Johnson doesn't even let Vallance and Whitty answer questions now.
Is that following the science? :lol:
Printable View
Johnson doesn't even let Vallance and Whitty answer questions now.
Is that following the science? :lol:
I hope Johnson dies in a fire.
Not cool. Think of the many children and the ones he is yet to breed.
The life insurance should be ample to be split amongst them.
Fortunately for you, though it's unlikely you realise it and you certainly don't appreciate it, there are people in the world who are not so gullible and complacent. Their efforts preserve what limited freedom you have, by freedom I mean the unhindered exercise of inalienable rights that are being threatened and undermined all over the world - not the permissions and conveniences you confuse with rights and liberty. Whether you grasp it or not, it will always be an abuse when one individual, or a group of likeminded individuals, elevate their own rights to undermine or eliminate the rights of others. This is the control I speak of. You seem to envisage this as somebody stomping into your home and ordering you to obey (although that's not too far away now). If my inalienable rights are infringed in any manner, say for example by mandatory vaccination or voluntary vaccination that deprives me of rights should I refuse to "volunteer", then that is an abuse, regardless of the justifications - which are invalid by default. There is no such thing as an optional inalienable right, or an inalienable right that can be set aside given certain circumstances. And inalienable rights can never be removed (unless God himself has a change of mind), although they can be suppressed by violence.
This is the fundamental difference between us. You see rights as permissions that can be granted and withdrawn. I see them in a light that so-called reasonable liberals claim to see them, but I'm being genuine about it. You have often said it is impractical for individuals to enjoy inalienable rights. You have argued that there must be some segment of the population that enjoys more rights than the rest. This is a nonsensical assessment of the very nature of inalienable rights. A tawdry excuse for the abuse of rights under some guise of organisation and convenience. You should read your history books (as in read books, rather than watch the History Channel) - you'll find that all those who freely relinquished their rights ended up paying the ultimate price. A quarter billion casualties in the last century, all at the hands of governments who were here to help. Nothing else touches that carnage.
So as the next iteration of the state dawns, global governance controlled by unelected technocrats and administered by elected transients, it may not be entirely wise to rely on these people having your best interests at heart. History tells us this has never (once) been the case, unless you can give me a compelling example of course. Maybe I missed something. When any one man says, this is how it must be for all of us, the informed hear one thing and the indoctrinated and complacent hear another.
Let's hope, then, that the ultimate monopolist has changed his spots and is now out for the betterment of mankind. Let's overlook his campaigning to indemnify his friends in their efforts to save the world. And let's sweep all the Indian, African and South American victims of his altruism under the rug.
Where do inalienable rights come from, and what makes them inalienable?
That's a genuine question btw, not an attempt at rhetorical point scoring.
quite, someone has to decide on which rights are inalienable - one person might think it's their inalienable right to shout loudly in the street for no reason, while another might think they should have the shit kicked out of them by a bunch of state-sponsored fascist troopers...
That would depend on your belief system. In the Christian west inalienable rights are bestowed by your creator and cannot be repealed by any sovereign or legal system. Even so, civilised societies tend to align their legal systems with these rights, so even absent a creator, these rights are still recognised and understood to be enshrined beyond the scope of legal systems.
Though that has never stopped sovereigns or the legal profession pretending they are entitled, by authority which they grant to themselves, to create exceptions to that which cannot have exceptions.