Tucker: Are coronavirus lockdowns working?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sloancaprice said:
am waiting for your explanation. Can you back out what you said or not?
Click to expand...
This may not be @Cathoholic’s explanation, but I think what he may be referring to is the tendency of some to say that we must keep the economy shut down because to restart would risk lives. The implication is that we should keep the nation under quarantine until the virus is gone, ie, until it has “magically disappeared.”
 
Last edited:
Nice video. I’ve found it interesting also that no vaccines have ever been made for a corona virus. I suspect what the means is that eventually everyone will be exposed to the Wuhan virus. It’s reassuring though as the California doctors point out that statistically the % death rate from COVID is turning out to be quite low. That should help with some fear factors people deal with.

If it might help I read an idea a Scottish physician is using to prevent having severe symptoms from COVID. He’s written a few times in the past about being with patients that have the virus and being breathed on by them. What the doctor does is the old idea of taking some time to be in noon time sunshine, along with taking vitamin D. Sun exposure is an older idea that has been used more commonly in the past to successfully fight infections. As I believe it was nurse Florence Nightingale said, sun is the best disinfectant.

Spending some time in the sun is an idea I’ve personally been using for around 12 now. As a result, so far I’ve not experienced a cold or flu bug since I began and I’ve been found many ill people at times.

COVID Update – Focus on Vitamin D​

 
Well we have tech. An industrial revolution. Christianity as well.
I wouldn’t think one would argue the evolution of the former peasant class of history somehow existed apart from these things.
But they are better described as the landscape. Or playing field type factors.
What transformed working men ( peasants)from the Dickensian realities of peasants within the industrial revolution and prior? Of Child Labor?
Of Labatt’s Master Servant Law and it’s corpus? Of incidents like the Ludlow massacre. Or Frick’s use of Pinkertons to massacre at the Carnegie plant. The political fallout?
If we are going to discuss peasant compensation which eventually included education, Unions must join the conversation. THE LAW and changes in that law, and government to enforce , changed history.
In Capitalism workers are labor expense in accounting terms and in real terms. The employment agreement, or contract, is what forms the relationship with the Capitalist. In the late 1800s early 1900s this contract was entered with gargantuan disparity in bargaining position. With a Capitalist intent on not paying a cent more than necessary, or hire one man more than is minimally necessary, this could never explain the middle class. Employment expense was and is a necessary evil in the persuit of profit.( The coming age of robotics will make clear that Capitalists were " job creators," kicking and screaming always waiting for a day where employees can be displaced permenently)
Organization of labor, and a system of laws like Taft Hartley eventually permitted more equal bargaining position as to what men sold in the market. It permitted a collective labor contract. This was the initial free market engine that explains how peasants changed their own stars, often with their own blood, within a system that developed around them. The Law, and Courts, and politics contributed in this artificiality we are specifically p(name removed by moderator)ointing as peasant class education and rise. All unnatural steps , IMPOSSIBLE STEPS, in Laissez Faire Capitalism. The middle class in America is an abberant phenomena in human history in it’s artificiality and contrivance, via politics and government/ court intervention.
It is the one " wonder of the world," because it is the engine of our superpower status. The D. Demand! Markets unlike the world has ever seen.
The strength of Capitalism is the ability of the Capitalist to recognise demand, or potential demand and direct capital in such a way as to create a market vehicle to exploit it.
 
Last edited:
gam197 said:
Should we go back to the good old days when news was only on for 30 minutes daily and you took what they said as gospel.
Click to expand...
Oh, we had fake news in the good old days too. It was in supermarket tabloids. That same low quality content has just found a new slick looking cover.
 
Didn’t we know that those supermarket tabloids were fake?

Maybe when I was 10 and food shopping with my mom would I believe that a California housewife really did have a baby with an alien from Jupiter. But those were supposed to be entertaining, not believed.

The term changed to mean, “news I don’t like.” Or “news that makes me look bad”
 
gam197 said:
Can you recommend an alternative? Should we limit access?
Click to expand...
No, I think education is all that is needed. The supermarket tabloids were not limited in the old days. However most people knew they were not to be trusted. We can do the same with Tucker Carlson and the like. Let them talk. Let people listen. And let people know how to understand them as nothing more than the modern form of tabloid journalism.
 
Last edited:
I think it is part of Leftist propaganda to view workers as exploited and apart from capitalism. Workers are the largest part and largest beneficiary of capitalism.

Capitalism is the free exercise of one’s labours and individual and corporate property rights backed by law. No longer were peasants, as you call them, the property of Duke’s and Duchies or Kings or Queens or indeed Socialist beaurocrats that would fail the peasants massively in the 20th century.

Capitalism meant that you got to keep your labour in free co-operation with other citizens. Given these freedoms and protections an explosion of innovation, continual process and technological advancement drew more and more people into the labour market and made menial jobs easier and easier and less labour intensive.

Once people were free from the real need to produce subsistence food they were free for the other pursuits such as education.

The increased skills of education were then fed back into the capitalist system in a cycle of continual improvement to where we are today.

There is no conflict in that story. It is only when you are taught to view the world as conflict that you then can be encultured into ideologies of conflict. The Leftist ideology is a conflict ideology and in the greater scheme of things is historically inaccurate when it tries to place the worker (peasant) outside or apart from or exploited by capitalism.

Capitalism gave workers freedom and wealth that they have never in history had the benefit of accumulating.

Beware of big government telling workers that big government is their champion. These people produce little of their own wealth but draw wealth away from the workers of capitalist systems. Big government largely wants to go back to the time of an aristocratic ruling class controlling workers and living off them.

Capitalism freed people from that misery.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism also entailed large land thefts such as happened in the enclosures. Hardly an argument for individual self reliance when the government backs the rich stealing the land peasants had lived on for centuries.
 
StudentMI said:
Capitalism also entailed large land thefts such as happened in the enclosures. Hardly an argument for individual self reliance when the government backs the rich stealing the land peasants had lived on for centuries.
Click to expand...
Has there been any economic system run by government that has not had land thefts?

If not, then why is there an attempt to say that such land thefts are a characteristic of capitalism.

Is this not an example of anti capitalist propaganda and shouldn’t we recognise and question that?
 
Last edited:
So land theft is okay if it occurs for capitalism? Again, hardly a great defense of property rights and individual self reliance.
 
StudentMI said:
So land theft is okay if it occurs for capitalism? Again, hardly a great defense of property rights and individual self reliance.
Click to expand...
How did you logically get the axiom that land thefts are ok under capitalism from what was written?

Land theft is not an integral part of capitalism as wearing red sweaters is not an integral part of capitalism. That does not mean that people won’t wear red sweaters in economic systems that have some degree of capitalism.

Again i think it is evidence of propaganda to view land thefts as an integral par t of capitalism. What you seem to be critiquing is sin of people and/or government.
 
Last edited:
As an aside the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church speaks of alienation and exploitation as well.
 
StudentMI said:
No axiom. Trying to get an answer.
Click to expand...
Your question is offensive and doesn’t logically follow.
Again i repeat that nothing that was said could lead one to suggest such a thing and therefore the question has to be asked as to why?
 
StudentMI said:
So would you say the enclosures were unjustified?
Click to expand...
You would have to speak about which land enclosures you are speaking about. But this would be a critique of government, not capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org

Enclosure - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Capitalism allowed for the common man to own land which was a big step forward in individual rights and justice. Even today governments wish to go back to the days of aristocracy with such ideas as property tax and inheritance tax believing that the land really does not belong to the common man.
 
Last edited:
The enclosures were a crime against property rights.

The free market as such has never existed save in the mind of its proponents. We can look to market economies for vast increases in living standards but capitalism defined as free markets has never existed.
 
StudentMI said:
The enclosures were a crime against property rights.

The free market as such has never existed save in the mind of its proponents. We can look to market economies for vast increases in living standards but capitalism defined as free markets has never existed.
Click to expand...
Again you have to be specific about which enclosures you are talking about.

Capitalism is not a form of government it is an economic idea. Yes there has never been perfectly free markets like there has never been perfectly Christian communities or a perfectly loving marriage.

Still it is right to talk about Christian communities and loving marriages and capitalistic systems. The fact that none of them perfectly exist does not mean they do not exist.
 
Last edited:
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top