Democrats seem to believe that there is a collective “We” that can be known and that the purpose of policy is to best serve that “We”. I do not necessarily hate that impulse. Of course we should look out for each other.
Many 1950s traditional “big R” Republicans believe that the best way to arrive at “We” is through hierarchical institutions — the military, churches, corporations, and membership organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, Boy Scouts).
But depending on how they are set up, hierarchical institutions often suppress individual viewpoints and talents. Sometimes the whole is much less than the sum of the parts so it’s just a different bunch of players in control (than the Democratic technocrats) but it’s a society run by an elite top-down cadre nonetheless.
Only “small r” libertarian republicans tend to understand the sacred role of the individual in society and how protecting individual rights can also produce the best overall outcomes for society. There are lots of “small r” republican elected officials in state governments in red and purple states and they tend to be the biggest defenders of medical freedom.
I think there is an extraordinary opportunity here for a political realignment that rejects the technocratic impulse of the Democratic Party and the institutional impulse of the Republican party and instead coalesces around the sacred rights of individuals to make medical decisions (and all decisions) for themselves. This new political movement unites “small r” republicans and former progressive democrats who became politically homeless when the Democratic Party abandoned its principles and slid into Pharma fascism.
Indeed I think that this new political realignment is already happening and that political candidates who realize this and embrace it will be rewarded by voters in November and beyond.
Agreed. I have called it "induced helplessness" - more systemic and engineered than Marty Seligman's "learned helplessness" and the denial of personal agency over health. I have always been surprised how many politically progressive people I know are so conventional and ignorant about matters of health. I used to work with people with cancer and what was then called "alternative cancer treatment" and unpatentable natural remedies that were opposed and suppressed just like now. People have been deeply entrained in the allopathic medical model and passivity. Like we need to teach civics in schools, we need to teach children mastery over their own bodies and how to build strong immunity. Thanks for your interesting analysis.
Excellent post! Most agree personal responsibility is essential to liberty and medical freedom.
It has been quite a journey to hold the line. We currently have family lecturing us on getting the mRNA shot, not for ourselves but to stop community spread. The irony we get lectured by the thrice jabbed while they contracted omicron. Nearly 2 years and my husband and I remain healthy. Those that are part of the mass formation psychosis cannot even acknowledge the
shots have failed.
Collectivism in prisons mind, body and soul.
Agree. "Public Health" is another instance of the 'mythical "we" '. There is no entity named Public that can be healthy or unhealthy. There are only individuals - and "Public Health" has, for the last 22 months, been a complete disaster to the health of individuals almost everywhere that it gave authoritarians - almost entirely on the Left in the U.S. - a chance to gain powers that *nobody* should have.
And I do mean nobody and I do mean never - I don't care if smallpox and bubonic plague show up together - NO LOCKDOWNS, EVER. They have proven to be infinitely more harmful than the problem that they completely *failed* to address, and we're just seeing the beginning of the harms.
One sure way to piss off conservatives and libertarians is to assert that they do not think that "Of course we should look out for each other."
Why do Republicans reliably give far more to charity if they don't care ?
How can Democrats and socialists in general be so utterly devoid of empathy and self-awareness?
What they aim at is precisely a society without solidarity or charity, because the State has eliminated the need for it. Plus we're all equal, so we can't decide anything. Plus we don't own anything that we could give away. Plus our neighbour, just like us, owns nothing and is happy. We'd be both sent to a "psychiatric hospital" for questioning that. Ask an obviously starving North Korean if he's hungry: They'll assure you that they're well fed. Thanks to the State. Don't think that it won't happen here. Politics is the ultimate Frankenstein monster.
The Democrat's cherished State "safety net" is the opposite of solidarity. The free society is the real safety net. In the free society you can count on your family and friends, and if that's not enough they'll call on their family and friends and so on. But you must not exaggerate, you must do your possible to not be a burden but a help. That can only be assessed by people who know you.
Hence you must "love your neighbour like yourself": It is essential that you help people you know. Don't try to help people before you know them well. Ancient wisdom.
Klaus Schwab represents the latest attempt, technology-based attempt at suppressing human judgement - except of course for the superior humans of the ruling class. Tyranny.
Read Tocqueville's 1835 Memoir on Pauperism, where he reaches the conclusion:
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular,
administrative system whose aim will be to provide for the needs
of the poor, will breed more miseries than it can cure, will deprave
the population that it wants to help and comfort, will in time
reduce the rich to being no more than the tenant-farmers of the
poor, will dry up the sources of savings, will stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, will benumb
human industry and activity, and will culminate by bringing
about a violent revolution in the State, when the number of those
who receive alms will have become as large as those who give it,
and the indigent, no longer being able to take from the impoverished rich the means of providing for his needs, will find it easier
to plunder them of all their property at one stroke than to ask for
This time, it's the left. But it was also the right wing who used an inside job on 911 (drills happening the same day- "coincidence") to take away our rights and impose an illegal war.
Think of both parties as both being state corporatist.... That's the definition of fascism.
People had to fight for labor rights during the industrial revolution. Business ran politics.
People had to fight against apartheid Jim crow laws. Wealth ran politics.
Same for slavery and and the Spanish American war and even the genocide of native Americans.
It'll never end, as we see more wars in the horizon for these evil psychopaths.
Power always likes more power.
So we need a new bill of rights, human rights... Not written and interpreted by lawyers and lobbyists, but by people who aren't wealthy or powerful.
Thank you for this paper. As a professor of anthropology, I'm very much interested in this topic. Autonomy and freedom are two essential elements of human nature. The really archaic hunter-gatherer tribes (such as the San) cherish autonomy. They see it as sacred. It is my belief that they are right. Nonetheless they share everything equally. Only children and pregnant women get a bit more. People made constant sacrifices for the most vulnerable. In a way, that was still also more or less the way of life seventy years ago in the alpine village where I live. My understanding of this is that common good and autonomy do not compete. A common good that does not respect autonomy/freedom... is simply not a real common good. And being autonomous and free contributes positively to common good. Hence technocratic "communautarianism"doesn't work for me. On the other hand I'm not so much satisfied with the concept of "self interest". Life has a meaning to me because I'm willing --freely!-- to sacrifice my own interest to help others. In a way this is my real self interest since we're social animals. Self-interest has to be properly understood as something that includes others. Being selfish isn't good for you! The answer to this, I guess, is that any claim to self-interest that threatens the community is bogus, and any threat to my individual rights in the name of common good is a totalitarian scam.
... anyway I can't see how complying to totalitarianism, corporate greed and mandates that are terribly harmful to everyone's health, has anything to do with common good. On the contrary.
William F Buckley’s quote about the wisdom of the common man was never more true than it is today:
“I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty at Harvard.”
Imagine what she'll do when she's 10. Arrested in NYC for being vax-free.
Great post, Toby.
Health-seeking behavior isn't a confounding variable. It's the treatment.
And today State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill that would permit children 12 and older to be vaccinated, including against COVID-19, without their parent's consent or knowledge. What a marvelous idea. Your teen can take the jab, become deathly ill and you'll have no idea why, but it's for the greater good somehow.
I think you make a great argument.
At the very least, the number one thing standing between people and the information and resources they need to be truly healthy should not be their government.
The left has been at home in the Democratic Party since the Progressive Era. The left has always been married to technocratic rule over the stupid masses. Read the intellectual writings from the new deal, great society or urban renewal. It’s the same assertions that dumb southern whites and urban people of color need them to make sure the working class doesn’t drink and fornicate themselves to death.
It’s the impulse and ideology that stems from the puritans and Yankees. They’ve just stopped pretending they like the blue collared classes (which was an anomaly from the 20th century)
Genius. So well stated. Thank you for a link I can send my legacy "f*@$ you, do what they tell you" liberal friends that used to wave the "f*$@ you I won't do what you tell me banner." Sadly, they cannot see the sad transition from firebrand thought to chattle group think. Things become clear when things fall apart, however, if you are paying attention🙏
We should be led by the invisible hand, not the hidden hands.
As I used to tell patients when I was practicing, do your own research and be your own health advocate.