One of the Team Reality voices who was mentioned in the episode had much to say about the Precautionary Principle. And I find his arguments very persuasive. The precautionary principle as described by Gabrielle and Jay is, as Mark Changizi explains, backwards. We don't take extreme precautions first in an emergency. It is never justified or justifiable:
To which I add “Principiis obsta and Finem respice." Resist the beginnings and Consider the ends. An old Latin quote found in Milton Mayers's book, "They Thought They Were Free." About German Nazi's in post-WWII Germany who described how they slid into tyranny. It always begins for a "good cause" a "short emergency." It always comes with a plausible justification for a greater collective good requiring individual sacrifice.
No. The Precautionary Principle applies to those seeking to take away freedom. Freedom itself is more valuable than life.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory." - Franklin D Roosevelt
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - John F Kennedy
A free nation takes every precaution to protect freedom. Knowing that tyranny always rides in on the back of fear and declarations of emergencies. The precautionary principle is to do nothing to change the relationship between the people and government, the contract of governance, without making the case, subject to examination and cross-examination. An informed citizenry deciding if the sacrifices to freedom are warranted, and under what terms. Not sacrifices demanded that are speculative and hopeful - as Deborah Birx famously said about her confidence in mass experimental vaccination to end the pandemic. Not based on evidence, only hope.
An otherwise good episode, thank you for sharing. But both Jay and Gabrielle would do well to understand how they have the precautionary principle backwards. As Mark Changizi describes.
Congratulations. You managed to parrot the globalist worldview in your podcast. They have been saying that happiness trumps human life as a justification for their depopulation agenda. I don’t know if you stepped in to that intentionally or not. You suggest that lockdowns killed people through economic impoverishment. Aren’t there more effective ways to mitigate poverty caused by corrupt government policies than basing policy decisions on some magical thinking theory that the mere existence of a person in lockdown (even voluntary lockdown) kills poor people around the world? In a prior podcast you talked about the need not to moralize public health policy. What happened to that? If a person goes out into the world, gets COVID, and dies at a hospital, how exactly does that help a poor person elsewhere? Needless to say, this happiness trumping human life worldview is not the Judeo-Christian worldview. God clearly prioritizes the salvation of the soul in the Bible. Human life is very important to Him as well but not as important as the soul. After all, Jesus, as God’s Messiah, sacrificed His life as the cornerstone of God’s salvation plan for human souls. Yet, that sacrifice was not made lightly. Human pleasure in this life, on the other hand, doesn’t even rank with God. Perhaps that’s why so many people fail to actually follow God, even the self-proclaimed Christians, because we fallen human beings place far too much importance on human pleasure and value it above the human soul and human life.
Jennifer, I believe you've confused their defence of free agency as being about happiness, whereas it is about avoiding psychological and physical harm. Of course, anyone can use that free agency to pursue only happiness as if it were their highest value, but I noticed that Jay spoke of using it for self sacrifice. Even accepting Jesus as Messiah and saviour requires a degree of free will and free choice. Hiding Jews during WW2 was, as another example, freedom practised in the face of restrictive tyranny: a free choice that preserved life in the face of death.
Regarding your thoughts about whether the poor were benefited or harmed by lock down policies, I think you have confused the particular with the collective: a single person acting out of free will and going out and catching and dying of Covid has, as you point out, nothing to do with whether a poor person is or is not helped; however, by requiring all people including the poor to lock down so they don't have the freedom go out and earn a living to buy groceries, or forage for food, and thus starve to death is one of the travesties of denying personal free agency. Those of us who are comparatively well off have trouble understanding this. In light of this, "give me liberty or give me death!" (as another commenter quoted) takes on a noble motive, and a literal meaning--to deny liberty is to facilitate death, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual.
It is my opinion that the globalists you refer to will not gain much traction in the long run because even in our hedonistic society most people intuitively know there is much more to life than mere happiness and pleasure. Besides, we have people like you to keep us alert to the dangers, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
One of the Team Reality voices who was mentioned in the episode had much to say about the Precautionary Principle. And I find his arguments very persuasive. The precautionary principle as described by Gabrielle and Jay is, as Mark Changizi explains, backwards. We don't take extreme precautions first in an emergency. It is never justified or justifiable:
https://www.loofwired.com/p/the-public-policy-experts-still-have
https://www.loofwired.com/p/the-precautionary-principle
https://www.loofwired.com/p/the-whole-point-of-the-precautionary
To which I add “Principiis obsta and Finem respice." Resist the beginnings and Consider the ends. An old Latin quote found in Milton Mayers's book, "They Thought They Were Free." About German Nazi's in post-WWII Germany who described how they slid into tyranny. It always begins for a "good cause" a "short emergency." It always comes with a plausible justification for a greater collective good requiring individual sacrifice.
No. The Precautionary Principle applies to those seeking to take away freedom. Freedom itself is more valuable than life.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory." - Franklin D Roosevelt
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - John F Kennedy
A free nation takes every precaution to protect freedom. Knowing that tyranny always rides in on the back of fear and declarations of emergencies. The precautionary principle is to do nothing to change the relationship between the people and government, the contract of governance, without making the case, subject to examination and cross-examination. An informed citizenry deciding if the sacrifices to freedom are warranted, and under what terms. Not sacrifices demanded that are speculative and hopeful - as Deborah Birx famously said about her confidence in mass experimental vaccination to end the pandemic. Not based on evidence, only hope.
An otherwise good episode, thank you for sharing. But both Jay and Gabrielle would do well to understand how they have the precautionary principle backwards. As Mark Changizi describes.
Congratulations. You managed to parrot the globalist worldview in your podcast. They have been saying that happiness trumps human life as a justification for their depopulation agenda. I don’t know if you stepped in to that intentionally or not. You suggest that lockdowns killed people through economic impoverishment. Aren’t there more effective ways to mitigate poverty caused by corrupt government policies than basing policy decisions on some magical thinking theory that the mere existence of a person in lockdown (even voluntary lockdown) kills poor people around the world? In a prior podcast you talked about the need not to moralize public health policy. What happened to that? If a person goes out into the world, gets COVID, and dies at a hospital, how exactly does that help a poor person elsewhere? Needless to say, this happiness trumping human life worldview is not the Judeo-Christian worldview. God clearly prioritizes the salvation of the soul in the Bible. Human life is very important to Him as well but not as important as the soul. After all, Jesus, as God’s Messiah, sacrificed His life as the cornerstone of God’s salvation plan for human souls. Yet, that sacrifice was not made lightly. Human pleasure in this life, on the other hand, doesn’t even rank with God. Perhaps that’s why so many people fail to actually follow God, even the self-proclaimed Christians, because we fallen human beings place far too much importance on human pleasure and value it above the human soul and human life.
Jennifer, I believe you've confused their defence of free agency as being about happiness, whereas it is about avoiding psychological and physical harm. Of course, anyone can use that free agency to pursue only happiness as if it were their highest value, but I noticed that Jay spoke of using it for self sacrifice. Even accepting Jesus as Messiah and saviour requires a degree of free will and free choice. Hiding Jews during WW2 was, as another example, freedom practised in the face of restrictive tyranny: a free choice that preserved life in the face of death.
Regarding your thoughts about whether the poor were benefited or harmed by lock down policies, I think you have confused the particular with the collective: a single person acting out of free will and going out and catching and dying of Covid has, as you point out, nothing to do with whether a poor person is or is not helped; however, by requiring all people including the poor to lock down so they don't have the freedom go out and earn a living to buy groceries, or forage for food, and thus starve to death is one of the travesties of denying personal free agency. Those of us who are comparatively well off have trouble understanding this. In light of this, "give me liberty or give me death!" (as another commenter quoted) takes on a noble motive, and a literal meaning--to deny liberty is to facilitate death, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual.
It is my opinion that the globalists you refer to will not gain much traction in the long run because even in our hedonistic society most people intuitively know there is much more to life than mere happiness and pleasure. Besides, we have people like you to keep us alert to the dangers, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
COVID horror will leave a permanent sound on humans' psyche, even if perpetrators are sentenced to death.
I still need to read the book....