CANADA: The Friendly Fascist State

[AutumnParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Rich, it would seem that when a government reacts to a long, highly disruptive protest at the gates of the democratic institutions, which in part was explicitly under the mission of “getting rid of a democratic government”…

That certainly was one of the oddities of the whole affair. It wasn’t clear what, exactly they wanted from their requested meeting with party leaders and the gg. It seemed like they wanted to become part of government forming a coalition between the NDP, CPC and Bloc, but that’s not a thing that’s… real. Even if their aim was to simply play external advisor to to a new coalition government, they would have required the NDP and that’s a streeeeeeeeeeeetch.

The sole impressive factor of the convoy was that they managed to lock down so effectively. Having trucks and trailers at their disposal accounts for much of it. Ottawa and surrounding regions just didn’t have the resources to extricate the protestors. Ordinarily, there is never going to be a call for that much heavy towing, and there was no way to do it fast enough to remove all of the vehicles before they have time to come back to the blockade. Clearing out all of the protestors beforehand was tricky with the resources Ottawa police had on hand, especially considering there were children in the blockade. A major criticism was that they should have never let the convoy establish itself in the first place, but the entire action was so absurd I am not surprised they didn’t have a plan for dissolving such a demonstration at the outset.

Apart from that, the protest came off as a fledgeling effort from people with minimal grasp of civics and activism. Later they patted themselves on the back for the change they effected, but most jurisdictions had already eased restrictions and masking requirements before the convoy. The protest against the federal government made little sense. Even if the feds changed our border policy, unless the US did too, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference.

[DavisModerator]

It was about a draconian program to require vaccination.

Zheesh, next thing you know, government mandated use of seatbelts will be considered “draconian”. You have fallen so far off the deep end Unseen, I cannot take anything, and I mean ANYTHING you say seriously anymore. When you use words like “tyrannical” and “draconian” so casually, it’s difficult to assess the weight and genuine meaning behind any word you use. Next thing you know, the Dalai Lama will be considered Hitleresque. Why don’t you lay off the internet for a while?

[jakelafortParticipant]

The US has had mandatory seat belts as an issue of constitutionality.

If Trump had come out strongly in favor of vaccinations and how it is our patriotic duty to be vaccinated it would have made a tremendous difference. The same morons who detest the government telling em what to do with masks and vaccines would have been just as pissed about noncompliance as they are against the status quo. Just had to frame it as a minor sacrifice that pales in comparison to the draft and all of the brave men and women who volunteer. We are under attack and do your part!

[AutumnParticipant]

Davis wrote:

It was about a draconian program to require vaccination. Zheesh, next thing you know, government mandated use of seatbelts will be considered “draconian”.

The major difference being seatbelt use actually is mandated for truckers while vaccines aren’t.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

It is one thing to keep one person from harming another’s health, such as by separating those at risk for a deadly communicable disease from those that may spread it, or by inspecting a restaurant to avoid a Typhoid Mary scenario. Those are perfectly legitimate roles for a limited government.

However, to stop an adult from doing something on the grounds that the adult may harm himself is proclaiming that the State owns your life and is nothing but paternalistic slavery. This goes for seatbelt laws, helmet laws for motorcycles, Prohibition against alcohol or drugs, laws against consenting adult sex including anti-prostitution laws, or laws against suicide or assisted suicide.

Either you own life and can use and dispose of your life as you see fit, or someone else owns you. Either the Individual is free or is a slave. There is no middle position here.

As for the Dalai Lama, while he didn’t rise to the same scale of horrors as a Hitler or a Mao, his regime was a pretty horrible feudal serfdom with rickshaw-pulling slaves, foot-binding for women and general stagnation. Pretty much a smiley-faced asshole. Yeah, I’ll pass on the Total Consciousness.

[DavisModerator]

Did Enco just refer to seatbelt laws as paternalistic slavery? Seriously? Like…I mean…on purpose?

[AutumnParticipant]

I actually started a post largely agreeing with his position on the right to assume personal risk or harm. I don’t share his awkward (and seemingly self-contradicting) absolutism, but it so rare he and I agree on anything, I thought I’d say something. When I got to the bit about slavery I just sort of checked out. It’s on the level of absurdity of Christians wailing about how not being able to discriminate makes them the most persecuted people in America.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I was also struck by Enco making some sense albeit smattered with hyperbole.

The issues are sticky when it comes to mandates from the government during pandemics. The don’t tread on me and my liberty is juxtaposed against the greater good. And when the government kept getting shit wrong as to the science it made the libertarian position stronger. But masks are such a minor imposition that i would have to swing to the side of the government’s right to require.

If it had been true that vaccines prevent transmission then there would be no issue for me as to government’s right to require it barring an individual showing of personal harm. Even without controlling transmission fewer deaths and reduced severity is enough to give government the right to impose vaccines. Hospitals were so tied up and workers so overwrought and patients with other issues unable to get help. Greater damage to economy, greater cost to government…

[DavisModerator]

Having laws against high pointless risk stupidities with the accompanying extremely easy to do and barely inconvenient hassles, is not unreasonable. Zheesh, some people are so bloody “I’ll do whatever the fuck I want, fuck your big government” that they cannot even see beyond their zealous ideology. I mean, controlling the sale of highly corrosive liquids, or mandatory radiation shields in microwaves are genuinely no different than seat-belt laws. The consequences of serious injury are extreme for your body smashing through a window, or burning your flesh to the bone or your face melting off from ration vs. the hassles of precaution: a microscopically  uncomfortable belt over your lap, or per corrosive acid: some safety precautions and not being able to purchase it unless you know what the hell you’re doing with it or with microwaves…it being a little more difficult to watch your food cooking. I can go on with things like: not being able to sell/buy highly toxic food products or having to have a fire alarm in your detached home. They include such minor inconveniences such as: buying just about any other food that won’t slowly kill you or a small purchase of an alarm and a yearly batter change vs the consequences: slowly dying from food poisoning or burning alive in your home.

I mean zheesh. Full absolute civic freedom is a ridiculous illusion and impossible. None of these laws are unreasonable or overreaching. They don’t even approach somewhat greyer areas like banning raw-milk cheese or laws banning the advertisement of alcohol or in Germany where you can be fined for j-walking across a small street with no car within sight or earshot.

And even then, having said all of this, mandatory seat belt laws are NOT just about government knows better (though honestly it should be though of as…every one with a brain knows better), there are reasons for insisting on them. You can injure someone else in the car during an accident if you go flying around, cause further crashes when flying out the window (or injure someone) and it puts a strain on ambulance/health care systems when you add pointless injuries (this is to name a few other reasons we have seat belt laws besides the bloody obvious in that it is a miniscule inconvenience to avoid horrific calamity.

Paternalistic slavery is, a gross misuse of terminology, not to mention debasing the very horror of what slavery actually is and misusing the term “paternalistic” completely out of context. It is utterly deranged to consider seat belt laws as “paternalistic slavery”. While it is reasonable to be a little (and I mean a little) weary of government overreach, seat belt laws are not, in any universe, an example worthy of this.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I generally side with Enco on the notion that we ought to be free to do as we please even if we are taking undue risks. However it is a balancing test. Harming others, risking harm to others or causing others including government to incur expenses directly related to our risk-taking is where we ought to balance the interests including the imposition on the risk taker. So yeah wearing a seatbelt is such a minor imposition. Wearing a mask not a big deal even if you get your glasses foggy. If the government shows not even a compelling interest, just a run of the mill concern that ought to override the individual’s freedom interest.

What is interesting to me is how the perception of free will plays into our analysis. So lets suppose we know a risk-taker has a biological condition that makes some risks irresistible and in fact inevitable. They were always gonna take fentanyl and any other killer drug if they could get their paws on it. Do we protect that individual from their proclivities or inevitabilities? Or do we pretend they have freedom and fuck yeah, liberty bitch!

[_Robert_Participant]

We ought to be free to do as we please….sure, if people were mindful and ethical. But we are not, to differing degrees. So, in comes the rule of law that partially enables some sort of civilized society and some sort of progress. In every case when people were not under human authority complete with some sort of judgment and penalties, chaos reigns. Pillage, rape and plunder is what you get. Celestial authority is utterly useless as we watch priest after priest, preacher after preacher and church after church prove that fact.

[UnseenParticipant]

While an undergraduate, I read a book by the American sometimes conservative and sometimes Marxist socialist philosopher Sidney Hook*, generally regarded as some sort of pragmatist. One thing I took away from him was the complications of freedom and rights which pits various people and groups against each other. My freedom consists of restrictions on the freedom of others. My rights consist of restrictions on the rights of others.

A government guarantees freedoms and rights by restraining those who oppose them.

* (Sidney Hook) was an array of positions that did not fall into any obvious ideological pattern: socialist, anti-communist, secular humanist, pro-welfare state, educational progressive, anti-affirmative action, cold warrior, anti-conservative, and plenty more. Hook’s understanding of Marxism was in itself a complicated combination of opinions: For most of his career he rejected nearly every idea characteristic of Marxism and abhorred regimes that designated themselves as Marxist, but he still respected Marx as a democrat and a philosopher. (source)

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert,

We ought to be free to do as we please….sure, if people were mindful and ethical. But we are not, to differing degrees. So, in comes the rule of law that partially enables some sort of civilized society and some sort of progress. In every case when people were not under human authority complete with some sort of judgment and penalties, chaos reigns. Pillage, rape and plunder is what you get. Celestial authority is utterly useless as we watch priest after priest, preacher after preacher and church after church prove that fact.

You know what? Every priest, preacher, church, and religion would share your dismal view of human beings.

While you all mud-wrestle and blood-wrestle over whose flavor of paternalism is right, may I gamble over your garments and the outcome? Or is that too risky? 🎲🎰😎

[AutumnParticipant]

[.]

 

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Autumn. Reason: changed my mind about posting a meme wrt to something I just don't care that much about

[_Robert_Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Robert,

We ought to be free to do as we please….sure, if people were mindful and ethical. But we are not, to differing degrees. So, in comes the rule of law that partially enables some sort of civilized society and some sort of progress. In every case when people were not under human authority complete with some sort of judgment and penalties, chaos reigns. Pillage, rape and plunder is what you get. Celestial authority is utterly useless as we watch priest after priest, preacher after preacher and church after church prove that fact.

You know what? Every priest, preacher, church, and religion would share your dismal view of human beings. While you all mud-wrestle and blood-wrestle over whose flavor of paternalism is right, may I gamble over your garments and the outcome? Or is that too risky? 🎲🎰😎

As Unseen says, until democratic governments granted and attempted to protect individual human rights through laws and courts, the wealthiest and strongest could just do with you whatever they willed. Of course, those efforts to grant and protect rights are also corrupted because people are so wonderful! Yeh, we don’t need no stinking rights.

There is a solution. If we only had more than the 400 million guns that we already have, everyone would be safe without all these damn laws! Brilliant ! Yeah, I’d say 500 Billion guns should do the trick. Vote Republican, those guys are so smart!

[Author]

Posts