9 Comments

“The executive doesn’t get to make up shit and claim it’s law.” Well, apparently now it does “because Covid.” Of course, Covidians seemingly can’t understand slippery slopes and so have no problem giving the executive all the power it wants to act however it wants.

Expand full comment

Or--the want this slope to slippery?

Expand full comment

I like to draw a distinction between the Covid regime (i.e., politicians and "public health" types who know the mitigation measures are BS) and Covidians who actually believe the regime's BS. The Covidian worldview is quite easy to understand: Covid is bad, so anything the experts say will stop the spread is good. Tradeoffs, slippery slopes, etc. don't exist in their minds.

Expand full comment

Ha, that's a good notion, that is, the differentiation between politicos vs. the Branch Covidians. As regards the Austrian politicians and experts, I habour certain doubts whether or not they are actually stupid or exceptionally good at lying.

The end result is the same, though.

Expand full comment

They seem to be dead set in starting WWIII

Expand full comment

'Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.'~Carl Schmitt

It may be the road to WWIII, but it's also gigantic war of 'them' above vs. 'us' down here.

Expand full comment

It is depressing even to a cynic (philosophically speaking) like me when the credo that law is merely the will of power codified is proven true. I'm sure you are familiar with the concepts of "Rule of Law" vs. "Rule by Law"; the entire world is now moving towards the latter, which is worrying since Rule of Law already was the historical and cultural oddity, not the norm. It is doubly depressing to note that among western politicians, politruks and apparatchiks in the EUSSR the attitude of "I am the the State" is de rigeur, soon to be de jure (as opposed to de facto by way of backroom deals, which is after all normal for politics - and making sausages).

Since you have "though experiment" in your byline, I'll take that as an opening to offer an unsolicited such:

Instead of electronic passes and social credit, everyone and I do mean everyone will be made to wear a shackel. It may only be remove as is medically necessary, and for ablutions. We can imagine some kind of timer and tracker for this. The shackel weighs 20 kilos, evenly distributed and should be comfortable apart from the weight.

Now to the funny part: those who want to wear a lighter shackel may pay an extra tax to do so. The equivalent of $100 000/100 grams off say. Tax paid every year, in cash or transfer, no deductions or other kind of welfare dressed up in semantics (yes, tax deductions and welfare checks are functionally the same thing but that's a different topic).

I could never pay that, so 'd have to wear my burden. But the elite? (And no, hiring some hunk or hulk to carry your shackel or use a stroller is not allowed.)

What do you think, would the elites pay thorugh the nose to easy their burden, thereby giving the state lots of more money to play with or would they out of thrist or solidarity carry their burdens too?

As starting point for a debate (or diatribe...) on moral philosophies it is a nice starting point once the cries of "Absurd! Are you drunk, man?" are out of the way.

Expand full comment

As a first (brief) reaction to your 'thought experiment': I'd say that--with due referral that any resemblence to actually existing individuals and their actions being, of course, purely coincidental--if the elites get to decide how that 'shackle tax' is spent, I'd think they'd rather 'pay', as these costs pale in comparison to those incurred by coercing the population only.

Mind you, I'm not excluding the 'force the hoi polloi' option, I'm merely venturing a guess…

Expand full comment

Well, yes, obviously. Parasites and parasitoids are nothing but opportunistic. For the experiment to work at all, one needs must assume that the only options are paying (without real say so about spending) or carrying the burden.

Speaking of depressin, I've subjected people around me to many such scenarios (some even more outrageous) over the years and I've noticed two main reactions, which begs the question: is it the people I've associated with, or is it a human thing?

First most common reaction is to reject the premise of the question so as to not having to answer at all (very common with "Sophie's choice"-types of questions) - the very idea is so strange or queer that the person cannot think thorugh even as an abstracted hypothecial, the emotional and personal response overrides all reason.

Second most common reaction anger when the line of questioning reveals internal conflicts in values, morals and so on, indicating to both inquisitor and answerer that it has thus far been a question of blind belief rather than consciously held morals, ideas et c.

Like this one which I tested on my wife's colleagues in the late nineties:

If racial and sexual discrimination is wrong, but people choose partners and friends partly based on discriminatory values and practices, and the state must be mobilised to combat discrimination, does that not then mean state mandated quotas of social and sexual associations no matter personal preference?

Cue much skreeching.

Expand full comment