Anti-vaxxer is a pejorative word, it lumps people together in ways that aren't fair. Many were just skeptical and wanted to discuss and debate the evidence, and that was ridiculed, as evident everywhere in this thread.
I think you're kicking the can of personal responsibility down, or in this case up, the road.
There are groupmind tendencies and competing groupthinks, as well as industrial corruption, in all of our scientific enterprises that I'm aware of. For me this is a serious issue, since I saw first-hand how pusillanimous scientists can become when their livelihoods or grants are endangered.
There is a war on for our minds. I think we each have to decide who we trust and don't trust. For many of us there is also a crisis of trust in our scientific institutions now.
LOL. A global pandemic that causes extreme healthcare crises might require extreme policies. “Using the most extreme possible examples to justify a policy,” how laughable!
Next, read about Quarantine Acts. Most nations have them.
Yeah, 30-40% of the population needs psychologists and propagandists to evaluate or re-educate them. I think this viewpoint you're espousing might be part of the problem.
This is how hard it is to get any sense into indoctrinated anti-vaxxers. The actual facts are rejected as propaganda and reeducation. They won't trust eminently respectable sources of truth like the CDC or the WHO.
However, wildly untrustable sources with dubious motives are accepted as truth with no filter.
How did the adversaries hack their brains and lock the door behind them?
> eminently respectable sources of truth like the CDC or the WHO
In 2019, the CDC and WHO could have been considered "eminently respectable sources of truth", but they've both said things to totally tank all of their built up credibility in the last year and a half.
>The fundamental failure of this logic of trying to go somewhere and built a new city to escape the policy failures of the old city, is that those conflicts are intrinsic problems of large scale human organization. If you bring people, you bring the politics.
That seems like a really jaded view. To my mind there are millions of ways to organize human societies. The more experimentation the better. You're acting like nothing new can ever happen in this area, and I just don't buy that.
There have been a lot of experiments already. Most of them have failed and left the experimenters worse off. But sure people are welcome to keep trying.
What annoys the rest of us is the hubris and overconfidence. The experimenters usually falsely label those of us who disagree with their "vision" as fools who can't see the future.
Except Greece for example recently hit it’s borrowing limit with spiraling interest rates. If it could have borrowed unlimited money at zero interest nothing bad would have happened, it could have paid debts with new loans.
There are better and deeper ways of understanding money. You think fiscally sovereign nations need to borrow their own currency, and that isn't correct. You think government spending necessarily precipitates a currency crisis, and this is not only incorrect but goes against the demonstrated history of the United States from the 40s until today.
It seems like you are conflating the role of private and public debt, which is a very common mistake. Private debt does cause economic crises, public debt is a misnomer - it's generally speaking not even correctly referred to as debt. It's referred to as a debt for historical reasons, its not owed to anyone, for example.
A paper by the CATO institute showed that world hyperinflations have not historically arisen from monetary policy changes. They have more to do with... eh, its complicated. Collapses of industry in wartime, famines, militarily-imposed foreign debts and single-resource economies living beyond their means. The understanding you are demonstrating is called the Quantity Theory of Money and its being more and more called into question. The Theory of Ricardian Equivalence is toast. Not sure if you know that those are the high-falutin names of the theories you are describing as being patent fact.
> You think fiscally sovereign nations need to borrow in their own currency
No, it can be quite beneficial. However, it’s more dangerous to borrow in foreign currency because exchange rates are outside of complete government control.
> You think government spending necessarily precipitates a currency crisis
No, the inability to borrow in their own currency is one possibility. Bad monetary policy is another, losing a war for existence is another.
