Forum Replies Created
Several days ago it was reported in Naked Capitalism that the Indian government had approved the use of Ivermectin nation-wide. The story was linked to by one or two others, but I haven’t been able to find another mention of this on the Internet. Has anyone seen it reported elsewhere by another source?
I’ve read and re-read the article posted by Ilargi and John Day by G V Bossche. I know enough about the immune system to think I understand his argument. But I don’t know enough to comment critically. Can anyone provide more insight?
If his argument holds up, I too find it very, very scary.
Brilliant analogy! Thanks for that.
And many thanks to you, Ilargi, for what you do, and all the best to you and the commenters on TAE in the new year!
Thanks very much for the link to the Harris article. Though it’s very “academic” (and was intended to be), reading through to the comments made by those in lockdown situations in the UK was enlightening. At least in our “individualistic” society we’re all constantly having to make trade-offs between individual desires and group norms, guidelines, rules, and laws.
“Word. But not sure I would say Power Corrupts. I think the people seeking power are already mentally corrupted.”
What is power, but the ability to influence or fully control the behaviour of others? At root it is the ability to persuade others, or coerce them by physical force.
“Government” in any form (priestly, monarchical, dictatorial, democratic) is a social (re-)distribution of power from individuals to some group, or groups.
Is what you are saying, Raul, that anyone seeking power (as I define it) “already mentally corrupted?” Or would you define it some other way?
Our species could not have evolved without some distribution of power within the family and extended family groups. How could even a simple society exist in a completely egalitarian state with respect to power? The problem of power corrupting, seems to arise when, for some reason, a universally accepted distribution of power (within a group) is challenged, or undermined, by some individual or sub-group who wants to alter behaviour of the group. I think this happens as human groups grow in population and become so large that their members are largely anonymous to one another.
Knapp wrote: “Politics as we know it today is entirely based on violence and the threat of violence.”
Because we (reasonable) people believe in persuading others by (our) reasoned arguments, we like to think that politics is not entirely (or even largely) based on the “threat of violence.” But if we can’t convince others we have to be prepared to accept and live with the prevailing norms, in other words give up the “right” we feel we have to act in a certain way.
Knapp again: “According to the Declaration of Independence, government exists to protect our rights. It may only legitimately use force to do so, and to bring to justice those who violate those rights.
“If government accomplished that mission and went no further, it might be an acceptable, even worthwhile institution. But it doesn’t accomplish that mission very well, and it inevitably turns the inch it’s given into miles.”
The problem with Knapp’s description lies in the “legitimate” use of force, in what constitutes “justice,” and in what are our “rights” are. But how can these be defined without the exercise of power? Simply by everyone in a society of millions seeing “reason?”
Back to your point, Raul: does power corrupt, or are those seeking power already corrupt? I’m not an anarchist, but I think the problem of power is inseparable from our problem as a species. As long as small groups revered their collective ancestors and sought the material well-being of their descendants (to the nth generation), the problem of power was probably resolved with the minimum of violence. Then societies grew and collective identification with forbearers and concern for generations beyond grandchildren collapsed into a kind of extended “individuality.” The problem of who has the power of persuasion and coercion has become institutionalized in various dictatorships, but no less in constitutional forms of government where power is supposedly defined by laws.
How can our huge societies exist without someone seeking and exercising power? And how can any exercise of power backed by the threat of violence be good or ‘uncorrupted?’
I have long agreed with your view that those seeking power are “mentally corrupt.” In my no-doubt naive picture of early human groups, there must have been a universally held view of how power was and should be distributed for the common good. Hence, violently enforcing power was, I like to think, rare. In our huge, “advanced,” and complex societies, I cannot see how power and mental corruption can be separated.
Regarding the Google problem:
What part of your post and comments does Google scan? Is it just your post, or are comments included? Maybe you don’t know, but obviously they should inform you of what they find objectionable!
I went through that day’s comments and found a few things that might trigger a “dangerous or derogatory” flag: one user referred to “Dick f[***]ing Chaney”; another used the word “ni**er” without putting it in quotes.
Considering the many “swear”, “vulgar” and “racist” words used by commenters on this and other blogs, it’s surprising that these (to me) innocent usages should be a target of Google’s censorship. Maybe they just do random checks of pages, applying increasingly “correct” standards. If they only stopped your advertising on a particular page, it sounds like they may just be sampling pages.
I remember some months ago you said your account was being stripped of advertising. Is today’s problem the same or a different one?
Wish I could help, but if you are being targeted because of commenters, we should all be more careful.
“But, you know, only half the country now reads the NYT and WaPo, the so-called liberal half. There once was a time when both halves did, but that is no longer an option. There is more money in one-sided and overblown opinion. The country’s best newspapers have sold their souls to Dr. Faust. . . .
And people who read things like the Guardian, NYT, WaPo, keep on eating it up. They buy these papers, they take out subscriptions, just to get their daily fill of anti-Trump “news”. I personally think that is extremely sad, and dangerous to boot. But if and when I say that, I will be labeled a Trump supporter again.”
Thanks for saying this, Raul. I feel it is too, too true. I can no longer talk with family, friends, or others whom I always thought were truly liberal. They cannot see that their hatred of Trump has spawned things just as bad, and possibly worse.
“Hatred of Trump is not a platform, but I find friends and family thinking it is, and if I don’t agree I become the object of their fury..”
You said it better than I.
Am most grateful for TAE, to remind me I’m not alone
Sorry i missed your earlier comment. Thanks for the detailed clarification!
Hmmm! Link in previous post not visible. Second try:
Article re complicating gene deficiency in use of hydroxychloroquine.
Long-term TAE reader, but first post. Regarding the following article:
The author speaks to many points, but would one of the doctors (or other qualified individuals) who contribute to TAE, comment on the author’s contention that while perhaps useful to other groups in treating covid-19, hydroxycholoroquine may adversely affect Africans or those of African descent because of a gene deficiency?
There have been several explanations put forth as to why this group has been much more severely affected by the virus; does this add anything to our understanding?