270

 If all that's left in life seems to be obstacles, take a turn and face the obstacle, then see whats left.
Do this enough, and to a sufficient degree, and things will have turned around to be in the right direction. 

What is Left of Liberal?

Regarding modern mainstream liberal idealism, how much remains of the original concept of liberal? How does it compare to the more extreme politically left?

Wikipedia describes “Left-wing” as;

“Politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.”

A technical definition for “liberal” that comes up on Google, is; 

“a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”

Is this idealism still what mainstream liberal stands for? 

It seems it may be becoming more and more common for people in society to support politics and idealisms that are far enough to the left that they over focus on individuals or groups of people that they believe are disadvantaged. By over-focusing, they seem to disregard 

1) relevant details which affect whether the group or person actually is disadvantaged and the cause of what might be suppressing them, as well as 

2) disregard any negative unintended effects caused to others in an attempt to counter the supposed disadvantage. 

As for 1), relevant details in the cause of what seems to be a disadvantage are ignored, likely from the instincts to notice distress in others and feel pity. Then with a simple lack of conscious comprehension of understanding the cause of the distress, vague assumptions can be quickly made that there is an unfair system causing it. This would happen as the subconscious part of the mind tends to react to factors to a more generalized degree, categorizing a wide variety of details in the same rough group, and picking out patterns that are coincidence or unrelated. 

2) Once someone is focused on a certain victim (group or individual), the subconscious mind (steered by the instinct to make the scenario fair) disregards negative side-effects which are too detailed in cause and effect. Even when taking actions to attempt to counter the (assumed) disadvantage that they are focused on causes the same affective disadvantage toward another, this is often ignored because the subconscious mind is over-focused on the initial disadvantage that got their attention. 

It seems that since this section of the spectrum of idealism is driven mostly by instinct steering that which is moreso subconscious perception of more generalized factors, double standards and hypocritical stances are quite common, without the skills to comprehend the details of reasoning of cause and effect of the concept of any given topic. 

With this more emotional reactiveness, comes additional problematic effects for interaction with society. Being quick to anger and judge others that disagree, seems to be another common problem with a lot of people with leftist tendencies. This anger combined with a lower ability to comprehend concepts, causes someone to quickly and readily ignore any rationality explained by someone attempting to portray faults in their beliefs. Even when faults in their idealism are blatantly obvious, cognitive dissonance can still cause them to ignore the faults, and come up with excuses, including that the person who disagrees is evil. 

With modern larger populations and ease of communication through technology, joining any crowd that shows similar perspectives has become much easier. Echo chambers and acceptance and encouragement from an easy to find group are perhaps artificially excessive positive reinforcement, making it easy to blindly follow trending leftist views. 

It seems there is a combination of emotional reactiveness and reduced ability to consciously comprehend conceptual details, which is potentially dangerous for society as technology significantly increases the ease of spreading incorrect ideology. Besides being too quick to pick out a victim and incorrectly assume unfair opportunity, they disregard negative side effects of claimed solutions, and become angry and judgemental at anyone that points out faults. They receive excessive positive reinforcement from a herd mentality that shares faults in logic, and perhaps often society is so shifted from the more natural life that our instinctual minds are suited for, that consequences and practicality are more disconnected. So it seems that in modern day society, encouragement of emotional reactiveness and a disregard for conceptual comprehension is; What’s Left of Liberal.

Covid Response Rationality

Was the response of restrictions and mandates rational, in order to reduce risk of harm from Covid?

Normally I tend to cover more generalized concepts which can apply to a variety of aspects of life, but this specific topic seems pressingly relevant, so that it’s more distinguishably comprehensible. In my recent post I analyzed the more generalized concept related to this; Risk Free- Reduction, as a prelude. My basic conclusion was that, generally, for freedom of all to be reduced in order to reduce risk towards others who are able to protect themselves, it seems reasonable that the risk should be to a significant degree, and well proven. When applying that concept to Covid restrictions (or any restrictions), determining what is significant risk, and what is well proven, can be subjective (as I further philosophized in a post from about 2 yrs ago; Proven Fact), but as is common, a Best Guess (another post from about 2 yrs ago) is necessary for virtually everything we do in life. 

The best estimates for these factors related to Covid restrictions, would likely vary depending on the state which society is in. At the beginning of the outbreak of Covid, there was not a large quantity of proof of risk of harm for data on that specific disease, but with that lack of data, estimates of harm can rationally be based on the most similar factors which we did have data on. The most similar factors to Covid at the time, would likely be previous outbreaks of similar viruses. The data on those, seemed to be fairly sufficient proof to suggest a significantly high degree of risk of harm towards others. At that time, the risk seemed high enough to reasonably reduce freedom of all by implementing restrictions. 

As time went on, we gained data on the specific factor of Covid 19, so we could base more accurate estimates on that data, rather than similar factors. After implementing restrictions of freedom for the understandable risk, it became obvious that the virus was inevitably going to continue to spread, and that the implemented restrictions were not effective to stop the virus, but perhaps to slow it down. This is where it seems rational that reductions of freedom become questionable, considering any risk of harm towards others, was based on those others choosing to take the risk themselves, at least in societies of the world where there are sufficient basic resources. Virtually anyone had the freedom to protect themselves based on the data we had, since most people could isolate either on their own, or stay within a certain group of people, and or use significant protective equipment. All these options could reduce risk to nearly zero. 

Since we gained specific data on factors causing individuals to be at much higher risk, there was sufficient proof for individuals to estimate their own risk, based on affecting factors (preconditioned vulnerabilities to the virus). Vulnerable individuals had the option to protect themselves, and community resources (such as tax money) could have gone toward supporting them and helping to protect them. Since this was an obvious viable option, the restriction of freedom on everyone, no longer seemed reasonable to reduce risk of harm towards others. It was evident that restrictions on everyone were not effective for protection, so the reduction of freedom on all was worse than pointless, but only increasing harm to mental health and reduced resources on more people. 

We could have allowed freedom of choice, to allow those who decide the risk of Covid is significantly low for them based on preconditions (age and health) to continue resource production. With additional resources (compared to restricting everyone), more aid could be put toward more effectively protecting those who choose to protect themselves. Besides funding for those who are vulnerable and unable to work due to risk, methods of distributing resources to them without risk of spreading the virus could have been further developed and implemented (such as provided sanitized delivery of goods, and more effective mask protection). This would have no doubt allowed for greater protection of those who are vulnerable, as well as allowed freedom for all and stopped the harm done from restrictions forced on all. 

So it seems it could have been arguably reasonable to reduce freedom for all near the beginning stages of Covid, when there was little data and potentially high risk. But soon after it became evident that the virus could not be eradicated, much more effective measures could have likely been taken to simultaneously better protect the vulnerable to Covid, as well as the rest of society from the significant amount of short and long -term harm caused by restrictions of freedom. Perhaps the continued force of harm on society perpetuated by the government, was followed out of fear which often comes with a lack of distinguishing relevant causes and effects of changing variables. Hopefully this, among many things, has been learned throughout.

What’s Left after a Virus Variable?

What seems to be the result so far for society and politics after 2 years of controversial policy regarding the new variable that was introduced to the world?

For the last 2 years there has been policy implemented which has seemed to test political ideology. With a new variable spreading across the world in the form of a virus, the question and practice was pushed to make policies regarding safety of this new variable. This seemed to test liberal ideology of at least civil liberties and free enterprise. With a new variable including unknown effects of potential harm, it likely seemed reasonable to restrict some civil liberties in order to reduce a potentially significant risk of harm (short and long -term). But as time went on, it quickly seemed evident that restricting liberties was not effective. So why did restricting liberties and free-market continue? 

Perhaps the reason has to do with the more-so “Left” idealism. Regarding Left-wing as; concern for disadvantaged groups of people, it seems logical that throughout society learning more about the effects of the virus proving to be more risky towards certain demographics, this likely became the focused concern. As may often happen with other occurrences of excessive focus on 1 aspect of compassion for a group of people, all other short and long -term negative effects involved, tend to be unconsidered. In this case, perhaps all focus was narrowed down to “protecting” those who are vulnerable to the virus. This is understandable as the most direct and attention-grabbing negative effects of the new virus were deaths of the vulnerable. 

The problem comes from the lack of consideration for negative effects caused by policies put into place with the intention of protection, even as more data and evidence became available. The generalized negative effect by the policies could be regarded as reduction of civil liberties. A common argument for people with left-wing ideology, might be that it's worth the restrictions, in order to protect the vulnerable. But it seems likely that the over-focusing causes disregarding of relevant contradicting details. Beyond the generalized concept of individual liberties being restricted (including short and long -term), details that seem to be ignored or immediately dismissed actually contradict the intention of protection. Contradicting concepts that are disregarded, could be; 

1) Alternative methods of protection for individuals

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods. 

1) More specific examples of alternative methods of protection against harm from the virus could include; immunity from previous infection, vitamin D, overall physical health (exercise and eating healthy), and medicine other than vaccines. By disregarding these alternative methods of protection, it contradicts the intention of protection, since many more people could be protected using these methods, and they could be incorporated even with the mainstream protection method to much better protect those who are vulnerable. 

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods could include; degradation of mental and physical health from forced isolation and market reduction, as well as negative side effects from mainstream medical procedures. By disregarding these effects, it quite obviously contradicts the intention of protection, since many are harmed from these effects, rather than protected. 

When alternative methods and negative effects of practiced methods are ignored because of over-focus on 1 aspect, the results are likely to be much less effective than they could be, or even counter-productive to the intention. Perhaps shallow idealism that has a narrow perspective of few factors and generalizes concepts, disregarding counter details, should be regarded with significant caution. After this new virus variable, perhaps what’s Left, is at least that 1 lesson to be learned.

Mandate Critical Thinking

As happens with many pressures that come along in life, for a lot of people there seems to be a lack of critical thinking regarding Covid mandates and restrictions. Through taking the steps of critical thinking, someone can rationally analyze the various causes and effects which are relevant to a concept. When it comes to mandates and restrictions, logic can be applied to understand better whether or not they are necessary and helpful in the way that they are being pushed by the government.

1 of the first basic questions to consider could be; are they for the protection of others, or the individual? If mandates and restrictions are for the protection of the individual, is it worth taking away free choice of an individual to force protection on them? Consider other examples of restrictions in life that would follow this principle. If you agree with forced protection, then would you also agree that exercise should be mandated? And if the government really values protection of individual citizens, why has exercise been restricted by closing parks, conservation area’s and beaches in the summer, and gyms and all public exercise in the winter?

Would you also agree to your free choice being restricted by banning any greasy and sugary foods, for your protection? All of these measures would not only prevent severeness of Covid, but also quite significantly prevent many other illnesses, including the top causes of death.

Or, are mandates and restrictions perhaps for the protection of others? If so, who are the others that need protection and can’t protect themselves? Everyone has had a chance to take a vaccine, in 1st world countries at least, so if the vaccines effectively prevent harm, why do those people still need protection? Or, if someone has a precondition and is unable to take the vaccine and is also vulnerable to Covid, they are still able to stay isolated and use precautions (such as more effective masks). If you believe everyone else should still restrict themselves so that vulnerable people don't need to restrict themselves, should we do that forever and should that also always have been the practice before covid? Considering there were always people vulnerable to many other viruses and diseases. Or if you want to think more globally and consider risks of less fortunate countries that may not have had as much opportunity for vaccines, should we be hoarding and using up vaccines on healthy people here, when that vaccine could have gone to someone at higher risk? 

If vaccines should be mandated, how do they protect others? It has been quite evident that vaccinated people still transmit Covid, and in real world scenarios, someone vaccinated, very well may be more likely to spread it, since they often have less virus symptoms, and are therefore less likely to notice & self isolate. 

Or perhaps it could be considered instead, that the ones that need protection are people in the hospital if hospitals are overwhelmed. If we don’t “flatten the curve” and slow the spread. But if so, then again, should we also have mandated exercise & banned unhealthy food? This would have reduced people going to the hospital for covid (the same as vaccines do), but also prevented people from going to the hospital for many other health reasons, and therefore kept hospitals from being overwhelmed. 

Or if you still happen to think all these methods of forced protection on an individual are helpful, why would natural immunity not be an exemption from vaccine mandates? Considering immunity after infection has been proven to be more effective than vaccines, couldn’t it be considered a virtue point to intentionally catch covid then isolate, in order to “protect others”, in the same way people have been using vaccination as bragging rights for virtue points? 

Perhaps the most significant question of all might be, if protection of others is the real intent, then why is protection from harm, so very disregarded for every other person in society? There are countless ways society is being harmed by these restrictions and mandates. When it comes to vaccine mandates (as well as censoring alternatives), the risk of harm of side effects caused by the vaccine + boosters for the rest of the individuals life, not only applies to every healthy adult being mandated, but also every teenager and child being subjected to vaccines by either parents or propaganda. 

As for lockdowns and restrictions, perhaps consideration should be directed towards the long term economic harm from businesses being forced to shut down or reduce customers. But more urgently, the short term harm could be acknowledged of job and business loss causing people to lose their livelihood. The mental health harm caused by forced social and activity restrictions would be vastly widespread and difficult to distinguish, but could be most impactful on children that are in a developmental stage of life. The physical harm caused by restricted exercise and forced reduction of oxygen by masks, may be similarly difficult to determine, but not irrelevant to take into account. 

In the end, it seems the question is; Is it worth the degree of risk and harm to society of these effects, to attempt to protect those who can protect themselves? As it seems there are these many intricately connected effects relative to restrictions and mandates, it is understandable that the subject is complex to evaluate effectively, but steps of critical thinking aid in making it quite plausible to have a reasonable and effective perspective. 

Perhaps instead of mandating all this harm, maybe we should mandate freedom of choice?

Mandate Questions for Critical Thinking

Steps of critical thinking about mandates;

Should vaccines and restrictions be mandated?

If yes, then why? 

Is it for the protection of others, or the individual?

1a) If it’s for the protection of the individual, then why not mandate exercise (instead of restricting it) & vitamin D?

b) Why not ban greasy and sugary foods?

(these measures would prevent severeness of Covid, as well as prevent many other illnesses (including the top causes of death), & prevent hospitals being overwhelmed)

2a) If it’s for the protection of others, then who are the others that need protection and can’t protect themselves?

b) How do vaccines protect others? 

(especially since someone with a vaccine, often has less virus symptoms, and is therefore less likely to notice & self isolate)

c) Why is natural immunity not an exemption? 

3a) If it is for the protection of others, then why is protection significantly disregarded for every other person, besides those vulnerable to the virus? (who can protect themselves anyway) 

(disregarded protection for people that suffer side effects from the vaccine + boosters for the rest of their lives, & for mental health problems caused by restrictions (especially children), job/ business loss, and economic loss)

b) Perhaps instead of mandating all this harm, maybe we should mandate freedom of choice?

Risk Free- Reduction

What degree of risk towards others should be acceptable to allow freedom?

Is it a risk to have a reduction of freedom, or are there risk-free reductions of freedom?

With freedom, comes responsibility. With many actions of freedom, comes risk towards others. There is of course also risk towards oneself, but that is another subtopic, which I considered in previous posts; Free- Be. and Reduction by Regulation. Freedom of action to awarefully harm others may be another subtopic, but for this I’ll focus on unintentional harm of others.

Risking unintentional harm towards others, may seem at first like it should never be allowed, but many things are actually allowed which put others at risk, and which you might do every day. If you drive any vehicle, you are putting others at risk. Even if you drive safely, you are still putting others at risk, since a fluke accident could occur, such as mechanical malfunction, or health issue or an animal could cause you to lose control of the vehicle and crash into someone else. But the risk is to a sufficiently minimal degree, that society has decided it is an acceptable risk of harming others, for the benefit of freedom which it allows. Driving in conditions which have sufficient evidence to suggest the risk is too high to justify the freedom, are not considered acceptable, such as impaired driving. So it is the degree of risk which seems to be key for determining what freedoms should be acceptable.

Most risks towards others are only a risk towards those who don't choose to protect themselves. For eg most people could choose to significantly protect themselves from the risk of being harmed by another vehicle, by choosing to go near roads as little as possible, and use excessive protective gear at times necessary to go near roads. This ability for individuals to protect themselves seems reasonable to take into account for determining whether or not an action of freedom should be permitted. The freedom to drive in safe conditions seems reasonable to allow, considering the minimal risk towards others and ability for others to protect themselves. 

So what degree of risk towards others is sufficient to restrict a freedom of action for everyone? It seems practical that the degree of risk should be reasonably high and have significant evidence, in order to restrict an action. Other examples of restrictions of freedom of actions which put others at a degree of risk which was determined to be too high in many societies, would be; weapon ownership/ recreational usage, waste management, and building codes for public buildings/ infrastructure. Most of these seem to have reasonable evidence of risk towards others, for the degree of restriction of freedom. 

Examples of freedom of actions which put others at minimal risk, and are permitted, could be virtually endless depending on how direct of risk and how minimal of risk is considered. Egs of direct but minimal risk could be; simply walking inside any building where others are, risks collapsing the floor and harming others inside, touching a wall risks collapsing the ceiling, and going in public risks spreading disease to others (now, and even before a certain more recent virus). These risks towards others have been considered minimal enough that restricting the freedom of everyone, outweighs the risk towards others (who can protect themselves anyway).

Less direct risks towards others are more difficult to notice, determine, and prove, but could include almost any action anyone takes throughout the day. For eg, purchasing food at the store could risk someone starving to death from unavailability of that item. Even if there’s many in stock, perhaps more won't be shipped in (if for eg the leader of that society irrationally reduces freedom for personal choice of risk of medical procedure, which causes workers (such as truck drivers) to lose their jobs). The risk of harm towards others is minimal, of buying any product, so it is a reasonable freedom. Using any electricity, any gas motor, or even any product made from wood or plants, puts others at indirect risk of harm from climate change. Buying any unhealthy fast food also puts others at indirect risk of heart disease or cancer (top 2 causes of death I believe), since the products are more easily available and advertised to others as a result of your purchase. These indirect risks towards others could be quite significant, but are very difficult to determine or prove.

In all, it seems many actions we take, put others at some degree of risk. But when the risk is minimal, most actions seem to be reasonable to be considered acceptable freedoms. If risks of an action are unproven, and others have their own choice to protect themselves, does it make sense to Risk Freedom Reduction?