The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Safety First, Liberty Last
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The subsequent graph shows percentages, by selected demographics, who view governmental stay-at-home orders to be violations of Americans’ constitutional rights. “Not sure” responses are excluded, so residual values represent those who see no civil rights violations in the orders:

It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment. Did you expect a piece of paper to protect–or constrain, opinions vary–you? Ask who killed the constitution and you’re bound to get answers predating Lincoln.

Parenthetically, the question of whether or not there are any prominent leftists critical of the lockdowns must be answered in the affirmative. Not surprisingly, it’s one of the greats:

Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis, where the almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte death wish. The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere: press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump, treason, and racism, and conversely radiate a creepily gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency measures and the problems some “dumb” Americans have had accepting them.

On the campaign trail in 2016, I watched Democrats hand Trump the economic populism argument by dismissing all complaints about the failures of neoliberal economics. This mistake was later compounded by years of propaganda arguing that “economic insecurity” was just a Trojan Horse term for racism. These takes, along with the absurd kneecapping of the Bernie Sanders movement, have allowed Trump to position himself as a working-class hero, the sole voice of a squeezed underclass.

The same mistake is now being made with civil liberties. Millions have lost their jobs and businesses by government fiat, there’s a clamor for censorship and contact tracing programs that could have serious long-term consequences, yet voters only hear Trump making occasional remarks about freedom; Democrats treat it like it’s a word that should be banned by Facebook (a recent Washington Post headline put the term in quotation marks, as if one should be gloved to touch it). Has the Trump era really damaged our thinking to this degree?

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Disease, Freedom 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The libertarian moment has passed.

    The iron hand in the velvet glove is coming.

    It’s time to be that hand, in true Singaporean fashion.

  2. The Constitution provides for Declarations of War. There are plenty of precedents for limitations on what people consider “rights” during wartime. The reason you declare war is to clearly delimit peace vs war and thereby limit wartime. The reason the House declares war is to recognize the people have the power to place limits on their own rights and set the limits of wartime.

    Of course, the temptation of all government is to make war the de facto state, so as to gather power to itself. It is harder to do this when you have a Constitution that requires Declarations of War, but even that can be gotten around by being mealy mouthed about what it means to declare war and even what Constitutes war.

    So when Trump decided to use war rhetoric, no one took him seriously — especially since there was no Declaration of War (necessarily containing the criterion for exiting that state).

    Then there is the fact that the House is now controlled by people hysterically opposed to granting Trump power, and since the President is the Commander In Chief exercising War Powers…

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Virtually all the restrictions on civil liberties have been imposed at the state level, so this would seem to have little to do with Trump.
    , @Liberty Mike
    Yet, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the federal constitution permit the state to suspend natural rights during war.

    The precedents of which your write are nothing but the tyrant's creation and the slave's creed.
  3. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at

    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me … assuming I haven’t already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.

    [MORE]

    *Note: I’m not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty — including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That’s a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean — their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture … it’s all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it’s like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I’d be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You’ll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here’s an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0

    It’s sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn’t fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I’m not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures — his parents and principle — and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw

    In America, it’s not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove — even that movie — be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ

    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    • Disagree: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @Sir Isaac Newton
    Well-written, interesting comments. Good music video, too.
    , @216
    American Conservatism is just Consumerism

    Don't lose weight, eat Chik-filA

    Don't cut your cable cord, watch the thots on Fox News
    , @Almost Missouri
    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I'll try.

    "John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself."
     
    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini...

    "they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic"
     
    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    "These rootless"
     
    Lol.

    "Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years."
     
    It's true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that's obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

    In other words, conservatives' opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man's basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for "cultural disaster" is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: "you didn't fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!" What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn't they have a role?


    "It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute"
     
    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation ("taxes") to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn't support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).


    "it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary"
     
    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What's convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    "what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess)."
     
    ... yeah ...

    "Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason."
     
    ... right ...

    "These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life."
     
    ... agree ...

    "In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent."
     
    ... no sh*t, Sherlock ...

    "You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself."
     
    Would be nice, wouldn't it?

    "You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society."
     
    You said you're young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn't "conservatism".)


    "Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country."
     
    I don't know if it is possible to argue about having "been born in the wrong country" without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the "wrong" country. It wasn't always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    ... and another thing [/Columbo] You mention how the Japanese are not taught to hate themselves, their countrymen, and their society, as we are here. That's right. Yet, who pushes for Homeschooling, Conservatives or the Left? You know the answer if you live here.

    Homeschooling is virtually "poking the Beast in the eye with a sharp stick" - read some Peak Stupidity on this - Part 1. Part 2, and Part 3. You won't hear anybody but true Conservatives and Libertarians pushing for homeschooling.
    , @Mark G.

    Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”
     
    You think the primary support for hate speech codes comes from conservatives?
    , @UK
    Might I suggest that the way you typify conservatives as, is how you should indulge yourself and act more often?

    You might find it healing to balance out some of that extreme (and rather simplistic and naïve) earnestness, and you might find that you make better long-term choices for yourself, leading to better things for everyone in your life.
    , @Dumbo
    Good comment.

    Yes, America is the land of individualism, and although that started as a good thing, somehow it morphed into "mine first", selfishness and aloofness.

    Anglos (and Nordics in general) are less family-oriented than Southern Europeans or Asians, they leave home earlier, move to some other place, sometimes don't even keep in touch with parents or siblings. Again, the extreme individualism, which started as a need from independence and growing up, but ended up as ending with people more isolated without almost any family ties.

    But America in particular, because people came from different places (even if originally mostly European/White), there was less sense of a common tradition or culture, less ties, and the country being so big it was easy to disappear somewhere else. It was always a place where you could "reinvent yourself".

    I don't think it was like this in the 50s / 60s. Even in Europe, at least Southern Europe, despite the degeneracy that has also advanced a lot, there is still a certain sense of community and tradition.

    I am not familiar with Japan except from Japanese movies. I think there was a change (mostly for the worse) in Japan too, if you compare with the 60s, think about all the lonely people there, high number of people not marrying or having kids, but of course the change was not as drastic as in America. Because it didn't become multicultural so fast, probably.
    , @J. R. Chloupek
    Hey Brad (Griffin, host of the Occidental Dissent Blog)!! Nice fake undercover persona. Getting blitzed by commenters at OD for your non-stop fear porn on behalf of TPTB. So Brad is stating his OBEY YOUR MASTERS mantra at Unz to avoid the OD pilloring. Nice try. You're still a useful idiot to the Oligarchs.
    , @Anon
    It looks like an 8th grade student found Unz. Welcome. Your views on politics are immature, misperceptions, and read like you got your hands on a communist propaganda pamphlet. Your amateurish attempt at propaganda of your own (rootless conservatives ..yuk yuk) reads of cheeky experimentation in provocation. What it does is make you look moronic. With luck, one day you'll figure out how all of this actually works.

    Libertarianism is a "liberal" concept, Rhodes Scholar. Though, more accurately, true libertarianism is a communist tool to undermine sociopolitical bonds that form nationalist armies.

    Your view of conservatives as interested in money and hedonism is something that a variety of hairy, hateful Jews with poor personal hygeiene have pushed through the media precisely to affect vulnerable minds like yours. Conservatism is defined by nationalist community cultural and ethnic bonds. Not money. Not lack of responsibility. Those are Jewish concepts. Anyone adhering to them is effectively useless to conservatives.

    You must have some stake in drugs, homosexuality, or minority rent seeking. Literally every biut of cultural slide that you ascribe to conservatives is a function of the communist-Jewish juggernaut in control of the Western media and tech companies. Its an inversion of reality.

    In contrast, the "cultural disaster" of cultural Marxism and its rot that blossomed in the US in the 1960s is about everything that you ascribe to conservatives. Being about the "community" of a bunch of middling IQ drug addled sex schemers is not "community". Its communist mental retardation. Community loyalty looks like the social ethics of Nazi Germany and Israel. Communist-Jewish subversion looks like almost everywhere lesser.

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat.
     
    Literally the opposite is true of everything ythat ou stated here. If you keep believing it, prepare for a rough life. If you are merely a low effort antagonist, then screw.

    1. Conservatives have the White House, and so by definition aren't "losing". Commies such as yourself are scared as a result and are trying to do everything to undermine this nation as a result. You will continue to lose, regardless.

    2. Literally, conservatism is the only political system that can assure political power incubation and therefore winning. Because it is the system that cultivates close ethnic cultural cooperation. In opposition to that single method of cultivating political power, liberalism attempts to disrupt ethnic and cultural bonds toward political disempowerment. Note how Jews do not do what they advocate. They practice Nazi level ethnic cultivation and defense while advocating the opposite for everyone else. Simply, because Nazi level ethnic enthusiasm breeds political power and its opposite destroys it. Note the hate that the modern Jews have for Russia. Note the anti-conservative system of oppression that they saddled it with. Liberalism is for slaves (see the groups that prefer it). Conservatism is for survivors.

    A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).
     
    Are you trying to work out your thoughts for a middle school essay? They contradict themselves within the same sentence.

    Tribal selfishness is group cohesion. Did you men to imply instead that individualism is the opposite of cohesion? That would be true. But it is far and away the central thesis of liberalism that all cultural and ethnic bonds should be severed.

    Note the communist concentration on the destruction of the ethnic community via the destruction of the family and functional social values. Destroying cohesion is the point of multiculture and mass migration, all attacks against the family, and the rank individualism and its social degeneracy that has always been the promoted liberal ethos. Or did you think that Russian Jewess and ethnic enthusiast Ayn Rand was promoting conservatism to gentiles? Randian extreme libertarianism is a cultural doorstop for communism in its effort to deconstruct social bonds. Traditional American libertarianism is the same stuff that anyone has found on any frontier. Where governments don't exist but hostiles do, there will be few people to enforce laws. Much of America is still a type of frontier. Too much coastal dwelling distorts that reality in the minds of non-critical thinkers and researchers.

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin.
     
    Aw.. you didn't like that non-incels in Wisconsin bucked your sense of paranoia and will to politicized authoritarianism and went out and socialized. Poor you. I guess you'll have to deal with the idea of attractive people getting laid, once again.

    So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors.
     
    What? Restructure your thought and revisit this when you can communicate what you are trying to say. Or, if I adequately sumamarized it above, just leave this be. We get it. Other people are getting laid.

    Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing.
     
    More conceptually unintelligible gibberish.

    It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute;
     
    Conservatives don't mind some social spending or some taxes when it benefits their tribe. In this nation, both things are problematic because certain contingents or insular tribes will import and promote dysfunctional elements to financially drain and weaken their perceived competitors: like the good Swedes of Wisconsin. When and where these destroying tribes exist, it is always possible that no amount of social spending and taxes will be enough. Both will be ever increased until society is under a heavy yoke of those out to exploit or destroy it. Therefore, rational people seek to limit both with room for error. Case in point. Conservatives both pay for social spending and taxes, but here you are complaining that they do not. Conservatives press hard against social spending and taxes to prevent the advance of the efforts of people like yourself.

    it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    There is no such thing as a "libertarian conservative". These are opposing concepts. Think and learn more about deeper history and how political groups function, at the political power core, before announcing wrong concepts that you pulled from Jews.

    I’m much younger than many who post here.
     
    No kidding.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”
     
    In order for the above comparison to work, your failed scold necessarily assumes that the people who went out and drank and protested hung around Chinese and/or got sick as you did. Its likely they did neither. The economy can't be turned off in perpetuity due to your lifestyle choices. Which, contrary to the logic of your false moral pedestal, is the moral perspective. Try making better choices.

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.
     
    Aren't you the good boi. Though, the large pat on your own back removes every last bit of class from the effort. Its effort to contrast yourself with conservatives is also in vain.

    There are millions of conservatives staying home, dealing with more responsibility than you've dreamed of, and contributing more than you have designs to do. Plenty are completely sober people. Plenty are dealing with sick or elderly family members, every day. Plenty have a world more humility and sociopolitical knowledge than do you.

    Liberals who have the financial ability to not go into work and not care are not society's template for the golden contributor. They are largely over-privileged political schemers who can't read statistics and lack the ability to think about and empathize with the deeper ramifications of this shutdown.

    Liberals are largely destroyers of social bonds. Again, see Marxism. Economic bonds are politically false. When liberals can get away with it, they excessively highlight themselves as performing the opposite function. As you do here.
  4. At the end of this, as Franklin quipped, the fools will get neither liberty nor safety.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, UK
  5. If this fool who wrote that excerpt thinks that “liberals” have been for Constitutional rights, he’s off by either 50 or 100 years. 100 years ago was probably the end of the time “liberal” meant what’s called a Libertarian now. 50 years ago was the time the “liberals” talked about their rights a lot, because they needed all their rights and due process including all sorts of technicalities, to help overturn the system and to get out of jail after bombing buildings and that sort of thing.

    In politics, it was only the Goldwater, later Reagan, wing of the GOP that cared about Americans’ Constitutional rights, along with a dwindling (as your graph shows) percentage of patriotic Americans,.

    Hey, Rosie, explain that pink bar again to us. thx.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I think he has confused Civil Rights with Constitutional Rights ;)
    , @Almost Missouri
    Except for "fool", I agree with your comment. Constitutionalism, aka, Libertarianism, is the ideal state. Unfortunately we no longer (by design, apparently) have the demography to support it. So the question is, "What now?"

    Re "fool", I don't always agree with Matt Taibbi, but is he one of the few (semi-)lefties who will occasionally veer from The Narrative, so such veerings should be noticed and encouraged. He also authored the immemorial description of Goldman Sachs:

    "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
     
    For that alone, he deserves our gratitude.

    Re Rosie and the pink bar, the iSteve-ish answer would be, Hey, the glass is two-thirds full!
  6. @Achmed E. Newman
    If this fool who wrote that excerpt thinks that "liberals" have been for Constitutional rights, he's off by either 50 or 100 years. 100 years ago was probably the end of the time "liberal" meant what's called a Libertarian now. 50 years ago was the time the "liberals" talked about their rights a lot, because they needed all their rights and due process including all sorts of technicalities, to help overturn the system and to get out of jail after bombing buildings and that sort of thing.

    In politics, it was only the Goldwater, later Reagan, wing of the GOP that cared about Americans' Constitutional rights, along with a dwindling (as your graph shows) percentage of patriotic Americans,.

    Hey, Rosie, explain that pink bar again to us. thx.

    I think he has confused Civil Rights with Constitutional Rights 😉

  7. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    Well-written, interesting comments. Good music video, too.

    • Replies: @Sir Isaac Newton
    Clarification: I think there were two music videos; I meant the one with Band-Maid.
  8. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    American Conservatism is just Consumerism

    Don’t lose weight, eat Chik-filA

    Don’t cut your cable cord, watch the thots on Fox News

  9. @Achmed E. Newman
    If this fool who wrote that excerpt thinks that "liberals" have been for Constitutional rights, he's off by either 50 or 100 years. 100 years ago was probably the end of the time "liberal" meant what's called a Libertarian now. 50 years ago was the time the "liberals" talked about their rights a lot, because they needed all their rights and due process including all sorts of technicalities, to help overturn the system and to get out of jail after bombing buildings and that sort of thing.

    In politics, it was only the Goldwater, later Reagan, wing of the GOP that cared about Americans' Constitutional rights, along with a dwindling (as your graph shows) percentage of patriotic Americans,.

    Hey, Rosie, explain that pink bar again to us. thx.

    Except for “fool”, I agree with your comment. Constitutionalism, aka, Libertarianism, is the ideal state. Unfortunately we no longer (by design, apparently) have the demography to support it. So the question is, “What now?”

    Re “fool”, I don’t always agree with Matt Taibbi, but is he one of the few (semi-)lefties who will occasionally veer from The Narrative, so such veerings should be noticed and encouraged. He also authored the immemorial description of Goldman Sachs:

    a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

    For that alone, he deserves our gratitude.

    Re Rosie and the pink bar, the iSteve-ish answer would be, Hey, the glass is two-thirds full!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I do remember that "vampire squid" bit from somewhere. Thanks, Alarmist.
  10. @James Bowery
    The Constitution provides for Declarations of War. There are plenty of precedents for limitations on what people consider "rights" during wartime. The reason you declare war is to clearly delimit peace vs war and thereby limit wartime. The reason the House declares war is to recognize the people have the power to place limits on their own rights and set the limits of wartime.

    Of course, the temptation of all government is to make war the de facto state, so as to gather power to itself. It is harder to do this when you have a Constitution that requires Declarations of War, but even that can be gotten around by being mealy mouthed about what it means to declare war and even what Constitutes war.

    So when Trump decided to use war rhetoric, no one took him seriously -- especially since there was no Declaration of War (necessarily containing the criterion for exiting that state).

    Then there is the fact that the House is now controlled by people hysterically opposed to granting Trump power, and since the President is the Commander In Chief exercising War Powers...

    Virtually all the restrictions on civil liberties have been imposed at the state level, so this would seem to have little to do with Trump.

    • Agree: Manfred Arcane
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    You're correct that Trump has left things up to the States. However, in his war rhetoric he did not make it clear that, by leaving things up to the States, he was implicitly requesting that State sovereignty be asserted. That is, in the war against the virus, each State should formally declare a state of war, and/or, if the State's constitution permits, declare a state of emergency that has the same effect. That effect being to clearly delimit and limit the state of emergency from the state in which civil liberties are normative.

    Ann Coulter's idea of calling out the national guard to surround "the old folks' homes" and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind. In that scenario, the entire population outside those under protective sequestration would, in effect, be part of the war mobilization.

  11. A123 says:

    Did you expect a piece of paper to protect–or constrain, opinions vary–you? Ask who killed the constitution and you’re bound to get answers predating Lincoln.

    I concur.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    That sounds great. U.S. Citizens are protected from the expansion of the federal government. This keeps it small. Almost all government will be individual states, not Washington DC.

    Lincoln killed the 10th Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution has been dying a slow, piecemeal death since then.
    _____

    We could be headed to a Constitutional crisis, sooner rather than later.

    “Ballot Harvesting/Modification” and “Vote Fraud by Mail” are intentional assaults on the concept of voting. How many ballots will the DNC fabricate in their failed attempt to steal the election for the Biden?

    PEACE 😷

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  12. In our system, state and local authorities have the kinds of authority to deal as necessary with public health emergencies. Such measures may include the temporary suspension of activities normally constitutionally protected, but only temporarily and only at the local level as required for public safety.

    The DOJ’s recent claim that the federal government may assume such authority in emergencies is out of line, according to Nancy Gertner, senior lecturer on law at Harvard and a retired federal judge, who told a reporter for the Harvard Gazette,“The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.” The article is online at the Harvard Gazette’s March 2020 archive under “new restrictions on civil liberties”.

    One of her colleagues at Harvard Law states, interestingly, that no business could likely succeed in demanding governmental compensation for lost revenue due to mandatory shutdown orders, as circumstances, not the government, created the emergency. This is also in the Gazette piece.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The bill of rights is suspended during public health emergencies? De facto, you mean? Or de jure?
    , @Almost Missouri

    “The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.”
     
    Wow, I kinda agree with Harvard for once.

    The US Supreme Court has long backed states (not the Federal government) taking strong measures in health emergencies, which is what has been happening with the corona-lockdown: states, not Feds, are making the actual restrictions. Feds are just giving "guidelines". States often trumpet "Federal Guidelines" to give themselves rhetorical cover for their own actions, but the laws are state laws.

    Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):


    "the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint" [that you gotta accept the state's smallpox vaccine]*
     
    O-W R&N v. Washington (1926):

    "it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants"
     
    OTOH, most of this jurisprudence predates the (somewhat a-constitutional) Incorporation Doctrine jurisprudence, which only got around to "incorporating" freedom of assembly in 1937 (
    DeJonge v. Oregon), so there is an argument to be made that the state's power to coerce you in the name of health went extinct along with all the other state powers that have fallen before the preternaturally mighty Fourteenth Amendment. But no one's made this argument to an actual court, that I'm aware of.

    (Amusingly, the only anti-lockdown suit I know of that managed to get fast-tracked through to a US court was ...
    ... wait for it ...
    ... a suit for ...
    ... on-demand abortion.
    Because of course. That's the most important constitutional question of the last three months. /sarc
    (The Fifth Circuit slapped it down.))

    *A side note of this case was that only eleven of 48 states bothered with mandatory smallpox vaccinations, so in retrospect, whatever it was that ended smallpox in America, it wasn't mandatory vaccinations. There's the real "Laboratories of Democracy" for you!

  13. “It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment.”

    To any commenters or host:

    Please explain the above to me. It is an exceedingly common belief and to my mind directly contradictory to a plain reading:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Pray tell, what law has Congress passed doing this? Where is the law in the U.S. Code?

    Now, for the snarky and/or loaded questions: Is it that protection against states doing these things in a “penumbra?” If so, is that the same “penumbra” granting a “right to privacy?” Or is it jurisprudence based on an unfair text reading that has gone unchallenged by the right because few really care about plain reading or original meaning?

    Would the founders not have preferred lockdowns, if they really were necessary, to be performed at the state, not federal, level?

    For my part, I believe the U.S. lockdowns to be the result of arbitrary government and acting in direct violation of a free society. I think many may violate state constitutions. But contrary to the U.S. Constitution? I would need to hear a good argument without twisting the written words.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    See: 14th Amendment incorporation.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    By way of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights supersede any state or local laws. Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.
  14. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I’ll try.

    “John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself.”

    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini…

    “they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic”

    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    “These rootless”

    Lol.

    “Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.”

    It’s true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that’s obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, “I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.”

    In other words, conservatives’ opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man’s basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for “cultural disaster” is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: “you didn’t fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!” What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn’t they have a role?

    “It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute”

    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation (“taxes”) to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn’t support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).

    “it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary”

    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What’s convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    “what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess).”

    … yeah …

    “Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.”

    … right …

    “These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.”

    … agree …

    “In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent.”

    … no sh*t, Sherlock …

    “You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself.”

    Would be nice, wouldn’t it?

    “You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.”

    You said you’re young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn’t “conservatism”.)

    “Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country.”

    I don’t know if it is possible to argue about having “been born in the wrong country” without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the “wrong” country. It wasn’t always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    • Thanks: res, Cloudbuster, Mark G.
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That was an EXCELLENT reply, A.M., that saved me some writing, and I wouldn't have done as well, either. I would like to add on to this part:

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, ...
     
    That's not the only reason, and maybe not even the most important. The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance. When this thing came along, the mandatory shuttering of small businesses was a godsend to them. This means "haha, now you people are out of money too and will have to depend on The STATE, just like the rest of the peons. You need Big Gov now, so get on your knees and kiss Uncle Sam's ass, as you're supposed to."
    , @Alexander Turok

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.
     
    Projection.
    , @MBlanc46
    Well said, AM!
    , @Exile
    What's "conservative" about calling JFK's "ask not" speech "a softer version of Mussolini?"

    Sounds more like a libertarian opinion to me - not that modern "conservatism" has much distinction from libertarianism.

    Paleoconservatives like Buchanan, Kirk, Sobran or Francis would certainly consider your "Mussolini" slur objectionable and not at all in the tradition or spirit of their idea of conservatism.

    As for why conservatism loses, a team with an empty trophy case and a 50-year long losing streak can always point to the superiority of the opposition - kinda goes without saying. It's a nice deflection from the question of why conservatives haven't done better with so many chances and so many lines they've failed to hold.

    Conservatives have gone from Buckley's stand athwart history to "The Conservative Case for Transgenderism" without slowing, much less stopping, any element of the liberal juggernaut of degenerate idiocy.

    There is only one interest and one constituency conservatism has served and protected over those 50 years - the one Pat, Russell, Joe & Sam warned us about. The powerless, oppressed minority you dare not name or they will destroy you.

    When National Review finally publishes "The Conservative Case for Abortion," there will be nowhere left to hide from that truth.
  15. @Almost Missouri
    Except for "fool", I agree with your comment. Constitutionalism, aka, Libertarianism, is the ideal state. Unfortunately we no longer (by design, apparently) have the demography to support it. So the question is, "What now?"

    Re "fool", I don't always agree with Matt Taibbi, but is he one of the few (semi-)lefties who will occasionally veer from The Narrative, so such veerings should be noticed and encouraged. He also authored the immemorial description of Goldman Sachs:

    "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
     
    For that alone, he deserves our gratitude.

    Re Rosie and the pink bar, the iSteve-ish answer would be, Hey, the glass is two-thirds full!

    Yeah, I do remember that “vampire squid” bit from somewhere. Thanks, Alarmist.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    More recent hits from Monsieur Taibbi:

    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1261673318840782853

    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1261714318686642176
  16. A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.

    Now it’s possible that the risks of this happening have been exaggerated. Possibly even wildly exaggerated. And it is possible that the long-term economic damage is an even greater risk. But basing opposition to lockdowns on the “muh liberty” argument is a poor strategy. It will merely have the effect, once again, of making the political right look like a bunch of selfish assholes.

    And the political right already has an extreme problem with the widespread (and often justified) perception that they really are a bunch of selfish assholes.

    A better strategy would be to try to argue that the lockdowns have been excessive (which they have been), or that extreme economic necessity requires that they be lifted or significantly eased.

    Or you can argue that lockdowns don’t work. Which is a bit difficult because in many countries such as Australia they have worked.

    You can use “muh liberty” as an argument in cases where an individual decides to accept a personal risk. But you can’t use “muh liberty” when an individual decides to impose a risk upon others.

    I don’t like the lockdowns either. I’m extremely concerned by the likely economic damage. But the liberty argument isn’t really valid in this case and it will make the right look extremely bad. And it wiil make the right look stupid as well.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.
     
    The mistake you're making is that the hypothetical victims have agency too.  They can choose to visit or avoid bars and restaurants.  The only people who do not have agency in this matter are ones like prisoners, hospital patients and nursing home residents.  They could be protected by far less coercive and damaging measures, like D3 and zinc supplementation and the same plus HCQ prophylaxis for staff.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it's obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.  They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that's necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.  The lack of widespread antibody testing is of a piece with this; instead of telling us who's already immune and is neither at risk nor a threat, they're locked down too.  These policies are obviously not mistakes, they are chosen for their effects.  The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable.
    , @Dumbo
    I think if the protests had been of small-business owners and workers worried about their long-time survival, it would be one thing.

    But the impression that many protesters gave was really of people angry that they could not go to a restaurant to eat a steak or chill at the beach, which ended up making things worse, as if the lockdown situation was not serious (from the economic point of view). I wonder if some of the protests were not staged as well. Divide and conquer, and all that.

    https://i.redd.it/5vg28k5g2tt41.jpg
  17. @Almost Missouri
    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I'll try.

    "John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself."
     
    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini...

    "they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic"
     
    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    "These rootless"
     
    Lol.

    "Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years."
     
    It's true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that's obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

    In other words, conservatives' opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man's basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for "cultural disaster" is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: "you didn't fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!" What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn't they have a role?


    "It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute"
     
    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation ("taxes") to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn't support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).


    "it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary"
     
    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What's convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    "what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess)."
     
    ... yeah ...

    "Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason."
     
    ... right ...

    "These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life."
     
    ... agree ...

    "In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent."
     
    ... no sh*t, Sherlock ...

    "You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself."
     
    Would be nice, wouldn't it?

    "You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society."
     
    You said you're young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn't "conservatism".)


    "Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country."
     
    I don't know if it is possible to argue about having "been born in the wrong country" without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the "wrong" country. It wasn't always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    That was an EXCELLENT reply, A.M., that saved me some writing, and I wouldn’t have done as well, either. I would like to add on to this part:

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, …

    That’s not the only reason, and maybe not even the most important. The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance. When this thing came along, the mandatory shuttering of small businesses was a godsend to them. This means “haha, now you people are out of money too and will have to depend on The STATE, just like the rest of the peons. You need Big Gov now, so get on your knees and kiss Uncle Sam’s ass, as you’re supposed to.”

    • Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday

    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.
     
    I get your point, bu I think they're OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn't socialism, but isn't free enterprise either. Politically I think what they want is a left wing police state with a pretend opposition and faux elections where the outcome is known before the first vote is even cast. And they're a lot closer to achieving that than most people realize.
    , @Anonymous
    You hear people talking about what the Left wants, what the Left is plotting, what the Left is doing, no recognition of the fact that Trump's been cheer-leading the bailout and has the signed all the bailout bills. Why isn't Trump putting a stop to any of this? And why aren't you attacking him for not doing it?
  18. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    … and another thing [/Columbo] You mention how the Japanese are not taught to hate themselves, their countrymen, and their society, as we are here. That’s right. Yet, who pushes for Homeschooling, Conservatives or the Left? You know the answer if you live here.

    Homeschooling is virtually “poking the Beast in the eye with a sharp stick” – read some Peak Stupidity on this – Part 1. Part 2, and Part 3. You won’t hear anybody but true Conservatives and Libertarians pushing for homeschooling.

  19. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    You think the primary support for hate speech codes comes from conservatives?

    • Replies: @216
    Red State legislatures rarely overturn them when imposed by the academic bureaucracy.

    Their main power in the US comes from corporations, and GOP pols won't do something anti business.
  20. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I do remember that "vampire squid" bit from somewhere. Thanks, Alarmist.

    More recent hits from Monsieur Taibbi:

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  21. It seems odd to me that, according to the graph, Hispanics have a higher support for constitutional rights than Whites. Are they “natural conservatives”?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Hispanics have come to learn through inference that "constitutional rights" means "giving them stuff," so I presume what they really mean is they're upset that they're not being given even more free money from the government.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Given the industries they're most overrepresented in, they're probably being hit especially hard by the lockdowns.
  22. @Jedi Night
    It seems odd to me that, according to the graph, Hispanics have a higher support for constitutional rights than Whites. Are they "natural conservatives"?

    Hispanics have come to learn through inference that “constitutional rights” means “giving them stuff,” so I presume what they really mean is they’re upset that they’re not being given even more free money from the government.

    • Replies: @indocon
    Hispanic kids also are the biggest fans of 80's very white rock music while white kids gorge themselves on rap.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If that were an opium den, it'd be a different story.
  23. The stay-at-home orders aren’t going to last much longer. Various states have been opening back up without increases in hospitalizations or deaths in spite of predictions that would happen by the stay-at-home proponents. This is helping to discredit them.

    There were big crowds of young people on the streets of New York City last Saturday night with police standing by. The head of the local police benevolent association there said the police can’t arrest every scofflaw in the city and said the city government can’t continue its current policies. Police have also been seen standing around and just watching large crowds of young people on Venice Beach in California in the Los Angeles area.

    Remember what happened when people in Eastern Europe finally realized the benefits of Communism was all a giant lie and the police and army just gave up trying to maintain it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Exactly, Mark!

    People don't realize how little courage it takes from most people to buck the whole system. It takes just a few people with a little courage and/or being just too tired of the crap to give a damn. A crowd forms, a few people say "hell, no, I'm not doing this", and then the rest feel comfortable getting in on that action.

    If there had been a couple of thousand people in Charlottesville, Virginia 3 summers ago rather than a few hundred, there's nothing the anarcho-tyrannical "justice" system of the city could have done. I was at the gun rights rally early this year in Richmond. There were multiple 10's of thousands by my estimate (and I had a good vantage point). There were could easily have been a number of antifa people there, but I couldn't imagine them having done much but looked at the crowd and gone home.

    Same thing regarding the cops, BTW. They would have been completely outmanned and outgunned, had they tried anything, but most were likely on the side of the peaceful gun owners anyway.
  24. UK says:
    @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    Might I suggest that the way you typify conservatives as, is how you should indulge yourself and act more often?

    You might find it healing to balance out some of that extreme (and rather simplistic and naïve) earnestness, and you might find that you make better long-term choices for yourself, leading to better things for everyone in your life.

  25. At least the Republicans almost got 50%.

  26. @Cloudbuster
    Virtually all the restrictions on civil liberties have been imposed at the state level, so this would seem to have little to do with Trump.

    You’re correct that Trump has left things up to the States. However, in his war rhetoric he did not make it clear that, by leaving things up to the States, he was implicitly requesting that State sovereignty be asserted. That is, in the war against the virus, each State should formally declare a state of war, and/or, if the State’s constitution permits, declare a state of emergency that has the same effect. That effect being to clearly delimit and limit the state of emergency from the state in which civil liberties are normative.

    Ann Coulter’s idea of calling out the national guard to surround “the old folks’ homes” and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind. In that scenario, the entire population outside those under protective sequestration would, in effect, be part of the war mobilization.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Dumbo

    Ann Coulter’s idea of calling out the national guard to surround “the old folks’ homes” and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind.
     
    If she really said that it seems quite stupid. For some reason many people seem to think that, because old people can be more seriously affected by the disease (in fact, by any disease), they somehow can get it or transmit it more easily. There is no evidence of that. Nevertheless, even in places such as Canada, lots of old people were left in "care" homes to die, because the workers were afraid to catch the virus from the old people who were there...

    As for "herd immunity", it's a chimera. Where is the "herd immunity" from the common flu. Viruses are seasonal, they come and go, but they don't seem to multiply and last forever.

  27. @Achmed E. Newman
    That was an EXCELLENT reply, A.M., that saved me some writing, and I wouldn't have done as well, either. I would like to add on to this part:

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, ...
     
    That's not the only reason, and maybe not even the most important. The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance. When this thing came along, the mandatory shuttering of small businesses was a godsend to them. This means "haha, now you people are out of money too and will have to depend on The STATE, just like the rest of the peons. You need Big Gov now, so get on your knees and kiss Uncle Sam's ass, as you're supposed to."

    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.

    I get your point, bu I think they’re OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn’t socialism, but isn’t free enterprise either. Politically I think what they want is a left wing police state with a pretend opposition and faux elections where the outcome is known before the first vote is even cast. And they’re a lot closer to achieving that than most people realize.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.
     
    I get your point, bu I think they’re OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn’t socialism, but isn’t free enterprise either.
     
    I agree. The last thing the present-day Left wants is actual socialism.
    , @nebulafox
    It's basically the worst of both worlds, what the United States has: I'd like to think that this is something that dissident left and right wingers can agree on.

    Publicized costs, privatized gains, socialism for the connected, unrestrainted market mechanisms for the masses, all the incompetence and cost of zombie bureaucracies, all the short-term thinking and idiocy of MBA logic. It works for nobody, save our bipartisan political elites, their donors, and to a lesser extent, our bloated upper middle class, who exchange a shadow of plutocrat life for Darwinian competition in earning a spot in it.

    And the only reason it has gone on was America's accumulated credit and power, unprecedented in world history, in the wake of the Cold War. Any other country would have undergone massive turmoil by this point with such a concerted battering of their social structures and finances.

  28. @dfordoom
    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It's to stop you from infecting other people with it. It's to stop you from infringing other people's right to live.

    Now it's possible that the risks of this happening have been exaggerated. Possibly even wildly exaggerated. And it is possible that the long-term economic damage is an even greater risk. But basing opposition to lockdowns on the "muh liberty" argument is a poor strategy. It will merely have the effect, once again, of making the political right look like a bunch of selfish assholes.

    And the political right already has an extreme problem with the widespread (and often justified) perception that they really are a bunch of selfish assholes.

    A better strategy would be to try to argue that the lockdowns have been excessive (which they have been), or that extreme economic necessity requires that they be lifted or significantly eased.

    Or you can argue that lockdowns don't work. Which is a bit difficult because in many countries such as Australia they have worked.

    You can use "muh liberty" as an argument in cases where an individual decides to accept a personal risk. But you can't use "muh liberty" when an individual decides to impose a risk upon others.

    I don't like the lockdowns either. I'm extremely concerned by the likely economic damage. But the liberty argument isn't really valid in this case and it will make the right look extremely bad. And it wiil make the right look stupid as well.

    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.

    The mistake you’re making is that the hypothetical victims have agency too.  They can choose to visit or avoid bars and restaurants.  The only people who do not have agency in this matter are ones like prisoners, hospital patients and nursing home residents.  They could be protected by far less coercive and damaging measures, like D3 and zinc supplementation and the same plus HCQ prophylaxis for staff.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it’s obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.  They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that’s necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.  The lack of widespread antibody testing is of a piece with this; instead of telling us who’s already immune and is neither at risk nor a threat, they’re locked down too.  These policies are obviously not mistakes, they are chosen for their effects.  The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Mr. Rational, because the hospitals have made so much extra room for the COVID-one-niner patients, there are loads of people that need cancer treatments, bone surgeries, and the like, that are not coming in to get treated. Some of this is their own decisions, due to their having been scared shitless, and some is the doctors'/hospitals' decisions. This is gonna cause a lot of earlier deaths. This is straight from a family member in the healthcare field.

    Anyway, you are quite right. People will make voluntary efforts to not infect those that are vulnerable - we have not gone on a trip to visit an elder family member just due to this. However, people have agency, as you wrote, and if there are too many young people at your favorite restaurant (assuming it hasn't already closed down for good!), then avoid it, just as if too many black people were going there before this whole thing. Honestly, you still may be safer right now among the young white people.

    , @Anonymous

    The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable
     
    Under what criminal statute? You plan on passing an ex post facto law?

    #CoronaDeniersGetTheRope
    , @dfordoom

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it’s obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.
     
    At this point in time that's almost certainly true.

    They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that’s necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.
     
    I'm sceptical of herd immunity. It's become an article of faith for right-wingers but they believe in it with the same missionary zeal with which their opponents cling to their faith in lockdowns. Coronaviruses seem to be tricky little beasties when it comes to immunity.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science. That holds true for people on both sides of the debate. It's like global warming. Nobody cares about the science. It's all ideology.
  29. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    Good comment.

    Yes, America is the land of individualism, and although that started as a good thing, somehow it morphed into “mine first”, selfishness and aloofness.

    Anglos (and Nordics in general) are less family-oriented than Southern Europeans or Asians, they leave home earlier, move to some other place, sometimes don’t even keep in touch with parents or siblings. Again, the extreme individualism, which started as a need from independence and growing up, but ended up as ending with people more isolated without almost any family ties.

    But America in particular, because people came from different places (even if originally mostly European/White), there was less sense of a common tradition or culture, less ties, and the country being so big it was easy to disappear somewhere else. It was always a place where you could “reinvent yourself”.

    I don’t think it was like this in the 50s / 60s. Even in Europe, at least Southern Europe, despite the degeneracy that has also advanced a lot, there is still a certain sense of community and tradition.

    I am not familiar with Japan except from Japanese movies. I think there was a change (mostly for the worse) in Japan too, if you compare with the 60s, think about all the lonely people there, high number of people not marrying or having kids, but of course the change was not as drastic as in America. Because it didn’t become multicultural so fast, probably.

    • Replies: @another anon

    Yes, America is the land of individualism, and although that started as a good thing, somehow it morphed into “mine first”, selfishness and aloofness.
     
    No. America is land of sheep that cannot imagine being outside the herd of "society" even for short time.

    True individualists are self isolating for all their lives, to get away from you.

    https://i.imgur.com/VjNsbH9.jpg

  30. @James Bowery
    You're correct that Trump has left things up to the States. However, in his war rhetoric he did not make it clear that, by leaving things up to the States, he was implicitly requesting that State sovereignty be asserted. That is, in the war against the virus, each State should formally declare a state of war, and/or, if the State's constitution permits, declare a state of emergency that has the same effect. That effect being to clearly delimit and limit the state of emergency from the state in which civil liberties are normative.

    Ann Coulter's idea of calling out the national guard to surround "the old folks' homes" and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind. In that scenario, the entire population outside those under protective sequestration would, in effect, be part of the war mobilization.

    Ann Coulter’s idea of calling out the national guard to surround “the old folks’ homes” and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind.

    If she really said that it seems quite stupid. For some reason many people seem to think that, because old people can be more seriously affected by the disease (in fact, by any disease), they somehow can get it or transmit it more easily. There is no evidence of that. Nevertheless, even in places such as Canada, lots of old people were left in “care” homes to die, because the workers were afraid to catch the virus from the old people who were there…

    As for “herd immunity”, it’s a chimera. Where is the “herd immunity” from the common flu. Viruses are seasonal, they come and go, but they don’t seem to multiply and last forever.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    It depends, the statistics for the counties with the highest amount of charity contributions per capita show a lot of millionaire counties, but also an equal amount of rural red counties, so it is hard to conclude that, part of it is just the national leadership not wearing masks, and turning face masks into a political sport.
  31. @dfordoom
    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It's to stop you from infecting other people with it. It's to stop you from infringing other people's right to live.

    Now it's possible that the risks of this happening have been exaggerated. Possibly even wildly exaggerated. And it is possible that the long-term economic damage is an even greater risk. But basing opposition to lockdowns on the "muh liberty" argument is a poor strategy. It will merely have the effect, once again, of making the political right look like a bunch of selfish assholes.

    And the political right already has an extreme problem with the widespread (and often justified) perception that they really are a bunch of selfish assholes.

    A better strategy would be to try to argue that the lockdowns have been excessive (which they have been), or that extreme economic necessity requires that they be lifted or significantly eased.

    Or you can argue that lockdowns don't work. Which is a bit difficult because in many countries such as Australia they have worked.

    You can use "muh liberty" as an argument in cases where an individual decides to accept a personal risk. But you can't use "muh liberty" when an individual decides to impose a risk upon others.

    I don't like the lockdowns either. I'm extremely concerned by the likely economic damage. But the liberty argument isn't really valid in this case and it will make the right look extremely bad. And it wiil make the right look stupid as well.

    I think if the protests had been of small-business owners and workers worried about their long-time survival, it would be one thing.

    But the impression that many protesters gave was really of people angry that they could not go to a restaurant to eat a steak or chill at the beach, which ended up making things worse, as if the lockdown situation was not serious (from the economic point of view). I wonder if some of the protests were not staged as well. Divide and conquer, and all that.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    I blame Trump for going all it's just the flu, I wonder if some Chinese government official or a Chinese version of Paul Kersey is going to make a stuff white people don't like blog and post it on Unz about these people.
    , @Cloudbuster
    A photo that picks out one particular frivolous sign and highlights it is nothing but propaganda. Even in that photo, the man to the right has a sign "SOS Save Our Small Business" which is exactly what you said you'd prefer the protestors to be saying.
  32. Znzn says:
    @Dumbo

    Ann Coulter’s idea of calling out the national guard to surround “the old folks’ homes” and leave everyone else to reach herd immunity comes to mind.
     
    If she really said that it seems quite stupid. For some reason many people seem to think that, because old people can be more seriously affected by the disease (in fact, by any disease), they somehow can get it or transmit it more easily. There is no evidence of that. Nevertheless, even in places such as Canada, lots of old people were left in "care" homes to die, because the workers were afraid to catch the virus from the old people who were there...

    As for "herd immunity", it's a chimera. Where is the "herd immunity" from the common flu. Viruses are seasonal, they come and go, but they don't seem to multiply and last forever.

    It depends, the statistics for the counties with the highest amount of charity contributions per capita show a lot of millionaire counties, but also an equal amount of rural red counties, so it is hard to conclude that, part of it is just the national leadership not wearing masks, and turning face masks into a political sport.

  33. anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    Define ‘liberty”, in the American-English-Northern Euro context. Jeffersonian liberty. Then ask if “liberty” means the same thing to people from Oaxaca or Honduras. People who are largely Meso-American, i.e. descended from Mongolians and Siberians. Groups such as the Tarahumara, the Mixtecs and others are almost entirely descended from pre-Colombian peoples. They are Indians.

    1,000 years ago more or less there were Things in Viking-derived countries such as Iceland. 500 years ago meso-America was ruled differently, as can be seen in the 16th century histories.

    It’s almost as though “liberty” and “security” do not have universal meanings. How can that be?

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

  34. @Dumbo
    I think if the protests had been of small-business owners and workers worried about their long-time survival, it would be one thing.

    But the impression that many protesters gave was really of people angry that they could not go to a restaurant to eat a steak or chill at the beach, which ended up making things worse, as if the lockdown situation was not serious (from the economic point of view). I wonder if some of the protests were not staged as well. Divide and conquer, and all that.

    https://i.redd.it/5vg28k5g2tt41.jpg

    I blame Trump for going all it’s just the flu, I wonder if some Chinese government official or a Chinese version of Paul Kersey is going to make a stuff white people don’t like blog and post it on Unz about these people.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Just for reference, Z, Paul Kersey got the name for his site, as a joke, from a site called "Stuff White People Like".
  35. I see there is a correlation between higher income and believing stay at home orders are a violation. My guess is this is because the wealthy are personally more affected by it. My cousin is an elite lawyer and his two favorite hobbies are world travel (he has stories about every country you can think of) and eating out at good restaurants. He is anti-lockdown and I think it’s mostly because his lifestyle is impacted so heavily. Lower income people stay at home more anyway so this isn’t as big of a sacrifice for them.

  36. It’s actually worth considering why there is any partisan disagreement on this issue at all. The Constitution is a pretty straightforward legal text. Just a bunch of words on paper. When it says,

    Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people peaceably to assemble

    well, even coming from the perspective of someone who 100% supports the concept of lockdowns, it still seems crystal clear that this would prohibit them.

    The problem is that centuries of embarrassingly pro-American propaganda have left both sides of the political spectrum convinced that “Constitutional” = “Good.” They draw differing conclusions from it, but whenever a judge rules against something they support, it’s always because he didn’t interpret it correctly, not because (gasp!) the Constitution itself might be fallible. It’s seen as the ultimate source of moral authority, much like the Bible should be for Christians. But even among American Christians, they’ve usually been so brainwashed that they’ll get more offended at someone insulting the Constitution than the writings of, say, St. Paul. The slavish devotion Americans feel toward a bunch of late 18th century leftist radicals is quite literally religious in nature.

    So, coming back to the point, when someone asks “is X constitutional,” and a typical American agrees with X, they have to say yes or risk totally jeopardizing their belief system, the actual words of the text be dammed. In this way, our own constitution-worship has ironically been the main force undermining its original meaning.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  37. @Dumbo
    I think if the protests had been of small-business owners and workers worried about their long-time survival, it would be one thing.

    But the impression that many protesters gave was really of people angry that they could not go to a restaurant to eat a steak or chill at the beach, which ended up making things worse, as if the lockdown situation was not serious (from the economic point of view). I wonder if some of the protests were not staged as well. Divide and conquer, and all that.

    https://i.redd.it/5vg28k5g2tt41.jpg

    A photo that picks out one particular frivolous sign and highlights it is nothing but propaganda. Even in that photo, the man to the right has a sign “SOS Save Our Small Business” which is exactly what you said you’d prefer the protestors to be saying.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  38. @Almost Missouri
    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I'll try.

    "John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself."
     
    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini...

    "they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic"
     
    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    "These rootless"
     
    Lol.

    "Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years."
     
    It's true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that's obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

    In other words, conservatives' opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man's basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for "cultural disaster" is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: "you didn't fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!" What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn't they have a role?


    "It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute"
     
    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation ("taxes") to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn't support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).


    "it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary"
     
    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What's convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    "what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess)."
     
    ... yeah ...

    "Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason."
     
    ... right ...

    "These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life."
     
    ... agree ...

    "In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent."
     
    ... no sh*t, Sherlock ...

    "You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself."
     
    Would be nice, wouldn't it?

    "You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society."
     
    You said you're young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn't "conservatism".)


    "Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country."
     
    I don't know if it is possible to argue about having "been born in the wrong country" without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the "wrong" country. It wasn't always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    Projection.

  39. @Mark G.
    The stay-at-home orders aren't going to last much longer. Various states have been opening back up without increases in hospitalizations or deaths in spite of predictions that would happen by the stay-at-home proponents. This is helping to discredit them.

    There were big crowds of young people on the streets of New York City last Saturday night with police standing by. The head of the local police benevolent association there said the police can't arrest every scofflaw in the city and said the city government can't continue its current policies. Police have also been seen standing around and just watching large crowds of young people on Venice Beach in California in the Los Angeles area.

    Remember what happened when people in Eastern Europe finally realized the benefits of Communism was all a giant lie and the police and army just gave up trying to maintain it.

    Exactly, Mark!

    People don’t realize how little courage it takes from most people to buck the whole system. It takes just a few people with a little courage and/or being just too tired of the crap to give a damn. A crowd forms, a few people say “hell, no, I’m not doing this”, and then the rest feel comfortable getting in on that action.

    If there had been a couple of thousand people in Charlottesville, Virginia 3 summers ago rather than a few hundred, there’s nothing the anarcho-tyrannical “justice” system of the city could have done. I was at the gun rights rally early this year in Richmond. There were multiple 10’s of thousands by my estimate (and I had a good vantage point). There were could easily have been a number of antifa people there, but I couldn’t imagine them having done much but looked at the crowd and gone home.

    Same thing regarding the cops, BTW. They would have been completely outmanned and outgunned, had they tried anything, but most were likely on the side of the peaceful gun owners anyway.

  40. @Znzn
    I blame Trump for going all it's just the flu, I wonder if some Chinese government official or a Chinese version of Paul Kersey is going to make a stuff white people don't like blog and post it on Unz about these people.

    Just for reference, Z, Paul Kersey got the name for his site, as a joke, from a site called “Stuff White People Like”.

  41. It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment.

    Okay. What happens when a government refuses, says it’s unable to, protect our natural rights? To quote the declaration of independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I’ve suggested a way to give these morons their freedumb back. Excerpt:

    You gain your liberty back; in exchange, you must recognize everyone else’s liberty with respect to your behavior. So that means if a business considers you a danger to their customers, they have the right to exclude from their premises. If you object to the government confining you to your home, how can you demand the government forcibly open the doors of someone’s business to you? If they don’t want to hire you, don’t want to serve you, want to segregate you within, or restrict you to special hours, you’ll respect their right to do so. Likewise, the medical system will have the right to move you to the back of the line for any medical treatment.

    https://alexanderturok.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/corona-my-liberty-restoration-plan/

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    That doesn’t characterize the views of any anti lockdown conservatives or libertarians I know. Of course businesses have the right to close or require customers to wear masks or whatnot. What they object to is forcing businesses to stay closed that want to open. I think pro lockdown folks don’t get that not everybody shares their extreme aversion to risk. Many of us recognize that daily life is inherently risky and you don’t have a right to control my behavior simply because of some vague risk that harm will occur down the line. Prove that harm actually occurred or deal with it.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That sounds like freedom of association to me. I'm on board!
  42. @Mr. Rational

    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.
     
    The mistake you're making is that the hypothetical victims have agency too.  They can choose to visit or avoid bars and restaurants.  The only people who do not have agency in this matter are ones like prisoners, hospital patients and nursing home residents.  They could be protected by far less coercive and damaging measures, like D3 and zinc supplementation and the same plus HCQ prophylaxis for staff.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it's obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.  They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that's necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.  The lack of widespread antibody testing is of a piece with this; instead of telling us who's already immune and is neither at risk nor a threat, they're locked down too.  These policies are obviously not mistakes, they are chosen for their effects.  The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable.

    Mr. Rational, because the hospitals have made so much extra room for the COVID-one-niner patients, there are loads of people that need cancer treatments, bone surgeries, and the like, that are not coming in to get treated. Some of this is their own decisions, due to their having been scared shitless, and some is the doctors’/hospitals’ decisions. This is gonna cause a lot of earlier deaths. This is straight from a family member in the healthcare field.

    Anyway, you are quite right. People will make voluntary efforts to not infect those that are vulnerable – we have not gone on a trip to visit an elder family member just due to this. However, people have agency, as you wrote, and if there are too many young people at your favorite restaurant (assuming it hasn’t already closed down for good!), then avoid it, just as if too many black people were going there before this whole thing. Honestly, you still may be safer right now among the young white people.

  43. @Mark G.

    Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”
     
    You think the primary support for hate speech codes comes from conservatives?

    Red State legislatures rarely overturn them when imposed by the academic bureaucracy.

    Their main power in the US comes from corporations, and GOP pols won’t do something anti business.

    • Replies: @indocon
    Best example of that is the state of Georgia, the GOP power at the state level comes solely from near 100% support from regular white people especially in small towns, but the governor and the state legislature miss no opportunity to whore themselves to the big money interests in Atlanta. They don't even bother throwing some fig leaves every once in a while.
  44. @Alexander Turok

    It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment.
     
    Okay. What happens when a government refuses, says it's unable to, protect our natural rights? To quote the declaration of independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
     
    I've suggested a way to give these morons their freedumb back. Excerpt:

    You gain your liberty back; in exchange, you must recognize everyone else’s liberty with respect to your behavior. So that means if a business considers you a danger to their customers, they have the right to exclude from their premises. If you object to the government confining you to your home, how can you demand the government forcibly open the doors of someone’s business to you? If they don’t want to hire you, don’t want to serve you, want to segregate you within, or restrict you to special hours, you’ll respect their right to do so. Likewise, the medical system will have the right to move you to the back of the line for any medical treatment.
     
    https://alexanderturok.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/corona-my-liberty-restoration-plan/

    That doesn’t characterize the views of any anti lockdown conservatives or libertarians I know. Of course businesses have the right to close or require customers to wear masks or whatnot. What they object to is forcing businesses to stay closed that want to open. I think pro lockdown folks don’t get that not everybody shares their extreme aversion to risk. Many of us recognize that daily life is inherently risky and you don’t have a right to control my behavior simply because of some vague risk that harm will occur down the line. Prove that harm actually occurred or deal with it.

  45. @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    Hey Brad (Griffin, host of the Occidental Dissent Blog)!! Nice fake undercover persona. Getting blitzed by commenters at OD for your non-stop fear porn on behalf of TPTB. So Brad is stating his OBEY YOUR MASTERS mantra at Unz to avoid the OD pilloring. Nice try. You’re still a useful idiot to the Oligarchs.

  46. @Cloudbuster
    Hispanics have come to learn through inference that "constitutional rights" means "giving them stuff," so I presume what they really mean is they're upset that they're not being given even more free money from the government.

    Hispanic kids also are the biggest fans of 80’s very white rock music while white kids gorge themselves on rap.

  47. @216
    Red State legislatures rarely overturn them when imposed by the academic bureaucracy.

    Their main power in the US comes from corporations, and GOP pols won't do something anti business.

    Best example of that is the state of Georgia, the GOP power at the state level comes solely from near 100% support from regular white people especially in small towns, but the governor and the state legislature miss no opportunity to whore themselves to the big money interests in Atlanta. They don’t even bother throwing some fig leaves every once in a while.

    • Replies: @216
    The election margins are shrinking not just to immigration and natural increase of minority populations; but also to the AWFL voters in suburbs.

    Kemp (an agribusiness guy) claiming to "round up the illegals" was pure Rube Bait.
  48. Anonymous[328] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    That was an EXCELLENT reply, A.M., that saved me some writing, and I wouldn't have done as well, either. I would like to add on to this part:

    It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, ...
     
    That's not the only reason, and maybe not even the most important. The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance. When this thing came along, the mandatory shuttering of small businesses was a godsend to them. This means "haha, now you people are out of money too and will have to depend on The STATE, just like the rest of the peons. You need Big Gov now, so get on your knees and kiss Uncle Sam's ass, as you're supposed to."

    You hear people talking about what the Left wants, what the Left is plotting, what the Left is doing, no recognition of the fact that Trump’s been cheer-leading the bailout and has the signed all the bailout bills. Why isn’t Trump putting a stop to any of this? And why aren’t you attacking him for not doing it?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I've said that many a time. He doesn't know what he's doing, because he lost trust in his instincts around January of '17, after he'd hired all the swamp rats for their "expertise". Yes, President Trump has been worthless in all of this, which is only a little bit better than someone who's worthless in all of us but actively hates us.

    There ya' go, feel better?
  49. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Rational

    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.
     
    The mistake you're making is that the hypothetical victims have agency too.  They can choose to visit or avoid bars and restaurants.  The only people who do not have agency in this matter are ones like prisoners, hospital patients and nursing home residents.  They could be protected by far less coercive and damaging measures, like D3 and zinc supplementation and the same plus HCQ prophylaxis for staff.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it's obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.  They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that's necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.  The lack of widespread antibody testing is of a piece with this; instead of telling us who's already immune and is neither at risk nor a threat, they're locked down too.  These policies are obviously not mistakes, they are chosen for their effects.  The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable.

    The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable

    Under what criminal statute? You plan on passing an ex post facto law?

    #CoronaDeniersGetTheRope

  50. @I Have Scinde
    "It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment."

    To any commenters or host:

    Please explain the above to me. It is an exceedingly common belief and to my mind directly contradictory to a plain reading:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Pray tell, what law has Congress passed doing this? Where is the law in the U.S. Code?

    Now, for the snarky and/or loaded questions: Is it that protection against states doing these things in a "penumbra?" If so, is that the same "penumbra" granting a "right to privacy?" Or is it jurisprudence based on an unfair text reading that has gone unchallenged by the right because few really care about plain reading or original meaning?

    Would the founders not have preferred lockdowns, if they really were necessary, to be performed at the state, not federal, level?

    For my part, I believe the U.S. lockdowns to be the result of arbitrary government and acting in direct violation of a free society. I think many may violate state constitutions. But contrary to the U.S. Constitution? I would need to hear a good argument without twisting the written words.

    See: 14th Amendment incorporation.

  51. @Almost Missouri
    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I'll try.

    "John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself."
     
    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini...

    "they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic"
     
    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    "These rootless"
     
    Lol.

    "Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years."
     
    It's true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that's obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

    In other words, conservatives' opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man's basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for "cultural disaster" is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: "you didn't fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!" What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn't they have a role?


    "It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute"
     
    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation ("taxes") to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn't support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).


    "it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary"
     
    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What's convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    "what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess)."
     
    ... yeah ...

    "Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason."
     
    ... right ...

    "These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life."
     
    ... agree ...

    "In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent."
     
    ... no sh*t, Sherlock ...

    "You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself."
     
    Would be nice, wouldn't it?

    "You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society."
     
    You said you're young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn't "conservatism".)


    "Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country."
     
    I don't know if it is possible to argue about having "been born in the wrong country" without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the "wrong" country. It wasn't always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    Well said, AM!

  52. Muh founding fathers…
    Muh constitution…
    Muh FREEEEEEEDUUUUMMM to spread disease…

    Reality check: if you tried any of the modern conservative antics in the good old times, the founding fathers would personally hang you on the nearest tree or burned down your house with you inside.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1775%E2%80%931782_North_American_smallpox_epidemic#Quarantine_methods

    Members of the English colonies as well as English officials were proactive in establishing quarantine guidelines in order to protect the public. One of the earliest recorded examples of this was a quarantine established in 1647 by Puritans in order to prevent the spread of disease from ships coming from the Caribbean. In 1731 an act, entitled “An Act to Prevent Persons From Concealing the Smallpox”, was passed. This act made the heads of households mandatory reporters for smallpox; these individuals were required to report smallpox in their house to the selectmen of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Infected households would then be indicated with the placement of a red flag.[4] In South Carolina, sentinels were to be posted outside infected households and infectious notices were required to be posted. In many colonies islands were set up to quarantine individuals coming in by ship. This decreased the chances of smallpox being introduced via trade or travel. By the late 1700s, almost all colonies had quarantine laws in effect in order to diminish the hugely damaging effects that smallpox could have on their communities.[5]

    Upon taking charge of the Continental Army, Washington recognized the severe danger that smallpox posed to his men and the outcome of the war. To this end, Washington became “particularly attentive to the least Symptoms of Smallpox” [6] among his men. Further, Washington was prepared to quarantine any member of his troops showing symptoms according to previously discovered methods and guidelines, including through the use of a special hospital. Following an outbreak of smallpox in Boston, Washington took further precautions to protect his men; he quarantined his men from the dangerous Boston public. These measures included the refusal to allow contact between his soldiers and the viral refugees of Boston. Additionally, certain retreats of the Continental Army can be linked to Washington’s wish to avoid smallpox and his intense caution when it came to his troops.[6]

    • Agree: Alexander Turok
  53. AE, or anybody else, have you seen this site?

    https://covidgraph.com/usa/

    For international:

    https://covidgraph.com/#dailypermillion

    The graphing options are pretty nifty.

    I have been looking for different things graphed and I can only find a bunch of media hockey-sticks last updated early April, and running totals graphed that just rise forever.

    It has mobility tracking from Apple and daily new cases, daily new deaths, daily new deaths per million, most common symptoms, number of comorbidities for fatalities. Logarithmic per million cases. Testing data.

    It’s not the most up to date I’ve found but not terrible, claims to be based on data tracking 83k deaths while Bing has it at 89.9k. I haven’t figured out how to link to a graph but there are lots of options to fiddle with.

    I can look at daily cases, or daily cases/M, test/M, and % positive tests for 6 states at a time, and laugh that our state mandated mask wearing for a month on May 1st.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    International version, cases per million.

    Sweden passed Germany on April 29th and passed France on just May 12th.

    The UK has been keeping pace well above Sweden and just passed Switzerland yesterday, now just below Italy.

    US passed up Italy and Switzerland on May 2nd and is closing in on Spain.

    Daily cases/M is totally different. Spain spiked hard early and then fell hard, and has been well below the US for a while, even though we haven't quite caught up in total. We have been basically flat since April 5th, but at a level well above the others I mentioned.

    Based on Daily cases/M, Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Switzerland are basically done with this thing. UK, US and Sweden are still elevated, but Sweden the least so.
  54. @Anonymous
    You hear people talking about what the Left wants, what the Left is plotting, what the Left is doing, no recognition of the fact that Trump's been cheer-leading the bailout and has the signed all the bailout bills. Why isn't Trump putting a stop to any of this? And why aren't you attacking him for not doing it?

    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I’ve said that many a time. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, because he lost trust in his instincts around January of ’17, after he’d hired all the swamp rats for their “expertise”. Yes, President Trump has been worthless in all of this, which is only a little bit better than someone who’s worthless in all of us but actively hates us.

    There ya’ go, feel better?

    • Replies: @another anon

    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I’ve said that many a time. He doesn’t know what he’s doing,

     

    Trump knows well what he is doing - lying, conning, swindling and fleecing people, as he did for his whole long life.
    You knew very well the history of his business and personal life when you supported him. You have absolutely no one to blame than yourself.
  55. @Achmed E. Newman
    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I've said that many a time. He doesn't know what he's doing, because he lost trust in his instincts around January of '17, after he'd hired all the swamp rats for their "expertise". Yes, President Trump has been worthless in all of this, which is only a little bit better than someone who's worthless in all of us but actively hates us.

    There ya' go, feel better?

    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I’ve said that many a time. He doesn’t know what he’s doing,

    Trump knows well what he is doing – lying, conning, swindling and fleecing people, as he did for his whole long life.
    You knew very well the history of his business and personal life when you supported him. You have absolutely no one to blame than yourself.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I spent years voting for Libertarians, because I didn't support either wing of The Party. I knew Trump had no real principles, but I voted for him based on his positions on immigration and ending the warfare state. No, he does NOT know what he's doing at this point. He wasn't lying to us. He's just way too easily distracted and he delegated work to the wrong people.

    You go ahead and vote for the Blue Squad again. That'll fix things...

    One more thing: I told Ron Paul in person in early '12 that, "if you want to win [REDACTED - State], you need to talk about illegal immigration." I wish he'd have listened to me. I'm sure he does too.

  56. @Observator
    In our system, state and local authorities have the kinds of authority to deal as necessary with public health emergencies. Such measures may include the temporary suspension of activities normally constitutionally protected, but only temporarily and only at the local level as required for public safety.

    The DOJ's recent claim that the federal government may assume such authority in emergencies is out of line, according to Nancy Gertner, senior lecturer on law at Harvard and a retired federal judge, who told a reporter for the Harvard Gazette,“The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.” The article is online at the Harvard Gazette's March 2020 archive under "new restrictions on civil liberties".

    One of her colleagues at Harvard Law states, interestingly, that no business could likely succeed in demanding governmental compensation for lost revenue due to mandatory shutdown orders, as circumstances, not the government, created the emergency. This is also in the Gazette piece.

    The bill of rights is suspended during public health emergencies? De facto, you mean? Or de jure?

  57. @Lars Porsena
    AE, or anybody else, have you seen this site?

    https://covidgraph.com/usa/

    For international:

    https://covidgraph.com/#dailypermillion

    The graphing options are pretty nifty.

    I have been looking for different things graphed and I can only find a bunch of media hockey-sticks last updated early April, and running totals graphed that just rise forever.

    It has mobility tracking from Apple and daily new cases, daily new deaths, daily new deaths per million, most common symptoms, number of comorbidities for fatalities. Logarithmic per million cases. Testing data.

    It's not the most up to date I've found but not terrible, claims to be based on data tracking 83k deaths while Bing has it at 89.9k. I haven't figured out how to link to a graph but there are lots of options to fiddle with.

    I can look at daily cases, or daily cases/M, test/M, and % positive tests for 6 states at a time, and laugh that our state mandated mask wearing for a month on May 1st.

    International version, cases per million.

    Sweden passed Germany on April 29th and passed France on just May 12th.

    The UK has been keeping pace well above Sweden and just passed Switzerland yesterday, now just below Italy.

    US passed up Italy and Switzerland on May 2nd and is closing in on Spain.

    Daily cases/M is totally different. Spain spiked hard early and then fell hard, and has been well below the US for a while, even though we haven’t quite caught up in total. We have been basically flat since April 5th, but at a level well above the others I mentioned.

    Based on Daily cases/M, Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Switzerland are basically done with this thing. UK, US and Sweden are still elevated, but Sweden the least so.

  58. @I Have Scinde
    "It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment."

    To any commenters or host:

    Please explain the above to me. It is an exceedingly common belief and to my mind directly contradictory to a plain reading:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Pray tell, what law has Congress passed doing this? Where is the law in the U.S. Code?

    Now, for the snarky and/or loaded questions: Is it that protection against states doing these things in a "penumbra?" If so, is that the same "penumbra" granting a "right to privacy?" Or is it jurisprudence based on an unfair text reading that has gone unchallenged by the right because few really care about plain reading or original meaning?

    Would the founders not have preferred lockdowns, if they really were necessary, to be performed at the state, not federal, level?

    For my part, I believe the U.S. lockdowns to be the result of arbitrary government and acting in direct violation of a free society. I think many may violate state constitutions. But contrary to the U.S. Constitution? I would need to hear a good argument without twisting the written words.

    By way of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights supersede any state or local laws. Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    • Replies: @216
    By way of the Civil Rights Revolution, the "Constitution is dead" in the words of retired Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner.
    , @iffen
    Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    Constitutional rights are balanced, one against the others, and if you have trouble seeing "the balance," it's just because you don't know where to look for those balancing rights. They are in there and all it takes is a correctly composed Supreme Court to show you where they are. You are likely young enough to see it presented in grand style.

    , @I Have Scinde
    Mr. Epigone,

    From the 14th amendment equal protection clause:

    "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The first amendment is fundamentally a restriction upon Congress itself. These are not "privileges or immunities of citizens." They are prohibitions upon a specific branch of government from doing a specific thing. You can argue all you want to about interpretation of it, and I admit my interpretation is not the one that is widely accepted. But that is what the text literally says.

    Just ask yourself this: would an alien, shown the document as written and not shown any evidence of the actual workings of American society, think that states could not make laws that violate freedom of assembly? To my mind, the protection is entirely in a "penumbra," equivalent to a "right to privacy."

    I would at the very least start saying that it "violates 14th amendment rights." I could certainly see an argument that states are depriving people of liberty without due process of law. With respect, I dissent that the first amendment has anything to do with this.
  59. @Audacious Epigone
    By way of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights supersede any state or local laws. Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    By way of the Civil Rights Revolution, the “Constitution is dead” in the words of retired Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner.

  60. @indocon
    Best example of that is the state of Georgia, the GOP power at the state level comes solely from near 100% support from regular white people especially in small towns, but the governor and the state legislature miss no opportunity to whore themselves to the big money interests in Atlanta. They don't even bother throwing some fig leaves every once in a while.

    The election margins are shrinking not just to immigration and natural increase of minority populations; but also to the AWFL voters in suburbs.

    Kemp (an agribusiness guy) claiming to “round up the illegals” was pure Rube Bait.

  61. @another anon

    Trump is something of a bullshitter. I’ve said that many a time. He doesn’t know what he’s doing,

     

    Trump knows well what he is doing - lying, conning, swindling and fleecing people, as he did for his whole long life.
    You knew very well the history of his business and personal life when you supported him. You have absolutely no one to blame than yourself.

    I spent years voting for Libertarians, because I didn’t support either wing of The Party. I knew Trump had no real principles, but I voted for him based on his positions on immigration and ending the warfare state. No, he does NOT know what he’s doing at this point. He wasn’t lying to us. He’s just way too easily distracted and he delegated work to the wrong people.

    You go ahead and vote for the Blue Squad again. That’ll fix things…

    One more thing: I told Ron Paul in person in early ’12 that, “if you want to win [REDACTED – State], you need to talk about illegal immigration.” I wish he’d have listened to me. I’m sure he does too.

    • Replies: @another anon
    Trump was for his whole long life lying to his family, his employees, his customers, his contractors and business partners, but he was speaking truth to you, because you are such special snowflake?

    Trump knows very well what he wants. He does not want money (no evidence that he had ever been a billionaire) or power (real power is hard work). He wants to be FAMOUS.

    Look at his business failures - the point was not to make profit, but to keep Trump's name in the news, to keep Trump's orange mug on TV screens and on glossy magazine covers. And they were extremely succesful from this point of view.

    And rubes like you gave him exactly what he wanted. You made his dreams real beyond his imagination.
    The whole world now knows Trump, the whole world talks about him, the whole world knows his ugly orange face.

    You can be proud.

    https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/694860/rtx341qy.jpg
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Ron Paul would rather be a principled loser than an unprincipled winner. It appeals to my heart if not to my head.
  62. @Jedi Night
    It seems odd to me that, according to the graph, Hispanics have a higher support for constitutional rights than Whites. Are they "natural conservatives"?

    Given the industries they’re most overrepresented in, they’re probably being hit especially hard by the lockdowns.

  63. @Achmed E. Newman
    I spent years voting for Libertarians, because I didn't support either wing of The Party. I knew Trump had no real principles, but I voted for him based on his positions on immigration and ending the warfare state. No, he does NOT know what he's doing at this point. He wasn't lying to us. He's just way too easily distracted and he delegated work to the wrong people.

    You go ahead and vote for the Blue Squad again. That'll fix things...

    One more thing: I told Ron Paul in person in early '12 that, "if you want to win [REDACTED - State], you need to talk about illegal immigration." I wish he'd have listened to me. I'm sure he does too.

    Trump was for his whole long life lying to his family, his employees, his customers, his contractors and business partners, but he was speaking truth to you, because you are such special snowflake?

    Trump knows very well what he wants. He does not want money (no evidence that he had ever been a billionaire) or power (real power is hard work). He wants to be FAMOUS.

    Look at his business failures – the point was not to make profit, but to keep Trump’s name in the news, to keep Trump’s orange mug on TV screens and on glossy magazine covers. And they were extremely succesful from this point of view.

    And rubes like you gave him exactly what he wanted. You made his dreams real beyond his imagination.
    The whole world now knows Trump, the whole world talks about him, the whole world knows his ugly orange face.

    You can be proud.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Nah, you look at everything too personally. I knew the guy's a famous playboy, etc., but that was a factor in his favor, as I figured he could not be bribed or blackmailed by the Deep State so easily (as I figure is the case with the rest of them). No matter all that, he's on the side of Americans. He just does not know how to have make a long-term strategy to get things (that real Americans wanted) done. He as easily-distractible as a house cat, and, as I wrote before, he picked the wrong people to delegate to.

    That said, who did you vote for in '16, A.A.?
  64. @Dumbo
    Good comment.

    Yes, America is the land of individualism, and although that started as a good thing, somehow it morphed into "mine first", selfishness and aloofness.

    Anglos (and Nordics in general) are less family-oriented than Southern Europeans or Asians, they leave home earlier, move to some other place, sometimes don't even keep in touch with parents or siblings. Again, the extreme individualism, which started as a need from independence and growing up, but ended up as ending with people more isolated without almost any family ties.

    But America in particular, because people came from different places (even if originally mostly European/White), there was less sense of a common tradition or culture, less ties, and the country being so big it was easy to disappear somewhere else. It was always a place where you could "reinvent yourself".

    I don't think it was like this in the 50s / 60s. Even in Europe, at least Southern Europe, despite the degeneracy that has also advanced a lot, there is still a certain sense of community and tradition.

    I am not familiar with Japan except from Japanese movies. I think there was a change (mostly for the worse) in Japan too, if you compare with the 60s, think about all the lonely people there, high number of people not marrying or having kids, but of course the change was not as drastic as in America. Because it didn't become multicultural so fast, probably.

    Yes, America is the land of individualism, and although that started as a good thing, somehow it morphed into “mine first”, selfishness and aloofness.

    No. America is land of sheep that cannot imagine being outside the herd of “society” even for short time.

    True individualists are self isolating for all their lives, to get away from you.

  65. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    When American conservatives say “liberty”, what they really mean is “freedom from responsibility.” Whatever else they may say, they are really just interested in their own personal comfort first and foremost – the freedom to go out to a bar, eat, and get drunk with their friends during a pandemic; the freedom to go to the beach and grill as grandma keels over*. In the end, that’s all this country exists for. Their outlook on life is an inversion of John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself. For American conservatives, it’s “ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.”

    Because conservatives think they’ll be immune from consequence, they've shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic. These rootless conservatives conserve only their own creature comforts. Unless something negatively impacts them, they don’t care. Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years.

    The liberal left progressively stacks up victories in the culture wars because they can almost always appeal to a conservative’s sense of greed and self-entitlement. The great questions of the age either go unanswered or they are answered by the left on behalf of the right. Mass immigration? Answer: it increases the GDP; conservatives are fine with that because they think it benefits their pocketbooks (“they’ll pay for our Social Security” – remember that one from the 90s?). Abolition of association rights? Answer: corporations need the widest possible customer base for profit; conservatives either tolerate that loss or hedge, moving the goalposts closer to the left in the process (“it’s not that we have a problem with you inserting strong women characters into our fiction and offensively gender-swapping all of our male movie and book characters, we just want well-written strong women characters”). Corporate monopolies censoring speech? Answer: private industry needs monopolies to compete with China; government bad; socialism bad; muh private company. Deindustrialization and outsourcing? Answer: it makes products cheaper, allowing some conservatives who’ve made it in life to stuff their buggies with more useless junk. Hate speech-codes? Answer: bad speech makes some people feel bad, which increases tensions and lowers a conservative’s ability to get on “living his life, grilling and chilling.”

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat. A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin. The republican-controlled Supreme Court there voided stay-at-home mitigation efforts. Within 45 minutes, crowds were gathered at bars getting drunk and eating out. So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors. Sure, the “feed my family” angle is certainly true for many, but it’s not true for most. Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing. It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute; it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    Wisconsin bars open doors on night Supreme Court overturns stay-at-home order

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497727-wisconsin-bars-open-their-doors-on-night-supreme-court-overturns-stay-at
     
    I’m much younger than many who post here. I’m also quite healthy. So, I’m not really concerned with Covid-19 personally affecting me ... assuming I haven't already contracted it. I can’t speak for others, but for me, this is not an issue of safety over liberty. Of course, that’s how many libertarian conservatives want to phrase this, but that’s just a strawman (“you’re not against liberty, are you?”). I support liberty in general, but my specific concern is with my community and my fellow man.

    I’m no hypocrite, either.

    In my personal life, I have occasionally interacted with Chinese. Earlier in January, after being in close contact with several Chinese, I came down with a mysterious ailment unlike anything I’ve experienced before; it wasn’t the flu, and it wasn’t quite like any common cold either. For well over a week, I had a dry cough and difficulty breathing, among other symptoms. There is a good chance I have already had Covid-19. At the time, I remember hearing about a strange virus moving through China and thinking that the Chinese I had interacted with are natives of China, the kind of people who might have conceivably moved back and forth from the country at around the same time this virus was spreading.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.



    *Note: I'm not against any of those things; grilling and beach-going is fun. I very much support liberty -- including most speech rights and association. The difference is that my worldview filters those things through what's best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess). That's a more stable philosophy than American conservatism in the long term. Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason.

    I would encourage all readers to spend a weekend researching any of those countries to see what I mean -- their dramas, their music, their educational systems, and culture ... it's all quite fascinating. There are several YouTubers who make videos on what it's like to live in Japan, for instance. No country is perfect, but I get the feeling that if had been born Japanese I'd be psychologically much happier. Study their culture. You'll see what I mean. These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life.

    In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent. You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself. You'll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society.

    Here's an example:

    1 Litre of Tears Episode 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFix26y7xr0
     
    It's sort of a romantic drama for girls. Regardless, I found something quite amazing about this: it inverts the angsty teen rebellion narrative. In this drama, the rebellious male teen comes to learn that his father was right all along, even if he doesn't fully take his advice. There is never any disrespect shown for the father; he is portrayed as being both wiser and more intelligent than his rebellious teenage son. I'm not into girl stuff, but I do find these kinds of cultural observations fascinating. In contrast, a Western movie like Ferris Bueller's Day Off revolves around a sociopathic, rebellious kid fighting against inept authority figures -- his parents and principle -- and getting away with it all in the end, including tricking his poor friend into taking the blame for him.

    In Japanese anime, women are not drawn to look like men. Seriously, in Western comics and video games, women literally look like men now (The Last of Us 2, check out that controversy). Feminism and other divisive ideologies are also less of a concern in that country. Neither do they have a problem with 52 genders.

    At least once a year in Japan, girls dress in kimonos as a right of cultural passage. That would be considered offensive and probably even some kind of white supremacy here.

    In Japan, kids are free to celebrate and idolize their cultural heritage:

    和楽器バンド 「戦-ikusa-」/Wagakki Band「Ikusa」Music Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zj3dwNxJw
     
    In America, it's not clear that you could even make a Cowboys and Indians movie these days (could Lonesome Dove -- even that movie -- be made these days?).

    Japan also has a rocking music scene (even the girl bands), unlike the mumble rap and autotuned Taylor Swift trash of the West:

    BAND-MAID / Thrill(スリル)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uds7g3M-4lQ
     
    Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country. If so, then perhaps emulating what we like best about those cultures is the way forward. Because clearly American conservatism is a spent force. It has no future.

    It looks like an 8th grade student found Unz. Welcome. Your views on politics are immature, misperceptions, and read like you got your hands on a communist propaganda pamphlet. Your amateurish attempt at propaganda of your own (rootless conservatives ..yuk yuk) reads of cheeky experimentation in provocation. What it does is make you look moronic. With luck, one day you’ll figure out how all of this actually works.

    Libertarianism is a “liberal” concept, Rhodes Scholar. Though, more accurately, true libertarianism is a communist tool to undermine sociopolitical bonds that form nationalist armies.

    Your view of conservatives as interested in money and hedonism is something that a variety of hairy, hateful Jews with poor personal hygeiene have pushed through the media precisely to affect vulnerable minds like yours. Conservatism is defined by nationalist community cultural and ethnic bonds. Not money. Not lack of responsibility. Those are Jewish concepts. Anyone adhering to them is effectively useless to conservatives.

    You must have some stake in drugs, homosexuality, or minority rent seeking. Literally every biut of cultural slide that you ascribe to conservatives is a function of the communist-Jewish juggernaut in control of the Western media and tech companies. Its an inversion of reality.

    In contrast, the “cultural disaster” of cultural Marxism and its rot that blossomed in the US in the 1960s is about everything that you ascribe to conservatives. Being about the “community” of a bunch of middling IQ drug addled sex schemers is not “community”. Its communist mental retardation. Community loyalty looks like the social ethics of Nazi Germany and Israel. Communist-Jewish subversion looks like almost everywhere lesser.

    Conservatives lose because their philosophy is based on a premise that ensures their defeat.

    Literally the opposite is true of everything ythat ou stated here. If you keep believing it, prepare for a rough life. If you are merely a low effort antagonist, then screw.

    1. Conservatives have the White House, and so by definition aren’t “losing”. Commies such as yourself are scared as a result and are trying to do everything to undermine this nation as a result. You will continue to lose, regardless.

    2. Literally, conservatism is the only political system that can assure political power incubation and therefore winning. Because it is the system that cultivates close ethnic cultural cooperation. In opposition to that single method of cultivating political power, liberalism attempts to disrupt ethnic and cultural bonds toward political disempowerment. Note how Jews do not do what they advocate. They practice Nazi level ethnic cultivation and defense while advocating the opposite for everyone else. Simply, because Nazi level ethnic enthusiasm breeds political power and its opposite destroys it. Note the hate that the modern Jews have for Russia. Note the anti-conservative system of oppression that they saddled it with. Liberalism is for slaves (see the groups that prefer it). Conservatism is for survivors.

    A worldview built on selfishness is one prone to contradiction and defeat at the hands of groups with more cohesion and perhaps less greed (or perhaps an ability to delay gratification for a future end).

    Are you trying to work out your thoughts for a middle school essay? They contradict themselves within the same sentence.

    Tribal selfishness is group cohesion. Did you men to imply instead that individualism is the opposite of cohesion? That would be true. But it is far and away the central thesis of liberalism that all cultural and ethnic bonds should be severed.

    Note the communist concentration on the destruction of the ethnic community via the destruction of the family and functional social values. Destroying cohesion is the point of multiculture and mass migration, all attacks against the family, and the rank individualism and its social degeneracy that has always been the promoted liberal ethos. Or did you think that Russian Jewess and ethnic enthusiast Ayn Rand was promoting conservatism to gentiles? Randian extreme libertarianism is a cultural doorstop for communism in its effort to deconstruct social bonds. Traditional American libertarianism is the same stuff that anyone has found on any frontier. Where governments don’t exist but hostiles do, there will be few people to enforce laws. Much of America is still a type of frontier. Too much coastal dwelling distorts that reality in the minds of non-critical thinkers and researchers.

    My point about American conservatives was proved recently in Wisconsin.

    Aw.. you didn’t like that non-incels in Wisconsin bucked your sense of paranoia and will to politicized authoritarianism and went out and socialized. Poor you. I guess you’ll have to deal with the idea of attractive people getting laid, once again.

    So, let’s not phrase this as poor little small businesses wanting to feed their families because patrons greatly outnumbered proprietors.

    What? Restructure your thought and revisit this when you can communicate what you are trying to say. Or, if I adequately sumamarized it above, just leave this be. We get it. Other people are getting laid.

    Even before the stay-at-home orders were enacted, conservatives were busy embracing every imaginable conspiracy theory as justification for doing nothing.

    More conceptually unintelligible gibberish.

    It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute;

    Conservatives don’t mind some social spending or some taxes when it benefits their tribe. In this nation, both things are problematic because certain contingents or insular tribes will import and promote dysfunctional elements to financially drain and weaken their perceived competitors: like the good Swedes of Wisconsin. When and where these destroying tribes exist, it is always possible that no amount of social spending and taxes will be enough. Both will be ever increased until society is under a heavy yoke of those out to exploit or destroy it. Therefore, rational people seek to limit both with room for error. Case in point. Conservatives both pay for social spending and taxes, but here you are complaining that they do not. Conservatives press hard against social spending and taxes to prevent the advance of the efforts of people like yourself.

    it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary. For libertarian conservatives, this is mostly about the maintenance of their creature comforts. A lost grilling season might as well be an apocalypse.

    There is no such thing as a “libertarian conservative”. These are opposing concepts. Think and learn more about deeper history and how political groups function, at the political power core, before announcing wrong concepts that you pulled from Jews.

    I’m much younger than many who post here.

    No kidding.

    A test wasn’t available then, and I was concerned that if I left my apartment and went out to the hospital, I might end up inadvertently spreading the ailment around. So what did I do? Go out and get drunk because I’m young? Storm a capitol building with an AR-15? Call Rush Limbaugh and claim I had “just the flu, bro?”

    In order for the above comparison to work, your failed scold necessarily assumes that the people who went out and drank and protested hung around Chinese and/or got sick as you did. Its likely they did neither. The economy can’t be turned off in perpetuity due to your lifestyle choices. Which, contrary to the logic of your false moral pedestal, is the moral perspective. Try making better choices.

    No. I took some time off and stayed in my apartment, completely isolated from the outside world for about a week. There is a good chance I prevented an even larger, earlier outbreak in my area (this was very early in the seeding process). At the very least, I didn’t make it any worse by going around infecting other people. I was willing to do that even without confirmation that I had it. I made an assumption and put in just a little consideration for others. In my personal life, I am the kind of person American conservatives always claimed to be but never were.

    Aren’t you the good boi. Though, the large pat on your own back removes every last bit of class from the effort. Its effort to contrast yourself with conservatives is also in vain.

    There are millions of conservatives staying home, dealing with more responsibility than you’ve dreamed of, and contributing more than you have designs to do. Plenty are completely sober people. Plenty are dealing with sick or elderly family members, every day. Plenty have a world more humility and sociopolitical knowledge than do you.

    Liberals who have the financial ability to not go into work and not care are not society’s template for the golden contributor. They are largely over-privileged political schemers who can’t read statistics and lack the ability to think about and empathize with the deeper ramifications of this shutdown.

    Liberals are largely destroyers of social bonds. Again, see Marxism. Economic bonds are politically false. When liberals can get away with it, they excessively highlight themselves as performing the opposite function. As you do here.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  66. @Sgt. Joe Friday

    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.
     
    I get your point, bu I think they're OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn't socialism, but isn't free enterprise either. Politically I think what they want is a left wing police state with a pretend opposition and faux elections where the outcome is known before the first vote is even cast. And they're a lot closer to achieving that than most people realize.

    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.

    I get your point, bu I think they’re OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn’t socialism, but isn’t free enterprise either.

    I agree. The last thing the present-day Left wants is actual socialism.

  67. @Mr. Rational

    A lot of people are missing the point. The idea behind closing bars and restaurants is not to stop you from getting the virus. It’s to stop you from infecting other people with it. It’s to stop you from infringing other people’s right to live.
     
    The mistake you're making is that the hypothetical victims have agency too.  They can choose to visit or avoid bars and restaurants.  The only people who do not have agency in this matter are ones like prisoners, hospital patients and nursing home residents.  They could be protected by far less coercive and damaging measures, like D3 and zinc supplementation and the same plus HCQ prophylaxis for staff.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it's obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.  They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that's necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.  The lack of widespread antibody testing is of a piece with this; instead of telling us who's already immune and is neither at risk nor a threat, they're locked down too.  These policies are obviously not mistakes, they are chosen for their effects.  The people responsible for them should be held criminally liable.

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it’s obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.

    At this point in time that’s almost certainly true.

    They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that’s necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity. It’s become an article of faith for right-wingers but they believe in it with the same missionary zeal with which their opponents cling to their faith in lockdowns. Coronaviruses seem to be tricky little beasties when it comes to immunity.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science. That holds true for people on both sides of the debate. It’s like global warming. Nobody cares about the science. It’s all ideology.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity.
     
    Either we can achieve it, or we can't.  If we can't, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science.
     
    What I'm reading is that the "re-infections" were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.  It's simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.  One way to fix this problem would be to pay people to take a dose of the virus, wait until the first symptoms appear, and then tamp the infection down hard using that treatment; they'd then be clear to resume their lives.  Confirming that the process produces antibodies would only take about a month if we had the study ready to go.  We could have been unlocked by now had this been done, but it appears that big-money vaccine interests (coughBill Gatescough) are holding out for their own purposes.
  68. @Almost Missouri
    This is more a caricature of conservatives than reality. You wrote too much to respond to epigrammatically, but I'll try.

    "John Kennedy’s famous exhortation to consider what you can do for your country over yourself."
     
    Which was itself just a softer version of Mussolini...

    "they’ve shown absolutely zero concern for their wider community during this pandemic"
     
    Nonsense. The primary victims of the pandemic have been those laid off and bankrupted by the lockdown. It has been conservatives—and only conservatives—who have shown concern for them. It has been the Left who wants to maximize this damage to improve their electoral prospects come November, so the reality is it is only conservatives showing concern for the wider community.

    "These rootless"
     
    Lol.

    "Thus, every cultural disaster of the last 60 years."
     
    It's true that conservatives have lost almost every cultural battle, and that's obviously not a point in their favor. But as General George Pickett replied whenever he was indignantly demanded to explain why the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

    In other words, conservatives' opponents are numerous, vastly financed, holding all the media chokepoints, and pandering to man's basest—and strongest—instincts. Overcoming that crowd is a tall order for anyone.

    Absolving the winners of any responsibility while blaming the losers for "cultural disaster" is a bizarre inversion of moral philosophy: "you didn't fight hard enough to prevent us from doing the wrong thing!" What about those who fought to make us do the wrong thing in the first place? Didn't they have a role?


    "It’s the same reason why they hate social spending and taxes: they don’t want to contribute"
     
    No, objective measures always show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. Confiscation ("taxes") to transfer money to destructive parasites is neither charitable nor compassionate.

    As your anecdote about your possible COVID infection shows, you agree with this. When confronted with a parasitical viral infection, you didn't support, subsidize and spread it (liberalism), you isolated it, confined yourself and eliminated it (conservatism).


    "it’s as simple as that, regardless of whatever convoluted justification they may give to the contrary"
     
    As just described, the conservative response is the simple one. What's convoluted is the liberal Rube Goldberg explanation of how subsidizing Wall Street, foreign parasites, and home-grown grifters amounts to any benefit. What is even more convoluted is the (liberal-created) Rube Goldberg machine that actually does this.

    "what’s best for the greater community and society (my ethnic / temperamental community specifically, not a multicultural imperial mess)."
     
    ... yeah ...

    "Japan, South Korea, and China are the nations of the future for exactly that reason."
     
    ... right ...

    "These countries are all group, family and culturally oriented. As a result, the problems those people have to deal with are much less than what any white male American will have to deal with in his life."
     
    ... agree ...

    "In Japanese dramas, you see only Japanese. Therefore, the ever present racial bickering over casting in the United States is absent."
     
    ... no sh*t, Sherlock ...

    "You can watch a movie there and not hate yourself."
     
    Would be nice, wouldn't it?

    "You’ll also notice the Japanese do an excellent job educating younger generations to respect their culture and families. In the West, the common trope involves a young person rebelling against his stingy, backwards parents to become cool and hip. In Japan, in contrast, the rebellious teen learns his father was right all along and that he should seek to emulate him, sometimes becoming a doctor or a scientist in order to better society."
     
    You said you're young, so this may shock you, but that used to be the case in Western societies too.

    Then something changed.

    (And it wasn't "conservatism".)


    "Study that country ask yourself if perhaps you might have been born in the wrong country."
     
    I don't know if it is possible to argue about having "been born in the wrong country" without getting metaphysical (which I am happy to do, but my experience is that no one else is), but it is possible to argue about when and how America (and the West in general) became the "wrong" country. It wasn't always thus.

    Even though we disagree on this, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and good-hearted person. Why not make a commenting handle and become a regular? Unlike most media platforms nowadays, there is no party line to adhere to at Unz, and disagreeing is more fun than agreeing anyhow.

    What’s “conservative” about calling JFK’s “ask not” speech “a softer version of Mussolini?”

    Sounds more like a libertarian opinion to me – not that modern “conservatism” has much distinction from libertarianism.

    Paleoconservatives like Buchanan, Kirk, Sobran or Francis would certainly consider your “Mussolini” slur objectionable and not at all in the tradition or spirit of their idea of conservatism.

    As for why conservatism loses, a team with an empty trophy case and a 50-year long losing streak can always point to the superiority of the opposition – kinda goes without saying. It’s a nice deflection from the question of why conservatives haven’t done better with so many chances and so many lines they’ve failed to hold.

    Conservatives have gone from Buckley’s stand athwart history to “The Conservative Case for Transgenderism” without slowing, much less stopping, any element of the liberal juggernaut of degenerate idiocy.

    There is only one interest and one constituency conservatism has served and protected over those 50 years – the one Pat, Russell, Joe & Sam warned us about. The powerless, oppressed minority you dare not name or they will destroy you.

    When National Review finally publishes “The Conservative Case for Abortion,” there will be nowhere left to hide from that truth.

  69. @Audacious Epigone
    By way of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights supersede any state or local laws. Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    Constitutional rights are balanced, one against the others, and if you have trouble seeing “the balance,” it’s just because you don’t know where to look for those balancing rights. They are in there and all it takes is a correctly composed Supreme Court to show you where they are. You are likely young enough to see it presented in grand style.

  70. @another anon
    Trump was for his whole long life lying to his family, his employees, his customers, his contractors and business partners, but he was speaking truth to you, because you are such special snowflake?

    Trump knows very well what he wants. He does not want money (no evidence that he had ever been a billionaire) or power (real power is hard work). He wants to be FAMOUS.

    Look at his business failures - the point was not to make profit, but to keep Trump's name in the news, to keep Trump's orange mug on TV screens and on glossy magazine covers. And they were extremely succesful from this point of view.

    And rubes like you gave him exactly what he wanted. You made his dreams real beyond his imagination.
    The whole world now knows Trump, the whole world talks about him, the whole world knows his ugly orange face.

    You can be proud.

    https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/694860/rtx341qy.jpg

    Nah, you look at everything too personally. I knew the guy’s a famous playboy, etc., but that was a factor in his favor, as I figured he could not be bribed or blackmailed by the Deep State so easily (as I figure is the case with the rest of them). No matter all that, he’s on the side of Americans. He just does not know how to have make a long-term strategy to get things (that real Americans wanted) done. He as easily-distractible as a house cat, and, as I wrote before, he picked the wrong people to delegate to.

    That said, who did you vote for in ’16, A.A.?

    • Replies: @128
    Are you mentally ill?
    , @128
    Trump is a worm of little or no integrity, I mean compare him to Trajan, Hadrian, or even Antoninus Pius. Or even Manuel Comnenus, Diocletian, or Justinian.
  71. @Sgt. Joe Friday

    The left wants to implement Socialism with a vengeance.
     
    I get your point, bu I think they're OK with the corrupt, symbiotic relationship between government and big business we currently have, which isn't socialism, but isn't free enterprise either. Politically I think what they want is a left wing police state with a pretend opposition and faux elections where the outcome is known before the first vote is even cast. And they're a lot closer to achieving that than most people realize.

    It’s basically the worst of both worlds, what the United States has: I’d like to think that this is something that dissident left and right wingers can agree on.

    Publicized costs, privatized gains, socialism for the connected, unrestrainted market mechanisms for the masses, all the incompetence and cost of zombie bureaucracies, all the short-term thinking and idiocy of MBA logic. It works for nobody, save our bipartisan political elites, their donors, and to a lesser extent, our bloated upper middle class, who exchange a shadow of plutocrat life for Darwinian competition in earning a spot in it.

    And the only reason it has gone on was America’s accumulated credit and power, unprecedented in world history, in the wake of the Cold War. Any other country would have undergone massive turmoil by this point with such a concerted battering of their social structures and finances.

  72. I worked with a Democrat who used this phrase: “it is not freedom!! it is FREE DOOM!!!

  73. @Achmed E. Newman
    Nah, you look at everything too personally. I knew the guy's a famous playboy, etc., but that was a factor in his favor, as I figured he could not be bribed or blackmailed by the Deep State so easily (as I figure is the case with the rest of them). No matter all that, he's on the side of Americans. He just does not know how to have make a long-term strategy to get things (that real Americans wanted) done. He as easily-distractible as a house cat, and, as I wrote before, he picked the wrong people to delegate to.

    That said, who did you vote for in '16, A.A.?

    Are you mentally ill?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Not in the least. Why do you ask? Do you need to borrow some medication?
  74. @Achmed E. Newman
    Nah, you look at everything too personally. I knew the guy's a famous playboy, etc., but that was a factor in his favor, as I figured he could not be bribed or blackmailed by the Deep State so easily (as I figure is the case with the rest of them). No matter all that, he's on the side of Americans. He just does not know how to have make a long-term strategy to get things (that real Americans wanted) done. He as easily-distractible as a house cat, and, as I wrote before, he picked the wrong people to delegate to.

    That said, who did you vote for in '16, A.A.?

    Trump is a worm of little or no integrity, I mean compare him to Trajan, Hadrian, or even Antoninus Pius. Or even Manuel Comnenus, Diocletian, or Justinian.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Why do I need to compare President Trump to these Romans? I just voted for the man based on his stance on the immigration invasion and the US warfare state. I'm not here to write a book about it.

    Whom did YOU vote for? I never got an answer from the last guy, queerly enough ...
  75. @Audacious Epigone
    By way of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights supersede any state or local laws. Forbidding peaceable assembly violates the first amendment.

    Mr. Epigone,

    From the 14th amendment equal protection clause:

    “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The first amendment is fundamentally a restriction upon Congress itself. These are not “privileges or immunities of citizens.” They are prohibitions upon a specific branch of government from doing a specific thing. You can argue all you want to about interpretation of it, and I admit my interpretation is not the one that is widely accepted. But that is what the text literally says.

    Just ask yourself this: would an alien, shown the document as written and not shown any evidence of the actual workings of American society, think that states could not make laws that violate freedom of assembly? To my mind, the protection is entirely in a “penumbra,” equivalent to a “right to privacy.”

    I would at the very least start saying that it “violates 14th amendment rights.” I could certainly see an argument that states are depriving people of liberty without due process of law. With respect, I dissent that the first amendment has anything to do with this.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Congress is mentioned because no one else had the power of creating law. The idea of a contemporary executive order--something that does not appear anywhere in the document--would've been out of the question. If Congress is forbidden from making it law, then it cannot be made law by any other entity, either.
  76. @James Bowery
    The Constitution provides for Declarations of War. There are plenty of precedents for limitations on what people consider "rights" during wartime. The reason you declare war is to clearly delimit peace vs war and thereby limit wartime. The reason the House declares war is to recognize the people have the power to place limits on their own rights and set the limits of wartime.

    Of course, the temptation of all government is to make war the de facto state, so as to gather power to itself. It is harder to do this when you have a Constitution that requires Declarations of War, but even that can be gotten around by being mealy mouthed about what it means to declare war and even what Constitutes war.

    So when Trump decided to use war rhetoric, no one took him seriously -- especially since there was no Declaration of War (necessarily containing the criterion for exiting that state).

    Then there is the fact that the House is now controlled by people hysterically opposed to granting Trump power, and since the President is the Commander In Chief exercising War Powers...

    Yet, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the federal constitution permit the state to suspend natural rights during war.

    The precedents of which your write are nothing but the tyrant’s creation and the slave’s creed.

  77. Laughing . . .

    when I worked with a training company we had a saying

    “safety first”

    because in our training courses one could get you hurt if you were not careful, even wit both feet on the ground — group cooperation were required.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yep, I see lots of company shirts with those sorts of messages on them.
  78. And I would add that the relationship between the two are not by definition a this or a that. In fact, the previous thread on belief in a divine introduces the christian paradigm that freedom does not exist if one one is a salve to the flesh — that in fact freedom is bound to slavery in Christ.

    —————————-

    And in the case of governments, it may be that those most vulnerable to the forces of power in a supposed “free system” recognize the equity of equal bindings on everyone, thereby restraining or constraining the arbitrary use of power to their disadvantage.

    The founders were declaring freedom while at the same time enslaving.

  79. @dfordoom

    Given that the hospitals are largely empty, it’s obvious that the lockdowns are doing far more harm than good.
     
    At this point in time that's almost certainly true.

    They are interfering with the acquisition of herd immunity that’s necessary to end the threat of mass outbreaks.
     
    I'm sceptical of herd immunity. It's become an article of faith for right-wingers but they believe in it with the same missionary zeal with which their opponents cling to their faith in lockdowns. Coronaviruses seem to be tricky little beasties when it comes to immunity.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science. That holds true for people on both sides of the debate. It's like global warming. Nobody cares about the science. It's all ideology.

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity.

    Either we can achieve it, or we can’t.  If we can’t, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science.

    What I’m reading is that the “re-infections” were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.  It’s simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.  One way to fix this problem would be to pay people to take a dose of the virus, wait until the first symptoms appear, and then tamp the infection down hard using that treatment; they’d then be clear to resume their lives.  Confirming that the process produces antibodies would only take about a month if we had the study ready to go.  We could have been unlocked by now had this been done, but it appears that big-money vaccine interests (coughBill Gatescough) are holding out for their own purposes.

    • Replies: @res

    What I’m reading is that the “re-infections” were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.
     
    That seems likely. Another possibility is that re-infection can happen in a small percentage of cases (say 1%). That would not really matter for attaining herd immunity, but it would matter for decisions which require "certifying" people as recovered, immune, and unable to infect others.

    It is hard evaluating possibilities which have prevalences on the order of the test error rates.

    It’s simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.
     
    Do you have any thoughts on the idea that non-homogeneity (of both social connectivity and disease susceptibility) may decrease the herd immunity threshold? More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3899765

    Also worth thinking about the likelihood of overshooting the HI threshold. More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3901493
    , @Toronto Russian

    Either we can achieve it, or we can’t. If we can’t, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.
     
    Get sick in February, nobody knows what to do and your immune system is left to fend for itself. Get sick after late April, there are authorized effective drugs. In my home country, they prescribe 3 at once to Covid patients (including the local variant of that anti-malarial). As I just checked, at least 8 found by scientists in different countries. Progress has been extremely fast; getting more people alive and well to the point when it acheived significant results (which came really, really soon) was as good purpose as any.

    And past that point, with some inevitable inertia of bureaucracy and politicians' overcaution (a thought of having a Bergamo apocalypse in their electoral area probably scared the hell out of them) lockdowns began to be lifted everywhere, as should be done. Countless 'essential' small shops stayed open here and didn't become plagued (now there's gathered evidence on what actually does and what doesn't), so other shops structured just like them won't either.

    , @dfordoom

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.
     
    Supposedly is the operative word. I'll get excited about such treatments when we can say that we have a cheap treatment that is definitely proven to be highly effective.

    I'll also feel more confident about herd immunity if you can tell me exactly how long immunity lasts and how complete it is.

    I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc really is a miracle cure and maybe herd immunity will work. I hope so.

    I hope so because I'm thoroughly sick of the lockdowns as well. And I think the economic carnage is likely to be very nasty. I also think that for the next few years life is going to be a lot greyer, a lot more miserable and a lot more depressing.
  80. anon[405] • Disclaimer says:

    Assume a Pareto distribution in people’s preferences for liberty vs. security. Estimate that 80% of people prefer security, 20% prefer liberty. What does this suggest for a society, its polity, its politics?

    Add a level of complexity: discard the foolish assumption that men and women are the same, accept the fact that on average women are more risk averse than men. What does that suggest?

    Next level of complexity: human behavior is a combination of nature and nurture.

    The tradeoff between liberty and security is much more complicated than commonly explored in comment boxes, or in magazines, or in college courses. Yet it can be simple as well; Franklin’s quote still applies.

  81. res says:
    @Mr. Rational

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity.
     
    Either we can achieve it, or we can't.  If we can't, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science.
     
    What I'm reading is that the "re-infections" were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.  It's simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.  One way to fix this problem would be to pay people to take a dose of the virus, wait until the first symptoms appear, and then tamp the infection down hard using that treatment; they'd then be clear to resume their lives.  Confirming that the process produces antibodies would only take about a month if we had the study ready to go.  We could have been unlocked by now had this been done, but it appears that big-money vaccine interests (coughBill Gatescough) are holding out for their own purposes.

    What I’m reading is that the “re-infections” were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.

    That seems likely. Another possibility is that re-infection can happen in a small percentage of cases (say 1%). That would not really matter for attaining herd immunity, but it would matter for decisions which require “certifying” people as recovered, immune, and unable to infect others.

    It is hard evaluating possibilities which have prevalences on the order of the test error rates.

    It’s simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Do you have any thoughts on the idea that non-homogeneity (of both social connectivity and disease susceptibility) may decrease the herd immunity threshold? More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3899765

    Also worth thinking about the likelihood of overshooting the HI threshold. More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3901493

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Your mind and mine were going in the same direction, though I admit that I did not think about connectivity.  I wholly agree with this:

    I suspect the thing to do is combine moderate countermeasures to prevent overshoot along with an attempt to intentionally infect the least vulnerable and most highly connected to minimize the final HI threshold, final IFR, and overall fatality rate.
     
    On the other hand, if we have countermeasures to allow the deliberate induction of immunity (by the wild virus, not a vaccine) at minimal risk we could allow overshoot as it would do little or no harm.
  82. @128
    Trump is a worm of little or no integrity, I mean compare him to Trajan, Hadrian, or even Antoninus Pius. Or even Manuel Comnenus, Diocletian, or Justinian.

    Why do I need to compare President Trump to these Romans? I just voted for the man based on his stance on the immigration invasion and the US warfare state. I’m not here to write a book about it.

    Whom did YOU vote for? I never got an answer from the last guy, queerly enough …

  83. @128
    Are you mentally ill?

    Not in the least. Why do you ask? Do you need to borrow some medication?

  84. @res

    What I’m reading is that the “re-infections” were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.
     
    That seems likely. Another possibility is that re-infection can happen in a small percentage of cases (say 1%). That would not really matter for attaining herd immunity, but it would matter for decisions which require "certifying" people as recovered, immune, and unable to infect others.

    It is hard evaluating possibilities which have prevalences on the order of the test error rates.

    It’s simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.
     
    Do you have any thoughts on the idea that non-homogeneity (of both social connectivity and disease susceptibility) may decrease the herd immunity threshold? More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3899765

    Also worth thinking about the likelihood of overshooting the HI threshold. More at:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-exactly-is-herd-immunity-supposed-to-work/#comment-3901493

    Your mind and mine were going in the same direction, though I admit that I did not think about connectivity.  I wholly agree with this:

    I suspect the thing to do is combine moderate countermeasures to prevent overshoot along with an attempt to intentionally infect the least vulnerable and most highly connected to minimize the final HI threshold, final IFR, and overall fatality rate.

    On the other hand, if we have countermeasures to allow the deliberate induction of immunity (by the wild virus, not a vaccine) at minimal risk we could allow overshoot as it would do little or no harm.

  85. @Cloudbuster
    Hispanics have come to learn through inference that "constitutional rights" means "giving them stuff," so I presume what they really mean is they're upset that they're not being given even more free money from the government.

    If that were an opium den, it’d be a different story.

  86. @Alexander Turok

    It may be deemed necessary, but good luck getting it to square with the first amendment.
     
    Okay. What happens when a government refuses, says it's unable to, protect our natural rights? To quote the declaration of independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
     
    I've suggested a way to give these morons their freedumb back. Excerpt:

    You gain your liberty back; in exchange, you must recognize everyone else’s liberty with respect to your behavior. So that means if a business considers you a danger to their customers, they have the right to exclude from their premises. If you object to the government confining you to your home, how can you demand the government forcibly open the doors of someone’s business to you? If they don’t want to hire you, don’t want to serve you, want to segregate you within, or restrict you to special hours, you’ll respect their right to do so. Likewise, the medical system will have the right to move you to the back of the line for any medical treatment.
     
    https://alexanderturok.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/corona-my-liberty-restoration-plan/

    That sounds like freedom of association to me. I’m on board!

  87. @Achmed E. Newman
    I spent years voting for Libertarians, because I didn't support either wing of The Party. I knew Trump had no real principles, but I voted for him based on his positions on immigration and ending the warfare state. No, he does NOT know what he's doing at this point. He wasn't lying to us. He's just way too easily distracted and he delegated work to the wrong people.

    You go ahead and vote for the Blue Squad again. That'll fix things...

    One more thing: I told Ron Paul in person in early '12 that, "if you want to win [REDACTED - State], you need to talk about illegal immigration." I wish he'd have listened to me. I'm sure he does too.

    Ron Paul would rather be a principled loser than an unprincipled winner. It appeals to my heart if not to my head.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Principled is good. He wouldn't have had to drop any principles of his, were he to have listened to me and brought up illegal immigration during that primary campaign. He said back to me and the crowd that he was all for enforcing the law.

    Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is not one of the Reason magazine open-borders Libertarian idiots. I just don't think that he has ever fully understood that almost all of the foreigners that have come to America in the last 5 decades have not been the type that would ever vote for Ron Paul.

  88. @I Have Scinde
    Mr. Epigone,

    From the 14th amendment equal protection clause:

    "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The first amendment is fundamentally a restriction upon Congress itself. These are not "privileges or immunities of citizens." They are prohibitions upon a specific branch of government from doing a specific thing. You can argue all you want to about interpretation of it, and I admit my interpretation is not the one that is widely accepted. But that is what the text literally says.

    Just ask yourself this: would an alien, shown the document as written and not shown any evidence of the actual workings of American society, think that states could not make laws that violate freedom of assembly? To my mind, the protection is entirely in a "penumbra," equivalent to a "right to privacy."

    I would at the very least start saying that it "violates 14th amendment rights." I could certainly see an argument that states are depriving people of liberty without due process of law. With respect, I dissent that the first amendment has anything to do with this.

    Congress is mentioned because no one else had the power of creating law. The idea of a contemporary executive order–something that does not appear anywhere in the document–would’ve been out of the question. If Congress is forbidden from making it law, then it cannot be made law by any other entity, either.

  89. @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing . . .


    when I worked with a training company we had a saying

    "safety first"

    because in our training courses one could get you hurt if you were not careful, even wit both feet on the ground -- group cooperation were required.

    Yep, I see lots of company shirts with those sorts of messages on them.

  90. @Audacious Epigone
    Ron Paul would rather be a principled loser than an unprincipled winner. It appeals to my heart if not to my head.

    Principled is good. He wouldn’t have had to drop any principles of his, were he to have listened to me and brought up illegal immigration during that primary campaign. He said back to me and the crowd that he was all for enforcing the law.

    Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is not one of the Reason magazine open-borders Libertarian idiots. I just don’t think that he has ever fully understood that almost all of the foreigners that have come to America in the last 5 decades have not been the type that would ever vote for Ron Paul.

  91. @Mr. Rational

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity.
     
    Either we can achieve it, or we can't.  If we can't, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science.
     
    What I'm reading is that the "re-infections" were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.  It's simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.  One way to fix this problem would be to pay people to take a dose of the virus, wait until the first symptoms appear, and then tamp the infection down hard using that treatment; they'd then be clear to resume their lives.  Confirming that the process produces antibodies would only take about a month if we had the study ready to go.  We could have been unlocked by now had this been done, but it appears that big-money vaccine interests (coughBill Gatescough) are holding out for their own purposes.

    Either we can achieve it, or we can’t. If we can’t, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    Get sick in February, nobody knows what to do and your immune system is left to fend for itself. Get sick after late April, there are authorized effective drugs. In my home country, they prescribe 3 at once to Covid patients (including the local variant of that anti-malarial). As I just checked, at least 8 found by scientists in different countries. Progress has been extremely fast; getting more people alive and well to the point when it acheived significant results (which came really, really soon) was as good purpose as any.

    And past that point, with some inevitable inertia of bureaucracy and politicians’ overcaution (a thought of having a Bergamo apocalypse in their electoral area probably scared the hell out of them) lockdowns began to be lifted everywhere, as should be done. Countless ‘essential’ small shops stayed open here and didn’t become plagued (now there’s gathered evidence on what actually does and what doesn’t), so other shops structured just like them won’t either.

  92. @Mr. Rational

    I’m sceptical of herd immunity.
     
    Either we can achieve it, or we can't.  If we can't, the lockdown is merely delaying the inevitable and is destructive for no purpose.

    This is what really worries me. The beliefs that people hold on the subject of COVID-19 seem to be motivated by ideology rather than science.
     
    What I'm reading is that the "re-infections" were actually cases of false positive antibody tests, so it is confirmed that once someone has recovered from infection they are immune.  It's simple logic that if we get to 2/3 immune, R0 falls from ~3 to ~1 and mass outbreaks become more or less impossible.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.  One way to fix this problem would be to pay people to take a dose of the virus, wait until the first symptoms appear, and then tamp the infection down hard using that treatment; they'd then be clear to resume their lives.  Confirming that the process produces antibodies would only take about a month if we had the study ready to go.  We could have been unlocked by now had this been done, but it appears that big-money vaccine interests (coughBill Gatescough) are holding out for their own purposes.

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.

    Supposedly is the operative word. I’ll get excited about such treatments when we can say that we have a cheap treatment that is definitely proven to be highly effective.

    I’ll also feel more confident about herd immunity if you can tell me exactly how long immunity lasts and how complete it is.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong. Maybe hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc really is a miracle cure and maybe herd immunity will work. I hope so.

    I hope so because I’m thoroughly sick of the lockdowns as well. And I think the economic carnage is likely to be very nasty. I also think that for the next few years life is going to be a lot greyer, a lot more miserable and a lot more depressing.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Supposedly is the operative word.
     
    Well, we've got none other than Pres. DJT saying he's using HCQ for prophylaxis, so it's not like it doesn't have celebrity endorsement.

    I’ll get excited about such treatments when we can say that we have a cheap treatment that is definitely proven to be highly effective.
     
    Keep in mind that there are a number of very powerful interests who do NOT want any cheap, effective treatments to be acknowledged because they are trying to profit from their own expensive treatments or trying to destroy the economy for electoral advantage.  They will do their best to block any effort to prove such treatments work.
  93. @dfordoom

    Supposedly we have a cheap highly effective treatment in the form of hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc.
     
    Supposedly is the operative word. I'll get excited about such treatments when we can say that we have a cheap treatment that is definitely proven to be highly effective.

    I'll also feel more confident about herd immunity if you can tell me exactly how long immunity lasts and how complete it is.

    I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe hydrochloroquine, amoxicillin, vitamin D3 and zinc really is a miracle cure and maybe herd immunity will work. I hope so.

    I hope so because I'm thoroughly sick of the lockdowns as well. And I think the economic carnage is likely to be very nasty. I also think that for the next few years life is going to be a lot greyer, a lot more miserable and a lot more depressing.

    Supposedly is the operative word.

    Well, we’ve got none other than Pres. DJT saying he’s using HCQ for prophylaxis, so it’s not like it doesn’t have celebrity endorsement.

    I’ll get excited about such treatments when we can say that we have a cheap treatment that is definitely proven to be highly effective.

    Keep in mind that there are a number of very powerful interests who do NOT want any cheap, effective treatments to be acknowledged because they are trying to profit from their own expensive treatments or trying to destroy the economy for electoral advantage.  They will do their best to block any effort to prove such treatments work.

  94. @Observator
    In our system, state and local authorities have the kinds of authority to deal as necessary with public health emergencies. Such measures may include the temporary suspension of activities normally constitutionally protected, but only temporarily and only at the local level as required for public safety.

    The DOJ's recent claim that the federal government may assume such authority in emergencies is out of line, according to Nancy Gertner, senior lecturer on law at Harvard and a retired federal judge, who told a reporter for the Harvard Gazette,“The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.” The article is online at the Harvard Gazette's March 2020 archive under "new restrictions on civil liberties".

    One of her colleagues at Harvard Law states, interestingly, that no business could likely succeed in demanding governmental compensation for lost revenue due to mandatory shutdown orders, as circumstances, not the government, created the emergency. This is also in the Gazette piece.

    “The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.”

    Wow, I kinda agree with Harvard for once.

    The US Supreme Court has long backed states (not the Federal government) taking strong measures in health emergencies, which is what has been happening with the corona-lockdown: states, not Feds, are making the actual restrictions. Feds are just giving “guidelines”. States often trumpet “Federal Guidelines” to give themselves rhetorical cover for their own actions, but the laws are state laws.

    Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):

    “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint” [that you gotta accept the state’s smallpox vaccine]*

    O-W R&N v. Washington (1926):

    “it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants”

    OTOH, most of this jurisprudence predates the (somewhat a-constitutional) Incorporation Doctrine jurisprudence, which only got around to “incorporating” freedom of assembly in 1937 (DeJonge v. Oregon), so there is an argument to be made that the state’s power to coerce you in the name of health went extinct along with all the other state powers that have fallen before the preternaturally mighty Fourteenth Amendment. But no one’s made this argument to an actual court, that I’m aware of.

    (Amusingly, the only anti-lockdown suit I know of that managed to get fast-tracked through to a US court was …
    … wait for it …
    … a suit for …
    on-demand abortion.
    Because of course. That’s the most important constitutional question of the last three months. /sarc
    (The Fifth Circuit slapped it down.))

    *A side note of this case was that only eleven of 48 states bothered with mandatory smallpox vaccinations, so in retrospect, whatever it was that ended smallpox in America, it wasn’t mandatory vaccinations. There’s the real “Laboratories of Democracy” for you!

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don't give a rat's behind about the legal justifications. I'm not even an anti-vaxxer. It's the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    ETA: The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.

  95. @Almost Missouri

    “The premise for any quarantine would be a public health emergency, and the limits of that aren’t clear. Clearly, state and local governments have the authority to declare an emergency and take steps to mitigate that. The federal government has more limited powers, but it can address transportation between the states and international travel.”
     
    Wow, I kinda agree with Harvard for once.

    The US Supreme Court has long backed states (not the Federal government) taking strong measures in health emergencies, which is what has been happening with the corona-lockdown: states, not Feds, are making the actual restrictions. Feds are just giving "guidelines". States often trumpet "Federal Guidelines" to give themselves rhetorical cover for their own actions, but the laws are state laws.

    Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):


    "the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint" [that you gotta accept the state's smallpox vaccine]*
     
    O-W R&N v. Washington (1926):

    "it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants"
     
    OTOH, most of this jurisprudence predates the (somewhat a-constitutional) Incorporation Doctrine jurisprudence, which only got around to "incorporating" freedom of assembly in 1937 (
    DeJonge v. Oregon), so there is an argument to be made that the state's power to coerce you in the name of health went extinct along with all the other state powers that have fallen before the preternaturally mighty Fourteenth Amendment. But no one's made this argument to an actual court, that I'm aware of.

    (Amusingly, the only anti-lockdown suit I know of that managed to get fast-tracked through to a US court was ...
    ... wait for it ...
    ... a suit for ...
    ... on-demand abortion.
    Because of course. That's the most important constitutional question of the last three months. /sarc
    (The Fifth Circuit slapped it down.))

    *A side note of this case was that only eleven of 48 states bothered with mandatory smallpox vaccinations, so in retrospect, whatever it was that ended smallpox in America, it wasn't mandatory vaccinations. There's the real "Laboratories of Democracy" for you!

    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don’t give a rat’s behind about the legal justifications. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer. It’s the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    ETA: The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you, Cloudbuster and all the rest of the commenters here who intelligently discuss the limits to Federal and State executive powers and "muh Constitution" (derided in this way by idiots on all sides of the political spectrum). I agree with you on Amendment XIV, one of all of them being discussed in Peak Stupidity's Morning Constitutional topic key. # 14 was a big f__k-up.
    , @dfordoom

    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don’t give a rat’s behind about the legal justifications. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer.
     
    How many people do you think will be willing to fight and die to avoid being vaccinated?

    It’s the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.
     
    What happens if it's a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so? Should people be happy to die for the sake of preserving the liberties of a few?

    I think you'll find that when it's a matter of life or death most people won't give a rat's about a minority bleating about muh freedoms.

    It's not a matter of a few keyboard warriors claiming they're prepared to fight or die. Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people's children.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for"
     
    It may well come to that someday. In the meantime, it's helpful if the Supreme Court agrees with you.

    (BTW, are you willing to fight and die for antivax?)

    "The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution."
     
    And, I would add, probably illegally ratified. Despite all that, for at least two generations everyone understood exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was: the enfranchisement of former slaves. And the Amendment did more or less what it was supposed to do and no more than that. Then, after everyone originally involved with it was dead, it suddenly took on a new extra-constitutional life in the twentieth century, reaching out in every direction across the jurisprudential landscape and reordering the entire law of the land. It was only then that it became the chaotic monster we know and resent.

    Still, one of the asymmetries of politics is that while leftist judges brazenly conjure up whatever new law they want, conservative justices are disinclined to remove even obviously deleterious law if it is well enough established (stare decisis), and the Fourteenth's 150 year history gives it that pedigree in spades. So as the 14th and its bastard stepchildren are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, we should at least get them to work for us. This was already done, for example, with the Heller and McDonald decisions (though NYC is somehow still evading them).
  96. @Sir Isaac Newton
    Well-written, interesting comments. Good music video, too.

    Clarification: I think there were two music videos; I meant the one with Band-Maid.

  97. @Cloudbuster
    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don't give a rat's behind about the legal justifications. I'm not even an anti-vaxxer. It's the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    ETA: The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.

    Thank you, Cloudbuster and all the rest of the commenters here who intelligently discuss the limits to Federal and State executive powers and “muh Constitution” (derided in this way by idiots on all sides of the political spectrum). I agree with you on Amendment XIV, one of all of them being discussed in Peak Stupidity‘s Morning Constitutional topic key. # 14 was a big f__k-up.

  98. @Cloudbuster
    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don't give a rat's behind about the legal justifications. I'm not even an anti-vaxxer. It's the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    ETA: The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.

    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don’t give a rat’s behind about the legal justifications. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer.

    How many people do you think will be willing to fight and die to avoid being vaccinated?

    It’s the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    What happens if it’s a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so? Should people be happy to die for the sake of preserving the liberties of a few?

    I think you’ll find that when it’s a matter of life or death most people won’t give a rat’s about a minority bleating about muh freedoms.

    It’s not a matter of a few keyboard warriors claiming they’re prepared to fight or die. Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.
     
    In this case, it appears that children (one's own and others) not only don't risk their lives from this virus, they appear not even to contract and spread it.

    I'm in the at-risk group here and still think the shutdown is grossly excessive.
    , @Cloudbuster
    What happens if it’s a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so?

    What's the threshold for "a necessary thing?" And who gets to pick it? Any single individual refusing to be vaccinated is an infinitesimal risk. And, generally, the public is completely persuadable about the value of vaccination: that's why it is so widespread in the US. 100% vaccination is not necessary, thus it will never be necessary to force 100% of the citizens to get vaccinated.

    If the vaccination rate is dropping too low, then the supporters of vaccination are doing a very poor job of persuading people of the rightness of their position. They should, in that case, try harder.

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.

    This always reminds me of one of my favorite Animal Farm quotations:

    “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

  99. @Cloudbuster
    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don't give a rat's behind about the legal justifications. I'm not even an anti-vaxxer. It's the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.

    ETA: The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.

    “Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for”

    It may well come to that someday. In the meantime, it’s helpful if the Supreme Court agrees with you.

    (BTW, are you willing to fight and die for antivax?)

    “The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution.”

    And, I would add, probably illegally ratified. Despite all that, for at least two generations everyone understood exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was: the enfranchisement of former slaves. And the Amendment did more or less what it was supposed to do and no more than that. Then, after everyone originally involved with it was dead, it suddenly took on a new extra-constitutional life in the twentieth century, reaching out in every direction across the jurisprudential landscape and reordering the entire law of the land. It was only then that it became the chaotic monster we know and resent.

    Still, one of the asymmetries of politics is that while leftist judges brazenly conjure up whatever new law they want, conservative justices are disinclined to remove even obviously deleterious law if it is well enough established (stare decisis), and the Fourteenth’s 150 year history gives it that pedigree in spades. So as the 14th and its bastard stepchildren are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, we should at least get them to work for us. This was already done, for example, with the Heller and McDonald decisions (though NYC is somehow still evading them).

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    (BTW, are you willing to fight and die for antivax?)

    I mentioned above, I am not antivax. I am willing to fight and die for the right to be persuaded. In a free country, you don't force people to do the right thing, you persuade them to do the right thing. The risk that they might choose wrongly is part of living in a free country.
  100. @dfordoom

    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don’t give a rat’s behind about the legal justifications. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer.
     
    How many people do you think will be willing to fight and die to avoid being vaccinated?

    It’s the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.
     
    What happens if it's a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so? Should people be happy to die for the sake of preserving the liberties of a few?

    I think you'll find that when it's a matter of life or death most people won't give a rat's about a minority bleating about muh freedoms.

    It's not a matter of a few keyboard warriors claiming they're prepared to fight or die. Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people's children.

    Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.

    In this case, it appears that children (one’s own and others) not only don’t risk their lives from this virus, they appear not even to contract and spread it.

    I’m in the at-risk group here and still think the shutdown is grossly excessive.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.
     
    In this case, it appears that children (one’s own and others) not only don’t risk their lives from this virus, they appear not even to contract and spread it.
     
    I was speaking in general terms, about balancing freedoms and risks to others.

    I’m in the at-risk group here and still think the shutdown is grossly excessive.
     
    The real point is that it's possible that the New Zealand option (go for elimination which means you endure short-term pain but then it's over) might turn out to be less economically damaging than herd immunity (which seems likely to involve very long-term economic pain and is highly likely to fail).

    And if the majority of people decide they're not prepared to accept the risks of herd immunity then you'll have a major problem.

    Speaking in general terms, do you think a minority has the right to impose risks on the majority if the majority has decided that it is not prepared to have those risks imposed on them? It seems to me that it's one thing to choose to play Russian roulette with one's own life but it's quite another to choose to play Russian roulette with other people's lives.

    It is an extremely difficult problem because nobody knows for sure if herd immunity is possible, nobody knows for sure if a vaccine is possible (it seems fairly unlikely), nobody know for sure if the virus will mutate into less lethal forms and nobody knows for sure if the outbreaks will just burn out on their own.

    Given all that uncertainty I think New Zealand made the wise choice. Countries like the US and Britain made a mess of things by not acting quickly and now they're left without good options, just a choice of not-very-good options. Sweden chose to gamble and we don't know yet if they're going to get away with it. So far New Zealand looks like it's in a much better position than Sweden. Put it this way, right now I'd prefer to be in New Zealand than Sweden.

    The problem is that we won't know for quite some time who is right and by that time we could either have a lot of dead people or an economy in ruins, or possibly both.
  101. @Mr. Rational

    Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.
     
    In this case, it appears that children (one's own and others) not only don't risk their lives from this virus, they appear not even to contract and spread it.

    I'm in the at-risk group here and still think the shutdown is grossly excessive.

    Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people’s children.

    In this case, it appears that children (one’s own and others) not only don’t risk their lives from this virus, they appear not even to contract and spread it.

    I was speaking in general terms, about balancing freedoms and risks to others.

    I’m in the at-risk group here and still think the shutdown is grossly excessive.

    The real point is that it’s possible that the New Zealand option (go for elimination which means you endure short-term pain but then it’s over) might turn out to be less economically damaging than herd immunity (which seems likely to involve very long-term economic pain and is highly likely to fail).

    And if the majority of people decide they’re not prepared to accept the risks of herd immunity then you’ll have a major problem.

    Speaking in general terms, do you think a minority has the right to impose risks on the majority if the majority has decided that it is not prepared to have those risks imposed on them? It seems to me that it’s one thing to choose to play Russian roulette with one’s own life but it’s quite another to choose to play Russian roulette with other people’s lives.

    It is an extremely difficult problem because nobody knows for sure if herd immunity is possible, nobody knows for sure if a vaccine is possible (it seems fairly unlikely), nobody know for sure if the virus will mutate into less lethal forms and nobody knows for sure if the outbreaks will just burn out on their own.

    Given all that uncertainty I think New Zealand made the wise choice. Countries like the US and Britain made a mess of things by not acting quickly and now they’re left without good options, just a choice of not-very-good options. Sweden chose to gamble and we don’t know yet if they’re going to get away with it. So far New Zealand looks like it’s in a much better position than Sweden. Put it this way, right now I’d prefer to be in New Zealand than Sweden.

    The problem is that we won’t know for quite some time who is right and by that time we could either have a lot of dead people or an economy in ruins, or possibly both.

  102. ” I see lots of company shirts with those sorts of messages on them.’

    It was an experiential training organization that included some dicey rope courses high ad low, rock climbing . . . and an asundary of set-ups that could get you killed if one wasn’t careful. One of the best positions I ever had. I opted out when they moved to Mexico, that was disappointing — solid crew and knowledgeable about business structuration, management, leadership — I learned a lot by listening to people at all levels of business as they shared their experiences.

    I wonder about how they are faring now. Though if the site is in Mexico, which I understand is not in lock-down, they may be in good stead.

    ———————————-

    My view on the question of the lockdown is by the numbers. And those numbers should have been taken as they were. However trying to debate the counter factual of the road not taken is tough since it exists as current history. I can speculate, a have, but there are bot enough solid facts to say

    we should have done this as a matter of supportable course of action.

  103. @Almost Missouri

    "Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for"
     
    It may well come to that someday. In the meantime, it's helpful if the Supreme Court agrees with you.

    (BTW, are you willing to fight and die for antivax?)

    "The 14th amendment is a poorly-written monstrosity that takes a perfectly comprehensible heirarchy of powers and turns it into a stinking mobius strip of conflicting imperatives that renders senseless many of the assumptions enshrined in the original constitution."
     
    And, I would add, probably illegally ratified. Despite all that, for at least two generations everyone understood exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was: the enfranchisement of former slaves. And the Amendment did more or less what it was supposed to do and no more than that. Then, after everyone originally involved with it was dead, it suddenly took on a new extra-constitutional life in the twentieth century, reaching out in every direction across the jurisprudential landscape and reordering the entire law of the land. It was only then that it became the chaotic monster we know and resent.

    Still, one of the asymmetries of politics is that while leftist judges brazenly conjure up whatever new law they want, conservative justices are disinclined to remove even obviously deleterious law if it is well enough established (stare decisis), and the Fourteenth's 150 year history gives it that pedigree in spades. So as the 14th and its bastard stepchildren are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, we should at least get them to work for us. This was already done, for example, with the Heller and McDonald decisions (though NYC is somehow still evading them).

    (BTW, are you willing to fight and die for antivax?)

    I mentioned above, I am not antivax. I am willing to fight and die for the right to be persuaded. In a free country, you don’t force people to do the right thing, you persuade them to do the right thing. The risk that they might choose wrongly is part of living in a free country.

  104. @dfordoom

    Ultimately, you only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, regardless of what law and precedent say. Dragging people in and forcing them to get vaccines is, for me, a step too far, and I don’t give a rat’s behind about the legal justifications. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer.
     
    How many people do you think will be willing to fight and die to avoid being vaccinated?

    It’s the difference between being asked politely to do a good thing and being forced to do it at gunpoint.
     
    What happens if it's a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so? Should people be happy to die for the sake of preserving the liberties of a few?

    I think you'll find that when it's a matter of life or death most people won't give a rat's about a minority bleating about muh freedoms.

    It's not a matter of a few keyboard warriors claiming they're prepared to fight or die. Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will be prepared to allow a minority to risk the lives of other people, and the lives of other people's children.

    What happens if it’s a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so?

    What’s the threshold for “a necessary thing?” And who gets to pick it? Any single individual refusing to be vaccinated is an infinitesimal risk. And, generally, the public is completely persuadable about the value of vaccination: that’s why it is so widespread in the US. 100% vaccination is not necessary, thus it will never be necessary to force 100% of the citizens to get vaccinated.

    If the vaccination rate is dropping too low, then the supporters of vaccination are doing a very poor job of persuading people of the rightness of their position. They should, in that case, try harder.

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.

    This always reminds me of one of my favorite Animal Farm quotations:

    “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.
     
    Do you really believe that most people think that way?

    The history of the past few decades suggests that most people don't think the way libertarians think. People seem to want freedom, but only up to a point. They seem to value money and a comfortable life much more highly than they value freedom. They seem to value security much more highly than libertarians do.

    Whether those who wax lyrical about the joys of a free society are right or wrong doesn't really matter. What matters is whether the majority agrees with them. If most people prefer a balance between freedom and security and are prepared to accept limitations on freedom (limitations that may horrify libertarians) then there's not much that libertarians can do about it. If most people are not prepared to accept the risks that you think are worthwhile for the joys of living in a free society how exactly are you going to respond to that?

    If the muh freedoms crowd is only a small minority of the population (and hardcore libertarianism is a very minor fringe ideology) can they expect the majority to tolerate what that majority considers to be unacceptable risks, just to please that tiny libertarian minority?

    I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think that libertarians have lost the battle.
  105. @Cloudbuster
    What happens if it’s a necessary thing and it will only work if most people do it and a significant number refuse to do so?

    What's the threshold for "a necessary thing?" And who gets to pick it? Any single individual refusing to be vaccinated is an infinitesimal risk. And, generally, the public is completely persuadable about the value of vaccination: that's why it is so widespread in the US. 100% vaccination is not necessary, thus it will never be necessary to force 100% of the citizens to get vaccinated.

    If the vaccination rate is dropping too low, then the supporters of vaccination are doing a very poor job of persuading people of the rightness of their position. They should, in that case, try harder.

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.

    This always reminds me of one of my favorite Animal Farm quotations:

    “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.

    Do you really believe that most people think that way?

    The history of the past few decades suggests that most people don’t think the way libertarians think. People seem to want freedom, but only up to a point. They seem to value money and a comfortable life much more highly than they value freedom. They seem to value security much more highly than libertarians do.

    Whether those who wax lyrical about the joys of a free society are right or wrong doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether the majority agrees with them. If most people prefer a balance between freedom and security and are prepared to accept limitations on freedom (limitations that may horrify libertarians) then there’s not much that libertarians can do about it. If most people are not prepared to accept the risks that you think are worthwhile for the joys of living in a free society how exactly are you going to respond to that?

    If the muh freedoms crowd is only a small minority of the population (and hardcore libertarianism is a very minor fringe ideology) can they expect the majority to tolerate what that majority considers to be unacceptable risks, just to please that tiny libertarian minority?

    I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just think that libertarians have lost the battle.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    I'm not a libertarian.

    The society I am describing was the de facto US culture for most of its history.
  106. @dfordoom

    The attitude that people need to be forced to do the right thing is anathema to a free society.

    People have the right to be persuaded to do the right thing. In a free society, you have to assume that people deserve their freedom. The fact that some people will choose wrongly is part of the risk we assume for the benefit of living in a free society.
     
    Do you really believe that most people think that way?

    The history of the past few decades suggests that most people don't think the way libertarians think. People seem to want freedom, but only up to a point. They seem to value money and a comfortable life much more highly than they value freedom. They seem to value security much more highly than libertarians do.

    Whether those who wax lyrical about the joys of a free society are right or wrong doesn't really matter. What matters is whether the majority agrees with them. If most people prefer a balance between freedom and security and are prepared to accept limitations on freedom (limitations that may horrify libertarians) then there's not much that libertarians can do about it. If most people are not prepared to accept the risks that you think are worthwhile for the joys of living in a free society how exactly are you going to respond to that?

    If the muh freedoms crowd is only a small minority of the population (and hardcore libertarianism is a very minor fringe ideology) can they expect the majority to tolerate what that majority considers to be unacceptable risks, just to please that tiny libertarian minority?

    I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think that libertarians have lost the battle.

    I’m not a libertarian.

    The society I am describing was the de facto US culture for most of its history.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m not a libertarian.

    The society I am describing was the de facto US culture for most of its history.
     
    My point remains valid. People don't value freedom as much as you think they do, or as much as you think they ought to. And people value security a lot more than you think they do, or or a lot more than you think they ought to.

    Ordinary people are prepared to give up freedom in order to have security and they don't care if the Founding Fathers would have disapproved.

    The reason that what you describe is no longer the de facto US culture is because people weren't that keen on it.

    Freedom is an abstract thing. People don't care all that much about abstractions. They care about money. They care about personal safety. They care about those things because they seem a lot more real.

    Maybe people are wrong to think the way they do, but you have to work with the culture you've got. Not the culture of the pioneer days, or the Wild West, or the 1940s or the 1950s. The past is gone. In many ways it saddens me too, but it is gone.

    To most people freedom seems overrated.
  107. @Cloudbuster
    I'm not a libertarian.

    The society I am describing was the de facto US culture for most of its history.

    I’m not a libertarian.

    The society I am describing was the de facto US culture for most of its history.

    My point remains valid. People don’t value freedom as much as you think they do, or as much as you think they ought to. And people value security a lot more than you think they do, or or a lot more than you think they ought to.

    Ordinary people are prepared to give up freedom in order to have security and they don’t care if the Founding Fathers would have disapproved.

    The reason that what you describe is no longer the de facto US culture is because people weren’t that keen on it.

    Freedom is an abstract thing. People don’t care all that much about abstractions. They care about money. They care about personal safety. They care about those things because they seem a lot more real.

    Maybe people are wrong to think the way they do, but you have to work with the culture you’ve got. Not the culture of the pioneer days, or the Wild West, or the 1940s or the 1950s. The past is gone. In many ways it saddens me too, but it is gone.

    To most people freedom seems overrated.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS