12 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
poodie's avatar

Your decisions effect people besides you.

Expand full comment
Madjack's avatar

And just how far do you want to take that line of reasoning? I want maximal freedom and minimal governance/state.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Public health is a funny thing. That adage about the freedom of your fist ends at my nose seems apropos. On the other hand, if you are going to use authoritarian measures like quarantines, you need to make a good faith argument that the solutions actually solve something.

That's been the thing missing here. Not even being able to discuss it (generally) is hardly helping.

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

That's the rub, isn't it? If the public health "authorities" have been shown to be absolutely incompetent, let alone lying and wrong, then the "your decisions affect other people..." arguments tend to lose validity because NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR PUBLIC HEALTH. Fauci told the country that masks were not necessary...and then admitted he lied to preserve supplies for health care workers. A noble lie but a lie none the less. Credibility cost was/is huge. Ivermectin is just the latest example...

As I think Taibbi is arguing (acknowledging his focus on censorship and the exchange of ideas), if we lived in a society that respected its members as free and capable, we could discuss these issues and find solutions.

We don't live in a society that respects its members.

Expand full comment
Gnomon Pillar's avatar

A "society" is an organized collection of "its members." We live in a "nation" where the majority of its "members," accurately observed, might as well be chained to the basement radiator when their "freedom" is on the table for discussion.

These "members" are governed by an "elite" who act as benevolent but suspicious overseers, who believe this state of affairs is more than satisfactory. For these very same elites not only hold minimal respect for these "societal members," it's ever increasingly difficult for them to mask their contempt for the whole lot of'em.

Indeed, the "members," along with their "freedom," are easily and casually dismissed, and the "members" are assumed by the "elites" to be little more than a rabble of ignorant, superstitious, inflammatory dolts. More often than not, these elites are correct in this assumption.

Expand full comment
Oregoncharles's avatar

Yeah - but the PTB might not like those solutions.

Expand full comment
Oregoncharles's avatar

It's too bad our wonderful 2-Party BOTH cut the hell out of public health (or anything public) in the name of "neoliberalism". So, the rich get richer and the rest of us get sick.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I'll remind you that the government kept vilifying people like Typhoid Mary rather than curing the disease until the science caught up. The vaccines for Typhoid were not particularly effective and only the onset of common antibiotics around WWII caused it to recede into memory.

Two conclusions: first, public health is always about PR rather than results. Second, the things we are seeing during COVID have a long, long history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon#/media/File:Mallon-Mary_01.jpg

Expand full comment
Zenitram's avatar

Yea, the problem is obviously not spending MORE money on insert issue hereтАж ЁЯСМ

Expand full comment
Gnomon Pillar's avatar

What if you can't have it? Typical American: "lotta want," not a lotta "need." Why not relocate to Bougainville Island? There you'll encounter few state-directed medical strictures. In fact, you're unlikely to encounter very little organized medical treatment there. Maximal freedom, minimal governance. You're occupying the wrong outpost...

Expand full comment
Madjack's avatar

That sounds nice. Maybe IтАЩll retire there.

Expand full comment
Phisto Sobanii's avatar

No shit, Sherlock.

Who decides what I decide, if it isn't me?

Expand full comment
ErrorError