You're projecting a desire to get things done in the most efficient + honest way possible, but people in general have no desire to do that.
Powers that be do not care about honesty, logic or efficiency (see military spending, where the IP for the F35 is owned by Lockheed, not the military: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RuB-fB7X8I) and neither do 90% of the population.
That's why the powers that be won't try to implement these things in the way your or I wish to: it will not convince the population, who will not vote (plebs / lower class) for / fund (wealthy / upper class) them, ejecting them from the gravy train.
Slightly or grossly OT: fwiw, I classify myself as INTJ and this post reeks of INTJ-ness.
Well done taking a break from the covid mania. There are plenty who are covering it...over and over again, so someone will fill the gap. Enjoy, the open spaces and bright skies for a while. Also, good first topic, my apologies, for the lengthy comment.
I think we always look at the surface actions/conflicts and assign a great importance to them, without looking to the deeper, more important ideological concerns, their danger and contradictions.
I would ask what gives anyone or any governing entity the right, to try and coerce/penalize people, into behaving or acting a certain way? I will exclude crime from the equation, because it falls outside the realm of benign behaviors - acts that do not deliberately set out harm or cause loss to someone. I'm sure someone can find a way to show that sugary drinks, consumed by Mr. smith in Ohio, are killing thousand in Africa daily, but lets be adults for a few minutes.
If we collectively say, "there are times normative behavior must be regulated or coerced to change"...You must dutifully ask "by what authority - what reason is so strong and good, that free individuals can be coerced and penalized, into either behaving or not behaving in certain ways?"
Where does the authority to legislatively regulate and sabotage free individuals rights, to inhale or drink something come from?
The ultimate answer I have always heard - when all others fail - "It's for the greater good"
The litany of sub arguments you all know...second hand smoke, increased healthcare costs, tooth decay, diabetes, obesity, others rights not to breathe smell smoke, the climate, the environment, etc.
I will stop here and say, I am not a smoker. Like many, I tried it in H.S. for the cool factor - the cool lasted 6 month. I realized the money I was smoking, could be put in my gas tank or go toward a few more pizzas a week. I do indulge in maybe 20 very good cigars a year. I don't drink sugary drinks. Again as a kid, yes - show me a little wild boy, who wouldn't swill the cheapest flavored drink his parents could make by the gallons. Later on it became aspartame laced diet sodas - because I had older teen siblings and who doesn't want to drink the big kid drinks, They of course were caught up in the diet fad. I now drink water, coffee with stevia and the occasional (literally 6 a year) stout beer.
So back to "the greater good".
How many of you thought the jab and mask mandates were a GREAT idea and had to be done?? Show of digital hands please.
Ok...good...thank you for saving us all. It is appreciated.
For those who did not raise your hands, why wasn't "the greater good", more important, than your rights and freedoms of choice? Especially when you had decided you would take the risk or worse, there was virtually no risk at all?
Back to the hands up cohort - is it reasonable to tax/penalize/coerce the resistors, for their wrong decision/stance against "the greater good"?"...again those who refused killed grandma, remember??
Thank for playing, parting gift are at the door.
Of course, that's what happened and still is in some places. If people didn't comply with those two mandates, they lost jobs and retirement in some cases; businesses were shuttered never to re-open; people were refused medical care to include pediatric organ transplants and cancer treatments; they were unable to travel; turned away at businesses and denied access to their elderly loved ones - who in many cases died without any human contact or being able to literally say good by to their children and grandchildren.
The ultimate argument used, when the science and propaganda fell short was "It's for the greater good" or a lower level, specified form of it - mask and we can re-open schools, get the jab and you can return to work. do both and you can go to the movies/sports event.
My point is coercion always seems like a fine, lofty and noble idea, if it is not YOU being coerced.
It also has a built in myopia...no one ever looks at the slipper slope and sees themselves, being tossed down it. It's never the coercer's practice, habits or indulgences that are the problem, until SOMEONE SAYS THEY ARE.
So the real questions we should be asking are :
1. Who has the right/authority to decide coercion is justified for "the greater good?"
Is it the legislators, we "elected"? The ones who just lied to us for 4+ years about a virus, with a 97 - 99% recovery rate and ruined economies around the world? Is it the "majority", who could easily say that watching TV is a harm to "the greater good", would you be for banning or taxing that out of existence...no more college sports on the weekends? What about gas cars. or eating beef - oh wait, sorry - they are already doing those. Don't worry though, I'm sure it's all for "the greater good".
I could go on and on.
2. Who decides what the penalty is, for violating "the greater good" imperative? You, me, the government, the activists or radicals?? Remember, the double edged sword, cuts both ways - they will also have the authority by precedent, to penalize you.
3. What is "the greater good" and who get's to define it...NGO paid by plutocrats and oligarchs - Bill gates, Soros, Schwab?? Maybe the mob...I mean the majority? Maybe those honest "elected" leaders I mentioned earlier?
3. Are those enforcing the penalties, following the new moral code...any legislators who voted for higher smoking or sugary drink taxes/consequences, doing any smoking or sugary drink consumption?? Remember those governors, congressional members, bureaucrats and President, that said if you didn't wear a mask you would basically die...and then didn't wear masks???
Is there validity to the arguments on both sides, of these two issues? Of course.
Do we miss that these wedge issues and those driving them into our collective societies - from behind the curtain - win, no matter what the outcome? Yes we always do.
Remember, these and other issues weren't earth shattering crises, until we were told they were, by those who stood to benefit. You have recent and irrefutable proof of this, in all things Scamdemic.
"a school may take measures in the admissions process to encourage diversity"
I am not aware of schools achieving their goal of increased diversity by admitting a higher percentage of students from low income families. I am not aware of schools wanting to increase diversity by increasing the number of students who are orphans.
Our (German) government may produce counterexamples. The Green minister of economic affairs and "climate protection" is trying to pass a law that would more or less prohibit installation of traditional heating (with oil and gas). An alternative, preferred by the (somehow) libertarian FDP would be a CO2 tax.
He who hath the gold...since so much of healthcare are is directly or indirectly controlled by federal payers, they get to make the rules. All the rules. Including what is and isn’t food or harmful. So unless we can decouple from our current system, they will want to regulate behavior through taxes. Especially at the expense of the poor.
For the record, essentially all soda products are artificially sweetened. High fructose corn syrup is an artificial sweetener. It has caloric value. Sucralose et al don’t have caloric value. That’s the difference. All are harmful. And type II diabetes will bankrupt the USA in a decade or two.
The balance between the tax office, the government those want to earn income, and the individual liberties. Isn't it appropriate and good?
Universities' racial allocation causes the deterioration of researchers, so it's better to choose only based on academic ability. However, there are smart people who come to steal research like a certain country. This may affect the safety of people's lives in the future, which requires separate measures.
Your logic is flawless but ... the objective of the above mentioned policies is not to solve a problem but to create many new ones.
You're projecting a desire to get things done in the most efficient + honest way possible, but people in general have no desire to do that.
Powers that be do not care about honesty, logic or efficiency (see military spending, where the IP for the F35 is owned by Lockheed, not the military: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RuB-fB7X8I) and neither do 90% of the population.
That's why the powers that be won't try to implement these things in the way your or I wish to: it will not convince the population, who will not vote (plebs / lower class) for / fund (wealthy / upper class) them, ejecting them from the gravy train.
Slightly or grossly OT: fwiw, I classify myself as INTJ and this post reeks of INTJ-ness.
...and all taxing sugar does is increase the use of harmful chemicals aka artificial sweeteners.
Well done taking a break from the covid mania. There are plenty who are covering it...over and over again, so someone will fill the gap. Enjoy, the open spaces and bright skies for a while. Also, good first topic, my apologies, for the lengthy comment.
I think we always look at the surface actions/conflicts and assign a great importance to them, without looking to the deeper, more important ideological concerns, their danger and contradictions.
I would ask what gives anyone or any governing entity the right, to try and coerce/penalize people, into behaving or acting a certain way? I will exclude crime from the equation, because it falls outside the realm of benign behaviors - acts that do not deliberately set out harm or cause loss to someone. I'm sure someone can find a way to show that sugary drinks, consumed by Mr. smith in Ohio, are killing thousand in Africa daily, but lets be adults for a few minutes.
If we collectively say, "there are times normative behavior must be regulated or coerced to change"...You must dutifully ask "by what authority - what reason is so strong and good, that free individuals can be coerced and penalized, into either behaving or not behaving in certain ways?"
Where does the authority to legislatively regulate and sabotage free individuals rights, to inhale or drink something come from?
The ultimate answer I have always heard - when all others fail - "It's for the greater good"
The litany of sub arguments you all know...second hand smoke, increased healthcare costs, tooth decay, diabetes, obesity, others rights not to breathe smell smoke, the climate, the environment, etc.
I will stop here and say, I am not a smoker. Like many, I tried it in H.S. for the cool factor - the cool lasted 6 month. I realized the money I was smoking, could be put in my gas tank or go toward a few more pizzas a week. I do indulge in maybe 20 very good cigars a year. I don't drink sugary drinks. Again as a kid, yes - show me a little wild boy, who wouldn't swill the cheapest flavored drink his parents could make by the gallons. Later on it became aspartame laced diet sodas - because I had older teen siblings and who doesn't want to drink the big kid drinks, They of course were caught up in the diet fad. I now drink water, coffee with stevia and the occasional (literally 6 a year) stout beer.
So back to "the greater good".
How many of you thought the jab and mask mandates were a GREAT idea and had to be done?? Show of digital hands please.
Ok...good...thank you for saving us all. It is appreciated.
For those who did not raise your hands, why wasn't "the greater good", more important, than your rights and freedoms of choice? Especially when you had decided you would take the risk or worse, there was virtually no risk at all?
Back to the hands up cohort - is it reasonable to tax/penalize/coerce the resistors, for their wrong decision/stance against "the greater good"?"...again those who refused killed grandma, remember??
Thank for playing, parting gift are at the door.
Of course, that's what happened and still is in some places. If people didn't comply with those two mandates, they lost jobs and retirement in some cases; businesses were shuttered never to re-open; people were refused medical care to include pediatric organ transplants and cancer treatments; they were unable to travel; turned away at businesses and denied access to their elderly loved ones - who in many cases died without any human contact or being able to literally say good by to their children and grandchildren.
The ultimate argument used, when the science and propaganda fell short was "It's for the greater good" or a lower level, specified form of it - mask and we can re-open schools, get the jab and you can return to work. do both and you can go to the movies/sports event.
My point is coercion always seems like a fine, lofty and noble idea, if it is not YOU being coerced.
It also has a built in myopia...no one ever looks at the slipper slope and sees themselves, being tossed down it. It's never the coercer's practice, habits or indulgences that are the problem, until SOMEONE SAYS THEY ARE.
So the real questions we should be asking are :
1. Who has the right/authority to decide coercion is justified for "the greater good?"
Is it the legislators, we "elected"? The ones who just lied to us for 4+ years about a virus, with a 97 - 99% recovery rate and ruined economies around the world? Is it the "majority", who could easily say that watching TV is a harm to "the greater good", would you be for banning or taxing that out of existence...no more college sports on the weekends? What about gas cars. or eating beef - oh wait, sorry - they are already doing those. Don't worry though, I'm sure it's all for "the greater good".
I could go on and on.
2. Who decides what the penalty is, for violating "the greater good" imperative? You, me, the government, the activists or radicals?? Remember, the double edged sword, cuts both ways - they will also have the authority by precedent, to penalize you.
3. What is "the greater good" and who get's to define it...NGO paid by plutocrats and oligarchs - Bill gates, Soros, Schwab?? Maybe the mob...I mean the majority? Maybe those honest "elected" leaders I mentioned earlier?
3. Are those enforcing the penalties, following the new moral code...any legislators who voted for higher smoking or sugary drink taxes/consequences, doing any smoking or sugary drink consumption?? Remember those governors, congressional members, bureaucrats and President, that said if you didn't wear a mask you would basically die...and then didn't wear masks???
Is there validity to the arguments on both sides, of these two issues? Of course.
Do we miss that these wedge issues and those driving them into our collective societies - from behind the curtain - win, no matter what the outcome? Yes we always do.
Remember, these and other issues weren't earth shattering crises, until we were told they were, by those who stood to benefit. You have recent and irrefutable proof of this, in all things Scamdemic.
"a school may take measures in the admissions process to encourage diversity"
I am not aware of schools achieving their goal of increased diversity by admitting a higher percentage of students from low income families. I am not aware of schools wanting to increase diversity by increasing the number of students who are orphans.
Our (German) government may produce counterexamples. The Green minister of economic affairs and "climate protection" is trying to pass a law that would more or less prohibit installation of traditional heating (with oil and gas). An alternative, preferred by the (somehow) libertarian FDP would be a CO2 tax.
He who hath the gold...since so much of healthcare are is directly or indirectly controlled by federal payers, they get to make the rules. All the rules. Including what is and isn’t food or harmful. So unless we can decouple from our current system, they will want to regulate behavior through taxes. Especially at the expense of the poor.
For the record, essentially all soda products are artificially sweetened. High fructose corn syrup is an artificial sweetener. It has caloric value. Sucralose et al don’t have caloric value. That’s the difference. All are harmful. And type II diabetes will bankrupt the USA in a decade or two.
The balance between the tax office, the government those want to earn income, and the individual liberties. Isn't it appropriate and good?
Universities' racial allocation causes the deterioration of researchers, so it's better to choose only based on academic ability. However, there are smart people who come to steal research like a certain country. This may affect the safety of people's lives in the future, which requires separate measures.