Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Yes

Those Lockdown Protests Across America

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Lansing Demonstrators Protest Whitmer With Hitler Signs

The protesters are making an awkward comparison of Governor Whitmer to Nazism. My guess is that the white supremacist chants would tie in as well.

As to the long guns, I understand they are beneficial to help ensure individual rights are upheld and respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protests against "lock downs" wherever one is, are proper. This is an inhumane, anti-man's life policy.

By tying this small bunch of supremacists into the other main group, the Left media, which predominantly supported the harsh measures, is suggesting they are all painted with the same brush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Yes said:

But why the swastikas, the white supremacist chants, and- yes- the weapons?

White supremacists pop up in strange places wherever they might think they could persuade someone to join their side, and the types of people that I've seen go to those protests are stupid enough to fall for it. I don't know how many of them think that the virus was created in a lab as a weapon, or think that the flu is more dangerous, but they are there. Not to mention that libertarian types have a terrible time at condemning racism, so white supremacists and certainly white nationalists fester quite easily there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockdowns are a terrible thing, in my opinion- is it that the"cure" is worse than the symptom?  But it's inexcusable to display swastikas, and weapons which allow protesters to threaten gun violence.  And it's puzzling that these protesters are openly displaying placards supporting the very President who is misleading us through these trying times with misstatements, lies, and the government's bad response to this pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

By tying this small bunch of supremacists into the other main group, the Left media, which predominantly supported the harsh measures, is suggesting they are all painted with the same brush.

The collectivism brush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Yes said:

The collectivism brush?

Yes, Yes.

If you're white (and not an overt Lefty) you are automatically plumped into the White Supremacist/racist category.

Collectivism, as you say. Anti-white racism.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was protesting and people rocked up with swastikas then I would either tell them to leave or would leave myself. It isn't they don't have the RIGHT to be there. It is that I would not want to be lumped in with them by the general populace. Its not a good look.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if a cameraman had shot you in that situation, inadvertently mixing with neo-Nazis? Such a sleazy old media trick, I'm amazed the public falls for it still. If the Press wants to destroy someone's character they have taken or pull out an old photo of him/her in the company of notorious scumbags and publish it. That's a simple variation on "guilt by association", guilt by proximity. The short attention span and 'symbolic' mindset of readers and viewers does the rest. He/she will always carry that slur on their public reputation.

No different to the guilt by association technique here,  that suggests very different people, conservatives and supremacists, protesting the lock down, lumped as one 'group'. For what reason?  Why should the media make that play? Obviously some have a vested interest in keeping the economy from recovering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 3:29 PM, Yes said:

 ...supporting the very President who is misleading us through these trying times with misstatements, lies, and the government's bad response to this pandemic.

He got bad expert advice. The Swedish model could have done far better.

Few are going to understand your president if they don't recognize that he's a simple man on a simple mission. He knows how business operates, and that when it goes well, nearly all problems of a country get ironed out. So he was slow (some say) to impose the lock down, and now is (some say) too hasty to release it.

"It's the economy, stupid!" I've not heard anyone dispute that that was his intention, and that it WAS - working.

My country, with an already broken economy, although with relatively tiny casualties of coronavirus (about 150), keeps to a stringent lock down, and with people being arrested for minor infringements, and many jobless going hungry. With no end in sight. We seem to be heading to authoritarian control, more socialism and a Nanny State, permanently. Never allow a government power, they make use of a "good crisis" to hold onto it.

Many of us, business people and of course millions of employees, would have much preferred to our own power-luster leaders such a president who was reluctant in the first place, and wants to now rapidly reverse the pandemic controls.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that she was only there to protest the war didn't go down well but was actually the truth. It didn't go down well.

Jane-Fonda-was-at-the-pea-011.jpg?width=

Now given the attached https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jane-fonda-pows/ do we really think its a good idea to be within 100 miles of a Nazi except to fight them?

 

 

Edited by Lawrence Edward Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

He got bad expert advice

What bad advice? You just said that "he knows how business operates", so even if he got bad advice, he should know better. But he didn't. 

He was slow to impose a lockdown, not because he thought lockdowns were bad, but because he didn't think covid was any worse than the flu. And he wants to release a lockdown, not because of some economic calculation, but because again, he doesn't think there is any danger to it. Apparently, he changes his mind when public opinion changes or there is some media advantage - this is either a Machiavellian calculation, or he has no spine to make his own decision based on principles. 
 

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

a president who was reluctant in the first place,

...then why does he support the lockdowns? If he doesn't support them, he can say "Let's end the government mandated lockdowns". Not hard to do. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Trump is not perfectly happy to be as authoritarian as anyone else you are criticizing. He's just not very good at it (with his indeterminate opinion and constant confusion about facts). Or maybe he is really good at it, because he gives the impression of wanting to be on the "good" side, while simultaneously acting in favor of lockdowns.
 

At best, what you said here is that he gave in. This is also why it's very puzzling that the protesters would openly support Trump even though he is literally one of the people imposing it (he already said he had the power to stop it if he wanted to, he was just allowing the states to decide). 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What bad advice? You just said that "he knows how business operates", so even if he got bad advice, he should know better. But he didn't. 

 

 

I don't know the details. I'm not doing a detailed dissection and "timeline" of events like every pundit looking to analyze Trump, for what was and is plainly outside his area of expertise. (Monday morning quarterbacks?) 

 One could expect he had to trust his medical team and the CDC and the WHO (as politically tainted as the latter turns out to be). Everything considered, he has tried to compromise between pandemic panic, those first insane projections of mortality by experts, extreme lock down measures (recommended by experts) and keeping the economy running. Who'd want his job? While facing a hostile media and partisan politics. Seems he brought in with him a management style, which means trusting your team.

 "He should know better" --- because he knows how business operates?! How does a virus outbreak connect to business?

Objectivists go to "the essentials" - right? 

I think there's clear causation. Because Trump said and indicated and acted out that the USA and Americans were not to be sacrificed any longer, all deals had to be "good deals", business confidence there rose to new heights. As I've repeated, he took on the altruists, home and abroad, who expect/demand America to always help out and get involved - at its cost and for little appreciation. I have not heard Objectivists credit him for that, as they should. Probably because he doesn't do so *intellectually*. But one may see he takes on altruism ~practically~ and by results. Your market and job market responded brilliantly.

Business "confidence" speaks bigger than the words and deeds. Perhaps more psychological than economical, a nation's economy depends in big part on the 'feelings' of millions of investors, traders, buyers and producers . How stable is the business environment? And the political? How predictable? And so on. 

The "essentials" of Trump is that he is tapped into all that and understands it well, at every level including the lowest workers.

To what outcome? Individual freedom depends on financial freedom which depends on being productive. That he implicitly knows this significance to "man's life" is Trump's basic "essential". His personality superficials, mannerisms and inarticulate behavior pale by contrast.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Probably because he doesn't do so *intellectually*. But one may see he takes on altruism ~practically~ and by results. Your market and job market responded brilliantly.

 

26 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Everything considered, he has tried to compromise between pandemic panic, insane projections of mortality by experts, extreme lock down measures (recommended by experts) and keeping the economy going. Who'd want his job? While facing a hostile media and partisan politics. Seems he operates management style, which means trusting your team.

So, after things were going well for what you and I would want, we should credit him for compromising, permitting all lockdowns, and for doing what the mean media wanted him to do? 

31 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Objectivists go to "the essentials" - right? 

Here is the essential: Donald Trump is fine with states doing lockdowns. He can publicly declare an end to it whenever he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 2:12 AM, Eiuol said:

 

So, after things were going well for what you and I would want, we should credit him for compromising, permitting all lockdowns, and for doing what the mean media wanted him to do? 

Here is the essential: Donald Trump is fine with states doing lockdowns. He can publicly declare an end to it whenever he wants.

I think it's unfair to criticize him harshly for his (short-lived, I'll bet) reluctance to make a blanket lifting, obviously it's not so easy.

Not all citizens are like you (and I) chafing or angry at their loss of liberties .There's still much fear of further outbreaks of corona around, still being promoted by 'experts' (must I mention too the media??). The mortality numbers from NY state were sobering enough to make many legitimately worried of even further deaths. The president has to answer and listen to everybody, AND respect the autonomy of each state.

So that's not an "essential",  not in the least can he be "fine" with the delay. If one accepts his real essential premise, that the US 'works' best when it works, one knows full well there must be a strong resistance to stop Trump getting his way and opening up the economy. Add in there what the cynics claim - that his re-election relies on the US economy - (okay, that is probably true,  but again that's not his "essential"). 

It was always a mistake for world leaders to metaphorically call this a "war" against a virus. (In usual copycat fashion that was what this government here also invoked, in this case to pressure depths of self sacrifice on the people, worse than most places, and to assume to themselves neo-police State powers. For how long is indefinite).

This is not some identifiable and belligerent enemy to defeat, a clear crisis of survival, for which the whole populace would rise to the challenge. For one, a nation 'gears up' for war activity, it doesn't gear down into inaction.

In this case, I am sure a leader like Trump has to delicately take into account the fears of -all- his people, in part he is led by them. He is not dictatorial which you almost infer he should be. (And wouldn't the Left media make hay of him imposing his will? They'd love it)

I look to the US most keenly, when you and some EU countries are released it may be that SA will be forced to follow.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

In this case, I am sure a leader like Trump has to delicately take into account the fears of -all- his people

I don't support compromise though. And I don't think anyone should. Especially people who want to stand up for their rights in the protests we are speaking of. Rights cannot be compromised even a little bit. I am criticizing him for trying to satisfy all people. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

He is not dictatorial which you almost infer he should be.

He can make a public statement, and I'm pretty sure he has the authority to override any governors anyway. He said as much even. That would be completely constitutional. It wouldn't be dictatorial at all to ask him to ignore "the will of the people". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 6:21 AM, Eiuol said:

I don't support compromise though. And I don't think anyone should. Especially people who want to stand up for their rights in the protests we are speaking of. Rights cannot be compromised even a little bit. I am criticizing him for trying to satisfy all people. 

He can make a public statement, and I'm pretty sure he has the authority to override any governors anyway. He said as much even. That would be completely constitutional. It wouldn't be dictatorial at all to ask him to ignore "the will of the people". 

Another of those damned if he does, damned if he doesn't issues. You know it is. Philosophically, there is no compromise between man's life with men's lives - the two integrate - but politically, there needs to be a balance found now (in these coronavirus circumstances). That's the "compromise" Trump is trying for, a balance. 

Give up the economy for a little health and one will deserve neither and lose both. 

But yeah, the ensuing panic and this extended lock down was mainly the Leftist opposition's and Left media's doing. You know that, also - you can't bluff me.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Another of those damned if he does, damned if he doesn't issues.

But I would praise him for this, if he actually did it.

47 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That's the "compromise" Trump is trying for, a balance. 

A balance between what and what? 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

But I would praise him for this, if he actually did it.

A balance between what and what? 

 

For crying out loud, Eiuol: between the health and lives of the people and the economy of the nation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a listen to Jeffrey Tucker, whom I've read quite a bit of in the past. A libertarian intellectual I generally admire (I'd estimate him a "conservative" libertarian, though I may be wrong) and very Objectivist friendly. Talking with the also respectable Rubin (a conservative classical liberal, probably).

The "perfect storm": anti-Trumpism plus Covid-19.

And the NYT should be "culpable".

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

For crying out loud, Eiuol: between the health and lives of the people and the economy of the nation!

That's not even what we were talking about, you are avoiding discussion about if Trump is compromising about individual rights. You said I should praise him, but I'm saying he's the last person to praise precisely because he has compromised on rights (as I expected he would unfortunately). That's why I asked, because it's not actually clear what you think (if it's okay that Trump compromised on rights). Health and economy is not even a balance that a president needs to take into account because neither thing is about individual rights and should not be a thing that the government determines.

You should already know that I don't take well to the media, I do think media panic is responsible here, but I also think that Trump is just another president who has failed to stand up for individual rights when the opportunity arises. 

Elon Musk is doing a better job at it.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That's not even what we were talking about, you are avoiding discussion about if Trump is compromising about individual rights. You said I should praise him, but I'm saying he's the last person to praise precisely because he has compromised on rights (as I expected he would unfortunately). That's why I asked, because it's not actually clear what you think (if it's okay that Trump compromised on rights). Health and economy is not even a balance that a president needs to take into account because neither thing is about individual rights and should not be a thing that the government determines.

You should already know that I don't take well to the media, I do think media panic is responsible here, but I also think that Trump is just another president who has failed to stand up for individual rights when the opportunity arises. 

Elon Musk is doing a better job at it.

OF COURSE this is a matter of rights and individual choice. I said so at the start.

Comes down to, by which impossible standard (President John Galt?)do you hold a past or sitting president?

Let us live in the real world. While, naturally, propounding the "proper" course of action -- and complete individual rights,.

I know you must be aware that every president you can name would be caught in the same bind, right now, while undergoing the pandemic. Trapped between concerns for his constituents' health panic and economic fears, a lock down would be inevitable for every one of them today.

So why should you hold Trump, alone, responsible?

And keep in mind that the Democrats are more to blame here.

And I'd add, Objectivist intellectuals would be better placed to promote rights and limited govt., and advise people and the government how this crisis could be objectively handled, if ARI intellectuals had not continually scorned this president (and allowed him some praise where it was due) from day one. With that unreasonable bias they've cut themselves out of the mainstream advisory loop, especially with serious thinking conservatives. (Rubin et al).

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...