that guarantees only that people ought to be treated ‘equally’ is not therefore ethical, just or right. It is possible to treat everyone equally wrongly, unjustly and unethically. In order to be right the system must treat everyone equally right.

People do not like to think; thinking is uncomfortable, hard work. People just want to possess the right conclusions without having to think. This is why people get upset when someone argues against their conclusions and concludes that they are wrong. They feel coerced to simultaneously accept that they do not posses the attributes they value about themselves and to expand energy, endure discomfort in having to develop those attributes again. For most people it is a state of panic, a loss of foundation, a crisis. They would rather unfriend you than think. Some would rather kill you than think.

The problem with Kantian ethics (the categorical imperative) is that it assumes that Humanity (defined as conscious rational agency) is a uniformly apportioned property, that it does not admit of degrees, that each individual of the species Homo sapiens is equally rational, therefore of equal moral status. If we take a step back in the chain of development of the categorical imperative, the last solid point is that we must respect and value rational agency, which is humanity, wherever it is manifested, therefore we must value humanity ‘in principle’, but if the property of humanity is unequally distributed, then the categorical imperative does not tell us much. The asymmetries in rational agency need accounting for for any moral law to be practically meaningful.

There are 0.6 ounces of silver in an average solar panel. At this stage all of this metal is lost, not recycled, when a panel is decommissioned.