Ha! At the academy we had two professors of engineering, both had the same friggin name. Ones class was a nightmare to take… the other an easy A. We swore they worked it that way on purpose to make us even more miserable.
I expect she is the more banal sort of evil, that of the technocrat who is superior to all the lesser mortals and sees it as her duty to shepherd them because they can't be trusted to take care of themselves. Those sheep who will not stay with the herd or go where she sees fit are just the first to become mutton.
Our alien overlords are already here in other words. They come from our own stock, but see us as a lesser species to be dealt with as they see fit.
It is. Technocrats would not see benefit in mocking. They (we, who am I kidding, the technocratic comment above would be my explicit stance if I were ever given power - because people are dumb, duh) care about efficiency and do not trust others to act efficiently but don't care about flashy stances except insofar as they help.
On the other hand, there are many people who just want to flash their domination, who want to see those "below" writhe and kneel, regardless of efficiency, simply because it warms their hearts to feel their submission. Mr. Crawford seems to argue for the latter stance of that woman.
(There's some debate in who of the actual Nazis were of the former sort and who were of the latter sort.)
Yea, it was really small, although I think the peak has been recorded at something approaching 2% for the absolute most at risk. That's just off the top of my head, and of course it was much lower for the average healthy person depending on age group. I didn't want to parse out to that much detail; I figure at 1% or less there is no reason to make someone take a vaccine at all. Hell, at 10% IFR I would personally not worry much about it. Forcing a "vaccine" on people with a 99% chance of survival is already insane in my eyes.
I like the use of "vaccine" in quotes. Calling it a "vaccine" is an insult to all the real vaccines out there. Lumping anti-covid-jab people with anti-polio vax people was a dick move.
Yes, I am disgusted that they changed the definition of vaccine apparently just to make it apply to these shots. I am horrified that the medical establishment apparently just went along with it as well. Any time you see the definitions of words twist and change on a dime like that you can be sure there is villainy afoot.
At this point we might as well call acupuncturists "doctor." You know, if we just don't care about what things mean anymore.
Meh, it gave me the opportunity to move from an anti Covid jabber to an anti polio jabber as well. I’m personally thankful that my horizons were thusly broadened.
Forgiveness is a difficult and complex concept, since forgiveness can sometimes mean removing consequences AND restoring the relationship, while it can mean at other times restoring the relationship but keeping the consequences, and at still other times can be merely symbolic--"I ain't mad atcha" without there ever really being a threat of consequence or peril to the relationship. And sometimes severing a relationship IS the consequence that forgiveness would negate.
But here, I think the very nature of the relationship at issue (public servant vis a vis the public) requires that the relationship be severed. Public trust has been betrayed. "You had one job...." Heads need not roll in terms of prison sentences or monetary penalties (unless an existing criminal law was broken or there is a valid basis for liability under existing tort law), but heads need to roll in terms of the perpetrators being removed from public office to the extent they were responsible for these policies or stood by and watched them become instantiated. Their reputations as public leaders should take a commensurate dive. Withholding consequences for the ruling class is antithetical to a liberal democratic society. It is, in fact, the definition of corruption and cronyism.
In terms of public intellectuals and thought leaders and MSM figures and twitter blue checks, I do not know what the appropriate sentence is. I suspect the changes in their relative valuations in the marketplace of ideas (especially under the new Twitter regime) would be the most conservative place to start. Freedom of speech demands that vocal support for bad policies go unpunished, but the people voicing such support should see a drop in popularity and clout that is commensurate with how bad their ideas were. (I'm not saying this will happen, just that it's the ideal.)
In terms of the federal surveillance apparatus conspiring with/strongarming social media platforms into censorship, that traveshamockery should be investigated and prosecuted with extreme prejudice. Same goes for pharmaceutical companies tampering with political processess (IF that indeed occurred, which I am not informed enough to have an opinion on).
Agreed. I would add that forgiveness is largely about trust, and how that affects the future of a relationship. Sometimes one apologizes with such sincerity and contrition that it is clear that the realization of and regret over one's actions is sufficient punishment to ensure it will not happen again, with no further consequences necessary. Sometimes an apology might be sincere but trustworthiness needs to be proven before things can go back to before the incident. The injured party might even decide that the real mistake was trusting the other in the first place, and take responsibility for the issue themselves. And sometimes it is even enough to say that the outcome wasn't intentional, as in the case of a simple accident. (Although if that accident keeps happening, more severe apologies will be necessary!)
In terms of trust then, I would say we as a people should be taking this incident as proof that we could not trust those directly involved, and indeed should question our trust in the very institutions. We should take responsibility for that mistake and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
As you say, public trust has been betrayed, and the betrayers need to be punished, root and branch. The only real question is whether the institutions should even endure. Should we simply fire everyone at the CDC and hire new people, or just end the CDC as a group? It is merely the people, or is the very idea of a CDC prone to failure? I lean towards the latter, myself.
Well said. I don't know if it's a different aspect of the trust issue you have outlined, or a different issue entirely, but if the system is too corrupt, the public cannot accurately assess whether or where to put its trust, or recalibrate that assessment after a breach. Which is a huge problem.
Agreed, we are going to have a really hard time resettling on good norms on who or what to trust. That might be a good thing in some ways, as we clearly were negligent in judging trustworthiness, but there will be rough times ahead.
I don't recall Oster recommending amnesty for those who refused the shots, come to think of it. Strange how her amnesty only goes one way, protecting those who destroyed others, not making whole those who were destroyed. I wonder why?
I think you're being too kind here, Doc (which is simultaneously something I never thought you'd be and something I never thought I'd say). I think Oster and her ilk represent the heart and guts of the threat; vaporous media critters who supply deadly propaganda and then wash their hands of it at the first whiff of trouble. That she doesn't name those sins that should be forgiven is strategic, and proves that religion isn't actually the "last refuge of the scoundrel." There are even deeper, blacker sub-basements than that, and she's trying to wait out the storm in one of those. She knows what's coming, which makes her even more culpable than the garden-variety psycho IMO.
Well, I am a notorious softy. I would probably even piss on her if she was on fire.
And I had drank a lot of coffee that morning.
And no one was looking or talking to me at the time.
Including her.
Still, I think we should be careful to distinguish between the commutative justice violations and mere distributive/estimative justice violations here. To wit, Oster, despite being a cheerleader for the vile scum who forced their preferences on us all, herself just lied and told half truths along with saying a lot of bad things. That's not something I would be willing to hang someone for. Free speech and all. I think she should lose any and all good reputation, and frankly be shunned from polite society unless and until she issues a full and sincere apology, but that's about it. I wouldn't demand people exile her, although I would think a bit less of someone who invited her over to hang out.
I mainly want the full apology so that in the future, when she does again exactly what she said was a mistake she is sorry for we can point to it and say "NO!" possibly rubbing her nose in it afterwards.
Now, for those making the laws, the executive orders, the mandates, all those holding the guns and those who directed them against us I recommend the investigation, the trial, and the rope as appropriate. I would be ok with the ax, or perhaps lions if the rope is unavailable, or something more subtle like the electric chair. Possibly lethal injection for maximum irony. For those whose crimes do not quite warrant the death penalty, I would be in favor of at least a ban from all government office for life. (Frankly, if the R's win the House and Senate I will be disappointed if they didn't start impeaching and didn't stop till DC no longer has a rush hour traffic problem.)
No matter the outcome though, I think we need to make it very clear what was wrong, and what people will be punished for if they do it again. It isn't enough to say "Never again." We need to be very clear about "Never again, what?"
What if she provably took money for her propaganda efforts? FOIA requests have been showing quite a bit of that went on. Like I said to Guttermouth, I'm not in any headspace to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. Maybe social opprobrium will be the fair punishment for Oster in the end, but for now every media creature who lent support to these policies is a suspect in a criminal investigation. We need full audits.
While I find dishonest propaganda vile, I don't know that even taking money for it is exactly criminal. Assuming she took money, it is not illegal to do propaganda work for the government. (Maybe it should be, though, or illegal for government to solicit it.) You can't really punish for things said, unless she committed false witness... which maybe she did. People ought to shun her for her behavior, but I don't think we can justly force them to.
I get it. And I mostly agree. But this Atlantic article in particular gives me the shivers because of its naked appeal to the humanity it denied others. The crime wouldn't be in her speech, which is not a crime in any justice system worth the name. But there are many corpses here, and an obvious attempt to cover them up. Paid shills (if they can be proven to be so) must suffer a regular punitive consequence. Otherwise we're incentivizing being accessories to crime.
Yes, the appeal to humanity denied others is remarkably revolting. Makes you want to just smack the face that voices it.
You might have a good angle there in accessory to the crime for those who accepted money. There is almost certainly precedent out there for people being punished for egging on a murder or kidnapping, or lying to someone in a way that results in their imminent danger. Those would be a good starting place I suspect.
This is reminding me of those 'settlements out of court' where the company agrees to pay an award to the plaintiff, but does not admit culpability and wrongdoing, (minus the cash). I think that is the bottom line for those people -- note that is is an _amnesty_ they want not a _pardon_ -- they don't want to be forgiven, they want there to have been nothing to forgive in the first place.
I'm not settling for a plea bargain for the lesser charge of 'we made mistakes'. I'm charging them with 'we abused our power'.
That is an excellent point! I hadn't made that connection, but you are absolutely right. They want the matter to go away, not be concluded, because conclusion would require discovery and examination of what was done (to run with the legal example.)
That is definitely the metaphor to use, the settlement out of court instead of inquest and trial. The charge of abuse of power is absolutely necessary, although I admit I am at a loss as to who would have standing to bring that charge, and before what court. That suddenly seems like a big gap in the rule book.
Personally I think we have been too soft on crime. The new government we just elected on a 'do something about crime' ticket may want to do something about these sorts of crimes, too.
That's interesting... May the Lion of the North rise again to save us all!
Maybe it could be done as a huge conference, that "SURPRISE!" turns into a massive crimes against humanity trial. I would totally fly out to watch that!
She wasn't even saying they did anything wrong, they were just a little too enthusiastic. And I'm pretty sure she still thinks all the unjabbed and no-way-on-your-boosters-you-effing-liars are still dirty and backwards, and deserved what they brought upon themselves.
At least there is some cosmic justice in how fast those with jabs and boosters are dropping. It doesn't help those who innocently took them at their word, but it is something that the most aggressive at harming us harmed themselves just as much.
(Except for the ones at the top perhaps, but that's another matter.)
Hey man. I am curious how you square what I think are two kind of conflicting buckets of beliefs/mood affiliations, which I think you seem to more or less hold, with each other:
1. The kind of Caplanian/libertarian approach to economics, capitalism, and government overreach, which kind of aligns with parts of what could broadly be called the globalist/antinationalist agenda
2. The kind of anti-woke, maybe climate-skpetical, quasi-anti-elitist, pro-America, old-school cultural values that are part of the core of the nationalist/antiglobalist ethos
I guess you seem to have similar thoughts on many topics as me, and I have trouble "picking sides" given this suite of positions I seem to fall onto, as it were. Not that I need to pick sides, mind you--I just have trouble reconciling being pro-capitalism and free markets but anti- all the stupid and dirty stuff corporations seem to be up to these days, while also being kind of temperamentally aligned with the borderer/red-stater/don't tread on me crew while being against most of their nationalist tendencies and protectionist policy positions.
I want to be pro-capitalism, pro-immigration, and pro-USA without being pro-government, pro-union, pro-woke, pro-WEF, pro-Trump, and anti-market. Is this a pipe dream?
Anyway, maybe this is all nonsensical--if so, please disregard.
That's a good question, better than the essays I have been poking at. Let me take a few days, possibly the holiday, to write up a good answer there, because I think it really does approach some of the tension on the right about the role of gov, corporations, etc.
The really sort answer is that people should be left alone, and using coercion to make them do things is generally wrong (outside of the normal enforcement of non-aggression, blah blah). The trouble with globalists, corporations/NGOs leveraging gov. power, is that, at root, they seek to use power to control the lives of other people. I'd say the biggest problem with most political ideologies is that they don't take that seriously, instead adopting more of a "no power over me, but plenty over thee" approach.
But yea, let me noodle over that for a few days and really give it a good go, because it is a tricky needle to thread sometimes, and it will be long most likely.
If that idea is too much trouble, I'm sure at least a few other subscribers would echo my interest in a "best books of 2022" or "here are 10 books Doc recommends" post.
One 't' in Mathew. Two is the other author. We can't even distinguish by middle initial. It's a curse.
I even double checked by looking at the linked post's by line. Counting has never been my strong suit... :P
Ha! At the academy we had two professors of engineering, both had the same friggin name. Ones class was a nightmare to take… the other an easy A. We swore they worked it that way on purpose to make us even more miserable.
I relate to your pain.
"Of what are you guilty? Do you know the extent of what you have done, what you have advocated for and cheered on?"
My gut: She is not simply guilty, but some sort of Nazi monster who wants to mock people as they die.
I expect she is the more banal sort of evil, that of the technocrat who is superior to all the lesser mortals and sees it as her duty to shepherd them because they can't be trusted to take care of themselves. Those sheep who will not stay with the herd or go where she sees fit are just the first to become mutton.
Our alien overlords are already here in other words. They come from our own stock, but see us as a lesser species to be dealt with as they see fit.
Actually, thinking about it a little more, I am not sure what I described is all that different from what you described...
It is. Technocrats would not see benefit in mocking. They (we, who am I kidding, the technocratic comment above would be my explicit stance if I were ever given power - because people are dumb, duh) care about efficiency and do not trust others to act efficiently but don't care about flashy stances except insofar as they help.
On the other hand, there are many people who just want to flash their domination, who want to see those "below" writhe and kneel, regardless of efficiency, simply because it warms their hearts to feel their submission. Mr. Crawford seems to argue for the latter stance of that woman.
(There's some debate in who of the actual Nazis were of the former sort and who were of the latter sort.)
We've done this dance before. We've been doing it for a while.
https://guttermouth.substack.com/p/im-sorry-youre-an-asshole-part-1
Excellent essay.
"How about pushing vaccines on those with less than a 1% chance of death from COVID..."
Wasn't IFR even for even the most at-risk groups substantially less than 1%?
Yea, it was really small, although I think the peak has been recorded at something approaching 2% for the absolute most at risk. That's just off the top of my head, and of course it was much lower for the average healthy person depending on age group. I didn't want to parse out to that much detail; I figure at 1% or less there is no reason to make someone take a vaccine at all. Hell, at 10% IFR I would personally not worry much about it. Forcing a "vaccine" on people with a 99% chance of survival is already insane in my eyes.
I like the use of "vaccine" in quotes. Calling it a "vaccine" is an insult to all the real vaccines out there. Lumping anti-covid-jab people with anti-polio vax people was a dick move.
Yes, I am disgusted that they changed the definition of vaccine apparently just to make it apply to these shots. I am horrified that the medical establishment apparently just went along with it as well. Any time you see the definitions of words twist and change on a dime like that you can be sure there is villainy afoot.
At this point we might as well call acupuncturists "doctor." You know, if we just don't care about what things mean anymore.
I am the Queen of Prussia--I'm not sure why anyone would deny it.
Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, I hope! She had it going on!
"Safety" is another word that has been mangled beyond recognition in recent years.
Meh, it gave me the opportunity to move from an anti Covid jabber to an anti polio jabber as well. I’m personally thankful that my horizons were thusly broadened.
“You can’t question the science”…. “You can’t blame us for what we did back then because the science changed.”
No amnesty
Forgiveness is a difficult and complex concept, since forgiveness can sometimes mean removing consequences AND restoring the relationship, while it can mean at other times restoring the relationship but keeping the consequences, and at still other times can be merely symbolic--"I ain't mad atcha" without there ever really being a threat of consequence or peril to the relationship. And sometimes severing a relationship IS the consequence that forgiveness would negate.
But here, I think the very nature of the relationship at issue (public servant vis a vis the public) requires that the relationship be severed. Public trust has been betrayed. "You had one job...." Heads need not roll in terms of prison sentences or monetary penalties (unless an existing criminal law was broken or there is a valid basis for liability under existing tort law), but heads need to roll in terms of the perpetrators being removed from public office to the extent they were responsible for these policies or stood by and watched them become instantiated. Their reputations as public leaders should take a commensurate dive. Withholding consequences for the ruling class is antithetical to a liberal democratic society. It is, in fact, the definition of corruption and cronyism.
In terms of public intellectuals and thought leaders and MSM figures and twitter blue checks, I do not know what the appropriate sentence is. I suspect the changes in their relative valuations in the marketplace of ideas (especially under the new Twitter regime) would be the most conservative place to start. Freedom of speech demands that vocal support for bad policies go unpunished, but the people voicing such support should see a drop in popularity and clout that is commensurate with how bad their ideas were. (I'm not saying this will happen, just that it's the ideal.)
In terms of the federal surveillance apparatus conspiring with/strongarming social media platforms into censorship, that traveshamockery should be investigated and prosecuted with extreme prejudice. Same goes for pharmaceutical companies tampering with political processess (IF that indeed occurred, which I am not informed enough to have an opinion on).
Agreed. I would add that forgiveness is largely about trust, and how that affects the future of a relationship. Sometimes one apologizes with such sincerity and contrition that it is clear that the realization of and regret over one's actions is sufficient punishment to ensure it will not happen again, with no further consequences necessary. Sometimes an apology might be sincere but trustworthiness needs to be proven before things can go back to before the incident. The injured party might even decide that the real mistake was trusting the other in the first place, and take responsibility for the issue themselves. And sometimes it is even enough to say that the outcome wasn't intentional, as in the case of a simple accident. (Although if that accident keeps happening, more severe apologies will be necessary!)
In terms of trust then, I would say we as a people should be taking this incident as proof that we could not trust those directly involved, and indeed should question our trust in the very institutions. We should take responsibility for that mistake and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
As you say, public trust has been betrayed, and the betrayers need to be punished, root and branch. The only real question is whether the institutions should even endure. Should we simply fire everyone at the CDC and hire new people, or just end the CDC as a group? It is merely the people, or is the very idea of a CDC prone to failure? I lean towards the latter, myself.
Well said. I don't know if it's a different aspect of the trust issue you have outlined, or a different issue entirely, but if the system is too corrupt, the public cannot accurately assess whether or where to put its trust, or recalibrate that assessment after a breach. Which is a huge problem.
I lean toward the latter as well.
Agreed, we are going to have a really hard time resettling on good norms on who or what to trust. That might be a good thing in some ways, as we clearly were negligent in judging trustworthiness, but there will be rough times ahead.
She didn’t ask for forgiveness, she offered “amnesty” like she’s negotiating from a position of power.
Classic tyrant behavior.
This is a fair point and I should have taken it into account before running my mouth about a different thing.
No, you bring up good philosophical points. Especially in the coming days, weeks and months people will be asking for forgiveness.
Your insight is definitely appreciated and valued.
here's an intersting piece on the amnesty v. forgiveness difference:
https://sarahreynolds.substack.com/p/everyone-is-talking-about-emily-oster
Great article. Thanks for that. I just subscribed to her.
Alright… we memed it. Who knew amnesty would lend itself to so many memes. But alas, the jokes write themselves in clownworld.
https://westcoastjohn1978.substack.com/p/amnesty
I don't recall Oster recommending amnesty for those who refused the shots, come to think of it. Strange how her amnesty only goes one way, protecting those who destroyed others, not making whole those who were destroyed. I wonder why?
Excellent points all, my good doctor.
I think you're being too kind here, Doc (which is simultaneously something I never thought you'd be and something I never thought I'd say). I think Oster and her ilk represent the heart and guts of the threat; vaporous media critters who supply deadly propaganda and then wash their hands of it at the first whiff of trouble. That she doesn't name those sins that should be forgiven is strategic, and proves that religion isn't actually the "last refuge of the scoundrel." There are even deeper, blacker sub-basements than that, and she's trying to wait out the storm in one of those. She knows what's coming, which makes her even more culpable than the garden-variety psycho IMO.
Well, I am a notorious softy. I would probably even piss on her if she was on fire.
And I had drank a lot of coffee that morning.
And no one was looking or talking to me at the time.
Including her.
Still, I think we should be careful to distinguish between the commutative justice violations and mere distributive/estimative justice violations here. To wit, Oster, despite being a cheerleader for the vile scum who forced their preferences on us all, herself just lied and told half truths along with saying a lot of bad things. That's not something I would be willing to hang someone for. Free speech and all. I think she should lose any and all good reputation, and frankly be shunned from polite society unless and until she issues a full and sincere apology, but that's about it. I wouldn't demand people exile her, although I would think a bit less of someone who invited her over to hang out.
I mainly want the full apology so that in the future, when she does again exactly what she said was a mistake she is sorry for we can point to it and say "NO!" possibly rubbing her nose in it afterwards.
Now, for those making the laws, the executive orders, the mandates, all those holding the guns and those who directed them against us I recommend the investigation, the trial, and the rope as appropriate. I would be ok with the ax, or perhaps lions if the rope is unavailable, or something more subtle like the electric chair. Possibly lethal injection for maximum irony. For those whose crimes do not quite warrant the death penalty, I would be in favor of at least a ban from all government office for life. (Frankly, if the R's win the House and Senate I will be disappointed if they didn't start impeaching and didn't stop till DC no longer has a rush hour traffic problem.)
No matter the outcome though, I think we need to make it very clear what was wrong, and what people will be punished for if they do it again. It isn't enough to say "Never again." We need to be very clear about "Never again, what?"
What if she provably took money for her propaganda efforts? FOIA requests have been showing quite a bit of that went on. Like I said to Guttermouth, I'm not in any headspace to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. Maybe social opprobrium will be the fair punishment for Oster in the end, but for now every media creature who lent support to these policies is a suspect in a criminal investigation. We need full audits.
While I find dishonest propaganda vile, I don't know that even taking money for it is exactly criminal. Assuming she took money, it is not illegal to do propaganda work for the government. (Maybe it should be, though, or illegal for government to solicit it.) You can't really punish for things said, unless she committed false witness... which maybe she did. People ought to shun her for her behavior, but I don't think we can justly force them to.
I get it. And I mostly agree. But this Atlantic article in particular gives me the shivers because of its naked appeal to the humanity it denied others. The crime wouldn't be in her speech, which is not a crime in any justice system worth the name. But there are many corpses here, and an obvious attempt to cover them up. Paid shills (if they can be proven to be so) must suffer a regular punitive consequence. Otherwise we're incentivizing being accessories to crime.
Yes, the appeal to humanity denied others is remarkably revolting. Makes you want to just smack the face that voices it.
You might have a good angle there in accessory to the crime for those who accepted money. There is almost certainly precedent out there for people being punished for egging on a murder or kidnapping, or lying to someone in a way that results in their imminent danger. Those would be a good starting place I suspect.
This is reminding me of those 'settlements out of court' where the company agrees to pay an award to the plaintiff, but does not admit culpability and wrongdoing, (minus the cash). I think that is the bottom line for those people -- note that is is an _amnesty_ they want not a _pardon_ -- they don't want to be forgiven, they want there to have been nothing to forgive in the first place.
I'm not settling for a plea bargain for the lesser charge of 'we made mistakes'. I'm charging them with 'we abused our power'.
That is an excellent point! I hadn't made that connection, but you are absolutely right. They want the matter to go away, not be concluded, because conclusion would require discovery and examination of what was done (to run with the legal example.)
That is definitely the metaphor to use, the settlement out of court instead of inquest and trial. The charge of abuse of power is absolutely necessary, although I admit I am at a loss as to who would have standing to bring that charge, and before what court. That suddenly seems like a big gap in the rule book.
You can try people in Sweden for crimes against humanity which happened outside of Sweden. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Hamid_Nouri
Personally I think we have been too soft on crime. The new government we just elected on a 'do something about crime' ticket may want to do something about these sorts of crimes, too.
That's interesting... May the Lion of the North rise again to save us all!
Maybe it could be done as a huge conference, that "SURPRISE!" turns into a massive crimes against humanity trial. I would totally fly out to watch that!
I think that you could fool plenty of these Narcissists into believing they were being invited to Sweden in order to receive the Nobel Prize.
Unfortunately, it looks like the worst punishment Sweden allows is life imprisonment.
She wasn't even saying they did anything wrong, they were just a little too enthusiastic. And I'm pretty sure she still thinks all the unjabbed and no-way-on-your-boosters-you-effing-liars are still dirty and backwards, and deserved what they brought upon themselves.
At least there is some cosmic justice in how fast those with jabs and boosters are dropping. It doesn't help those who innocently took them at their word, but it is something that the most aggressive at harming us harmed themselves just as much.
(Except for the ones at the top perhaps, but that's another matter.)
Hey man. I am curious how you square what I think are two kind of conflicting buckets of beliefs/mood affiliations, which I think you seem to more or less hold, with each other:
1. The kind of Caplanian/libertarian approach to economics, capitalism, and government overreach, which kind of aligns with parts of what could broadly be called the globalist/antinationalist agenda
2. The kind of anti-woke, maybe climate-skpetical, quasi-anti-elitist, pro-America, old-school cultural values that are part of the core of the nationalist/antiglobalist ethos
I guess you seem to have similar thoughts on many topics as me, and I have trouble "picking sides" given this suite of positions I seem to fall onto, as it were. Not that I need to pick sides, mind you--I just have trouble reconciling being pro-capitalism and free markets but anti- all the stupid and dirty stuff corporations seem to be up to these days, while also being kind of temperamentally aligned with the borderer/red-stater/don't tread on me crew while being against most of their nationalist tendencies and protectionist policy positions.
I want to be pro-capitalism, pro-immigration, and pro-USA without being pro-government, pro-union, pro-woke, pro-WEF, pro-Trump, and anti-market. Is this a pipe dream?
Anyway, maybe this is all nonsensical--if so, please disregard.
That's a good question, better than the essays I have been poking at. Let me take a few days, possibly the holiday, to write up a good answer there, because I think it really does approach some of the tension on the right about the role of gov, corporations, etc.
The really sort answer is that people should be left alone, and using coercion to make them do things is generally wrong (outside of the normal enforcement of non-aggression, blah blah). The trouble with globalists, corporations/NGOs leveraging gov. power, is that, at root, they seek to use power to control the lives of other people. I'd say the biggest problem with most political ideologies is that they don't take that seriously, instead adopting more of a "no power over me, but plenty over thee" approach.
But yea, let me noodle over that for a few days and really give it a good go, because it is a tricky needle to thread sometimes, and it will be long most likely.
Awesome!
If that idea is too much trouble, I'm sure at least a few other subscribers would echo my interest in a "best books of 2022" or "here are 10 books Doc recommends" post.
I'm on it, just coming down with something. Should be up by Saturday though.
Awesome. Hope you feel better.