An opportunity to devolve power ...

[Gabri Rigotti]

https://dailyfriend.co.za/2024/07/04/da-and-ifp-must-now-prove-their-dedication-to-federalism/ 

Martin van Staden has become one of my favourite reads ...

He has a strategic and tactical real world approach in his analyses ...

Here he argues the rubber has hit the road and the DA and IFP can push the devolution of power envelope whilst they can ...

[Erik Peers]

I agree.

When Ivo Vegter descended into obsequious authoritarianism in 2020, I mourned his demise. He used to be a great journalist. 

Yet no one is irreplaceable, and Martin has way more than taken his place as a voice of informed reason.

I approach Martin's writings as learning opportunities in constitutionalism, and am not disappointed.

Prof De Vos could learn a thing or two, or three, by reading Martin.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN0bbVGNJEJHevj1ptrw9jF65WupNdGT%2B1KCGHbUs66GQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Yes Erik, Martin is very informative, as you say his articles are learning opportunities on constitutionalism, how to find the angles that one can work with in the real world ...

I like Ivo as well though, he shakes the tree, somewhat roughly, and without finesse, but he gets one to the coalface quickly ... 😅

Martin is a laser, Ivo a blunderbuss ... 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uM0soEFFe9A5_JfTwe%3D0w4-WeRhLxamnDDT1iskbEQwCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Erik Peers]

True. However once trust is betrayed it is difficult for it to be reinstated. And... to continue to push the jab (now officially not a vaccination) given the benefit of hindsight just boggles my mind.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN2q9VM5XShhmKALyQOJEqqZL-Jbgh7cBKp8y3FzgTXVnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Pretorius]

I looked through Daily Friend listing of past articles by Ivo Vegter to see if I could find anything which could even vaguely be labelled "obsequious authoritarianism". Perhaps, in hindsight, he was slightly more "vaccine friendly" than the rest of us but, if anything, I was again struck by his meticulously researched and finely reasoned arguments on the side of liberty.

Mainstream media has become so lefty and woke that even the Daily Maverick is considered by some to be moderate by comparison.

Please, there are few enough of us left. Let's not start eating our own children.

John Pretorius

13 Olive Lane, Morningside, Sandton 2196, South Africa

+27 83 231 5025
+27 11 784 5546 

jrp...@gmail.com

---

From: li...@googlegroups.com <li...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 July 2024 12:44
To: li...@googlegroups.com <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] An opportunity to devolve power ...

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uOEXC9r0S4-nmbLmDEaYeveALdxXydsEf1FsOdARWzVPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Ah I must have missed those views ... Was Ivo pushing a compulsory jab?

The jab is fine provided it is voluntary only. Harm with consent ...

In a libertarian/individualist world there would be no public property and the owners of private property can decide subject to any pre-existing contracts or signed terms of service if access is only permissible with proof of jab.

Access or no access, firing and hiring with whatever compensation is due or not ...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uOEXC9r0S4-nmbLmDEaYeveALdxXydsEf1FsOdARWzVPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Pretorius]

No, he wasn't "pushing" for anything. He said that, based on his best reading of the evidence available at the time, he and his family were in favour of getting vaccinated.

John Pretorius

13 Olive Lane, Morningside, Sandton 2196, South Africa

+27 83 231 5025
+27 11 784 5546 

jrp...@gmail.com

---

From: li...@googlegroups.com <li...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 July 2024 14:17

To: li...@googlegroups.com <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] An opportunity to devolve power ...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN2iDbCfmK28Fpqp2OeOWAFAguSO6vjZAj9yCwWYjN-A8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Erik Peers]

"Based on his best reading of the evidence available at the time" fair enough. However now, 3 years later, the best reading of the evidence available at this time, if you are still pushing for the jab then there is something wrong. He falls into this camp.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/DB9P191MB1563E33B2FEF96BBB02E80BDF2DE2%40DB9P191MB1563.EURP191.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Erik Peers]

Lockdown was, and is as nothing has changed for a different outcome, such a pointless theft of liberty; that if you are pro lockdown, then you cannot conceivably with any credibility call yourself Libertarian or even Classic Liberal. The DA falls short here as they are still pro lockdown again under similar circumstances. Two things are relevant here, first the principle of lockdown, and second, given 4 years of hindsight, the ractical efficacy of it achieving anything positive. Economically the effects are still being felt. Health wise it was at best neutral, yet the evidence shows that it had a negative effect on health.

The pro maskers, pro lockdowners and pro jabbers correlate. 

Many people still suffer anxiety from the whole debacle. The fear instilled by the authorities and the reality of it. I am still treating people with covid "vax" damage.

It is not simply a case of "slightly more pro vax." Ivo stands firm on his stance of years ago, unswayed by evidence. Next time he will again appeal to authority.

This is serious.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/DB9P191MB15634F8CA951E8681057F80BF2DE2%40DB9P191MB1563.EURP191.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Erik Peers]

First year of an American babies life. 3 covid shots against a non fatal infection.

There is no medical logic for this whatsoever.

Covid shots are mainstream politics. The directly affect the Libertarian philosophy of bodily integrity.

Anyone supporting this state intervention in our lives must produce sound reasoning.

[Stephen vJ]

Eric, you seem to make no distinction between being pro-jab and being pro-authoritarian compulsion of the jab. Those are two very different things. You use the two so interchangeably that I suspect you are mistaken in your assessment of Ivo. I too am in favour of masks, isolation and vaccines, so long as they are voluntary or apply only to public spaces... it sounds like Gabri is too. It's the compulsion that is the problem, not the vaccine itself, correct ?

Even if Ivo is in favour of compulsory vaccination, I'm still with John on this one - Ivo has been a rare voice of reason for many years and this is just one disagreement (which you may have taken too far). If Ivo wants to be in favour of jabs, let him. Even if he is in favour of compulsion (which I can't find evidence for), let him. That is Libertarianism - letting people do not only the things you agree with, but also the things you don't.

In all the years of debating things on this forum, I almost always agreed with certain people about everything except one particular topic. That doesn't mean I no longer respect their views or otherwise agree with them on other topics. And maybe I'm the one who is wrong. Like John said below, there are only about 43 of us on this planet - can we afford to exile someone for disagreeing with us on one issue ?

I might not 100% agree with Ivo all the time, but all things considered, he has probably done more for our cause than you or I ever will.

Stephen.

On Jul 4, 2024, at 08:28, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uPRK2%2BndMOuo_m9Rsqr7%2BaWO2q4rtHmRBC0A3jQ5F92XQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Yes, whether one believes in the Jab or not is one's personal choice like smoking or drinking or taking drugs or whatever ...

The Harm Consent Rule (HCR) provides for this, with no harm without consent or harm with consent , NHWC or HWC, the opposite sides of the same HCR coin.

Relative to this, the NAP can apply ... the Non Aggression Principle, whereby individuals may use physical force in self defense but may not initiate the use of physical force against others aka violence as we would see it.

The compulsory Jab was state coercion, violence, for a variety of reasons and motivations.

Forcing employers to suspend their employees who did not want to Jab also state coercion, violence.

Forcing shop keepers to refuse entry to customers who did not Jab also state coercion, violence.

By the same principle, employers or shopkeepers who would refuse employment or purchase to employees or customers who did not Jab, that is their right to refuse.

The Jab Coercives sought to leverage all sorts of advantages through the compulsory jab and the compulsory social distancing ... political and economic, all in the name of the "public good".

Shaming as being unscientific luddites if one did not Jab was another strategy but that without coercion would have no teeth, or teeth only for those who would be vulnerable to the shaming.

In my case I jabbed because neither my wife nor our daughter could do so ... our daughter has a lifelong condition thanks to childhood vaccines, the MMR, and she needs constant care 24 x 7 x 365.

When one is an outlier statistic for vaccine damage, and is faced with screaming irrationals yelling Luddite at us because we are not jabbing, it is easy to stare them in the eye and say:

FUCK OFF ... 😅

Nothing like cultists who chant dogmatically beyond their limitations ...

But my choice to Jab was that if we were hit by the Wuhan Virus, and both my wife and I were down and out, who would look after our daughter whilst we were quarantined?

It worked, we were hit and I was ever so mildly affected that I could look after my wife and our daughter when they were bed ridden ... my HWC ... my harm with consent ...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/AEE5B78D-6ADA-4811-B913-290304D9D74F%40gmail.com.

--

" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "

—Anna Hazare

[Petrus Potgieter]

Yes, the problem was they basically lied and/or were completely wrong about the externalities. In a normal, working, vaccine there are externalities – your vaccination can protect me or my children. In that case, you can make a case for compulsion. I am all for compelling my neighbour to remove a pile of disease-ridden fecal matter from his property because of the externalities, so this is nothing new.

They were also completely wrong about safety – vaccines are normally required to be extremely safe because they are given to healthy people. This is also an issue which Ivo and his ilk overlooked. Vaccines should be much more safe than any other kind of medication. Even more so compulsory vaccines.

So, there were at least three things wrong here: (1) externalities were not there, (2) it was not clear whether it was safe to recommend the shot for healthy people and (3) it was not clear whether it was safe enough to justify making it compulsory. They managed to fudge over all of that and I have friends who are still going for boosters or whatever.


Op 05-07-2024 om 11:41:12 +0200 skryf Gabri Rigotti rigo...@gmail.com:

[Trevor Watkins]

Individual freedom is such a rare and endangered species that it must be carefully curated and conserved. Finding a formula that is fair for both individual rights and community obligations is fraught with difficulty, as this series of posts seems to prove. If we intelligent and thoughtful folk cannot agree, what hope is there to find common ground amongst the broad masses?

Stephen, John and Ivo seem to agree that there are circumstances where the interests and well-being of the community trumps individual rights, as expressed in the HarmConsentRule (HCR). This is the GREAT DEBATE, since earliest times, but Covid has given us a new and particularly relevant take on it. Do the needs of the family exceed the rights of the father? Must we sacrifice our lives for the tribe? Does ignoring lockdown make me a granny-killer?

Communism elevates the interests of the community above those of the individual as a principle. 100 million dead Russians bear silent testimony to how seriously they take that principle. Ask any functionary in the SACP and they will agree. Communists have consistent principles. Do we?

Every action by an individual puts someone else in the community at risk. To breathe in exposes me (and everyone else) to risk. To breathe out is to release millions of virii and microbes into our common biosphere. To eat food is to deny someone else the opportunity to eat that food. Even our death releases new poisons. 

Who is the community that lockdown apologists seek to protect at the expense of our freedom? Everyone on earth? All citizens of my country? People within 50 miles? 5 miles? This definition is hopelessly inconsistent, and therefore meaningless.Yet I  am to be confined in my house, forced to wear a mask, and receive a deadly injection based on it. 

The HCR acknowledges that people harm each other all the time when exercising their freedoms. However, most of these harms are trivial and can be easily consented to with a polite "Excuse me" or "By your leave". And those harms which are not consented to are forbidden. You cannot cough in my face or steal my food without consequences. And you absolutely cannot lock me up or threaten me with force to take your medicine without my consent.

As Ayn Rand loved to say, examine your premises.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/ZofCwPg3pKR4bAn0%40adamastor.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 11:54, Petrus Potgieter <pet...@potgieter.org> wrote:

Yes, the problem was they basically lied and/or were completely wrong about the externalities. In a normal, working, vaccine there are externalities – your vaccination can protect me or my children. In that case, you can make a case for compulsion.

There are numerous perfectly legal things that I can do which may harm you or your children. I can drive my car on public roads, I can successfully compete with your family donut shop, I can even fail to pickup my dog's poo on MY lawn, which do not allow you to make a case for compulsion. A strongly-worded letter perhaps, but not compulsion.

I am all for compelling my neighbour to remove a pile of disease-ridden fecal matter from his property because of the externalities, so this is nothing new.

They were also completely wrong about safety – vaccines are normally required to be extremely safe because they are given to healthy people. This is also an issue which Ivo and his ilk overlooked. Vaccines should be much more safe than any other kind of medication. Even more so compulsory vaccines.

Even if your vaccine is proven safe, effective and guaranteed to cure my cancer, you still have no case to compel me to take it. That is not the issue. My right to make my own decisions about myself, no matter how silly,   is not trumped by your shiny vaccine.  

So, there were at least three things wrong here: (1) externalities were not there, (2) it was not clear whether it was safe to recommend the shot for healthy people and (3) it was not clear whether it was safe enough to justify making it compulsory. They managed to fudge over all of that and I have friends who are still going for boosters or whatever.


Op 05-07-2024 om 11:41:12 +0200 skryf Gabri Rigotti rigo...@gmail.com:
>    Yes, whether one believes in the Jab or not is one's personal choice
>    like smoking or drinking or taking drugs or whatever ...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/ZofCwPg3pKR4bAn0%40adamastor.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

[Stephen vJ]

"and I have friends who are still going for boosters or whatever."

I'm confused by this last statement. Surely your friends are free to do as they please ? You seems to be saying that the compulsion is gone and the reasons for it refuted, yet your friends are still getting the shots, as if they are in some kind of trans. Do you say the same of people who still pay taxes or go to church ? Let them do what they feel is best for them. It's called liberty. ;-)

Stephen.

On Jul 5, 2024, at 03:54, Petrus Potgieter <pet...@potgieter.org> wrote:

Yes, the problem was they basically lied and/or were completely wrong about the externalities. In a normal, working, vaccine there are externalities – your vaccination can protect me or my children. In that case, you can make a case for compulsion. I am all for compelling my neighbour to remove a pile of disease-ridden fecal matter from his property because of the externalities, so this is nothing new.

[Stephen vJ]

I totally agree, Gabri. That said, some people considered the collective threat big and serious enough to abandon their principles in this particular case. In some cases they had principles, but consciously set them aside for an exception or special case.

I can appreciate why people do that - many in this forum are minarchists because they hold otherwise anarchists principles, but with some special case exceptions. Some feel government should provide law & order, some support borders & defence, etc.

It is a more reasonable approach than to abandon your principles at the first exception. Personally, I prefer to look for the hole in the principle or figure out how the principle would pan out in that exceptional case, but making an exception is not unreasonable.

They could have argued, for example, that they are against conscription so long as the country is not being invaded by a credible threat which could be repelled by collective military action. Conscription being wrong in general, but ok in certain exceptional circumstances.

I can see (don't agree with, but understand) how some people could think that way. I believe freedom as a principle should stand exactly when things are tough, but I get how some people could accept some edge cases... like being for freedom, but also support locking someone up in a box, if that person is demonstrably bad enough.

Some otherwise libertarian folks considered Covid to be such an exception where they would accept the use of force in the face of imminent danger... not unlike some libertarians being for freedom of movement and private land ownership, so long as it is not a bunch of Nigerians.

Stephen.

On Jul 5, 2024, at 03:41, Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN2fiDVNLjDsmq2W6i697F6%2BM3-xyYDngZTYJ8DuKu1%2BYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

"Stephen, John and Ivo seem to agree that there are circumstances where the interests and well-being of the community trumps individual rights"

Nope. I can't speak for John or Ivo, but that is definitely not my view. I am 100% and without any doubt always in the camp of the individual. What may have created the impression that I am not, is that I am wholly in favour of letting people wear masks, isolate themselves and get as many booster shots as they like... SO LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

Sadly, many people have gotten so deeply emotionally attached to certain arguments that a mask or a booster shot has become symbolic of compliance rather than a personal choice. Not doing so has become symbolic of protest and irrational stubbornness, rather than personal choice. This is sad, especially for people in situations with nuance, like mine and Gabri's.

There is an argument to make for collectivism in this case, just like there was an argument being made for income equality in the years leading up to Covid. I don't agree with those arguments, but we need to take them seriously and counter them smartly, otherwise we will be simply labelled right-wing nut jobs and our opinions discarded & ignored as ideological and dangerous.

We cannot respond to equality and conscription and vaccination compulsion by waving around yellow flags with snakes on them. We cannot fight authoritarian dogma with guns and bunkers. We need to come up with better solutions to the problem than simply opposing the bad ones. That might come across to some as supporting the bad ideas - it is definitely not.

Stephen.