Reason: Evil masquerading as freedom

[Matt Collins]

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

 

[mosquitobite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Pretty obviously, the mystery grant came with the strong suggestion that the magazine find a liberty writer who might make the case for mandatory vaccination. Money is a mood changer, they say, and when the bills were waved in Reason's face, somebody caved. What I want to know is, how often has this happened?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Reason magazine is at best a very flawed messenger for liberty. More likely, they are establishment gatekeepers who care about liberty as little as the two major political parties.

 

[green73]

Pretty much. The LRC guy is just a small-minded liberty guy.

I didn't read the Reason article, but a magazine is not always monolithic and in complete agreement with itself. Hell, the Cato Institute, nor even the Mises Institute are monolithic. Sometimes they all put out crap, the Reason foundation too.

Attacking the Reason article itself on its merits is perfectly acceptable. But the LRC guy has created this type of logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?

 

[Henry Rogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Thanks for the link Matt, but I read the Reason article already and it discussed herd immunity. The term defines it's self, the concept is easy to understand. That however, doesn't answer my question at all. I did find the answer in the reason article. It read >

Vaccines do not produce immunity in some people, so a percentage of those who took the responsibility to be vaccinated remain vulnerable.

Which is exactly what I deduced in my earlier post. The article goes on to say these people are protected via "herd immunity", that it acts as a firewall. I don't argue this, it seems logical. At this point the article deviates from medicine and plows into politics and this is where it goes all wrong.

People who refuse vaccination for themselves and their children are free-riding off herd immunity. Anti-vaccination folks are taking advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen the minimal risk of vaccination,

The term "Free Rider" sets alarm bells off in my head every time I read it, as progressive socialist always invoke it when ever they want to use force against others, typically when they want to force you to pay taxes. However progressive socialist never use it when they are promoting the welfare state, oh no, you never here a peep about it then. Does the article discuss the state handing out free vaccines to the poor who can't afford it? If it does, I doubt it invokes "free rider" in that instance.

The other political garbage found in this article deals with those who chose to be vaccinated, but didn't develop immunity. The article goes on to blame those who chose to not be vaccinated for any infections developed in the vaccinated. Now there was a mutual exchange between the vaccinator and the vaccinated, the doctor provided a service in exchange for the patients money, You could broaden that and say the vaccine producer provided it's product in exchange for the insurance company's money, which of course comes from the insured's premium or in some cases the taxpayers money. In any case, If the vaccine fails to perform it's expected purpose and that person becomes infected, the exchange is no longer mutually beneficial, the fault falls on the provider, not someone who chose to forgo vaccination.

By the way I didn't read much of the Rockwell article did it us my arguments?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams, [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?

Matt doesn't care who Daniel McAdams is. All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.

 

[belian78]

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams, [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?

If you are staunch in your beliefs and support for liberty, then you are just a small minded person who can't appreciate the nuances of working the freedom message into the machine. See one of his co-horts quote in my sig.

 

[osan]

Is Reason really that bad? They produce a pretty good product, and I don't have to agree with every article to say that.

Depends on the nature of the disagreement. There are fundamental issues and superficial. Disagreement on the latter may be no big deal - Reason says "chocolate" and you say "vanilla". Fair enough and no harm done. But when some entity, be it a man or some institution like "Reason Magazine", departs from provably correct fundamentals, then has there arisen a firm basis to alter one's opinion and to cry "foul".

If the entity says, "we should change the flag to the old Gadsden version" and you disagree, so what? The basic fabric of the entity remains intact, good or otherwise.

But if the entity declares we must violate the fundamental rights of some subset of the population, or the even the entire mob, for the sake of "security", then assuming the fabric was once sound, we now see it has become unsound and the call must go up for repair or for everyone to find a new entity.

One needs to be able to distinguish between that which can and cannot be tolerated and respond correctly to the latter.

 

[Ender]

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

Exactly.

If vaccinations really worked- then if you are vaccinated and I am not, shouldn't you be safe?

 

[green73]

Matt doesn't care who Daniel McAdams is. All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.

Exactly, and he's so transparent that it's hard for me to respect anyone who doesn't see through him.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you are staunch in your beliefs and support for liberty, then you are just a small minded person who can't appreciate the nuances of working the freedom message into the machine. See one of his co-horts quote in my sig.

No, not at all. But broadly attacking Reason is stupid because Reason isn't monolithic. That's like someone broadly attacking LRC because of one author's post.

 

[Matt Collins]

All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.

HA HA HA lolz.... If you knew how much money I have lost working for the cause of liberty you would be aghast.

And secondly I do badmouth beltway libertarians. Robert Levy (Cato) for example is an imbecile on the issue of nullification. But that doesn't mean all of the Cato institute is bad

 

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly, and he's so transparent that it's hard for me to respect anyone who doesn't see through him.

I believe he's a shill, but hey, I don't know for sure.

No, not at all. But broadly attacking Reason is stupid because Reason isn't monolithic. That's like someone broadly attacking LRC because of one author's post.

There's been too many examples of this from Reason, it seems like. But... I wasn't saying you can't get anything good out of them. Just that what is described in the OP is evil.

Depends on the nature of the disagreement. There are fundamental issues and superficial. Disagreement on the latter may be no big deal - Reason says "chocolate" and you say "vanilla". Fair enough and no harm done. But when some entity, be it a man or some institution like "Reason Magazine", departs from provably correct fundamentals, then has there arisen a firm basis to alter one's opinion and to cry "foul".

If the entity says, "we should change the flag to the old Gadsden version" and you disagree, so what? The basic fabric of the entity remains intact, good or otherwise.

But if the entity declares we must violate the fundamental rights of some subset of the population, or the even the entire mob, for the sake of "security", then assuming the fabric was once sound, we now see it has become unsound and the call must go up for repair or for everyone to find a new entity.

One needs to be able to distinguish between that which can and cannot be tolerated and respond correctly to the latter.

There's always going to be a little bit of disagreement with regards to what can and cannot be tolerated, and issues that libertarians disagree with each other on. That's fine. But at a certain point, enough is enough. Sometimes, depending on the issue being discussed, that's one issue. Sometimes its more than one.

 

[green73]

HA HA HA lolz.... If you knew how much money I have lost working for the cause of liberty you would be aghast.

And secondly I do badmouth beltway libertarians. Robert Levy (Cato) for example is an imbecile on the issue of nullification. But that doesn't mean all of the Cato institute is bad

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that. And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that. And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.

I agree.

I know that on LRC, off the top of my head, Pat Buchanan, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell, while all having wonderful things to say on some topics, do not really fit the LRC stated agenda on a few issues. And I don't have a problem with that, at least not as far as LRC printing them goes. I don't need to agree with someone on every issue to find them to be worth reading.

That said, LRC is very clearly an anti-state organization, even if a few of their writers may not be card-carrying (metaphorically speaking) anarcho-capitalists.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Thanks for the link Matt, but I read the Reason article already and it discussed herd immunity. The term defines it's self, the concept is easy to understand. That however, doesn't answer my question at all. I did find the answer in the reason article. It read > Which is exactly what I deduced in my earlier post. The article goes on to say these people are protected via "herd immunity", that it acts as a firewall. I don't argue this, it seems logical. At this point the article deviates from medicine and plows into politics and this is where it goes all wrong. The term "Free Rider" sets alarm bells off in my head every time I read it, as progressive socialist always invoke it when ever they want to use force against others, typically when they want to force you to pay taxes. However progressive socialist never use it when they are promoting the welfare state, oh no, you never here a peep about it then. Does the article discuss the state handing out free vaccines to the poor who can't afford it? If it does, I doubt it invokes "free rider" in that instance.

The other political garbage found in this article deals with those who chose to be vaccinated, but didn't develop immunity. The article goes on to blame those who chose to not be vaccinated for any infections developed in the vaccinated. Now there was a mutual exchange between the vaccinator and the vaccinated, the doctor provided a service in exchange for the patients money, You could broaden that and say the vaccine producer provided it's product in exchange for the insurance company's money, which of course comes from the insured's premium or in some cases the taxpayers money. In any case, If the vaccine fails to perform it's expected purpose and that person becomes infected, the exchange is no longer mutually beneficial, the fault falls on the provider, not someone who chose to forgo vaccination.

By the way I didn't read much of the Rockwell article did it us my arguments?

I can't believe my post is ignored. I SMOKED that article through the heart with a 200 grain combination load of NAP, Free Market and Liberty.

 

[Matt Collins]

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that.

They are not trying to be fighting in the trenches, they are a place of ideas. Don't try and make them something they are not, they fit very well in their place. But you have to understand what they are and what they do, and once you grasp that, you'll see why it's no big deal that they don't have a discernible philosophy.

And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

There were a few article about Ron that were negative, and there were some articles that were REALLY awesome. What's your point?

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
and
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

 

[green73]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

You're right, the leader of an organization needn't be representative of the values of said organization.

They are not trying to be fighting in the trenches, they are a place of ideas. Don't try and make them something they are not, they fit very well in their place. But you have to understand what they are and what they do, and once you grasp that, you'll see why it's no big deal that they don't have a discernible philosophy.

Here's an idea: End the Fed. Will they propose that? Hell no. Don't want to upset the apple cart. Need to keep those invitations to Beltway cocktail parties coming.

What are these great ideas coming from Reason? You would think "being a place of ideas" they'd have gotten somewhere after all this time. Hard to get somewhere without a philosophy.

There were a few article about Ron that were negative, and there were some articles that were REALLY awesome. What's your point?

They were horrendous, condescending, and dismissive of the man who was doing more to spread libertarianism in a year than they had over their entire existence. The only time they got excited was over the newsletters.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
and
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://youreanidiot.com

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Reason's videos on Youtube are usually pretty solid. They do some pretty in depth interviews.