What do you call a habitat in which everyone – regardless of gender, race, income, age or ability – can live and work side by side? Answer: a gulag! Or a Commune, which is a gulag managed by the inmates under remote supervion. I love the “storytelling” touch. So cosy:) When people can’t reason consistently then everything is just a story. I guess all of this would be fine if everyone were given a choice. Perhaps the vaccine IS that choice, but I don’t know. https://www.globalshapers.org/impact/themes/shaping-my-citys-future

Fair Work Commissioner found that Jetstar vaccine requirement (under the threat of termination of employment) was “lawful and reasonable” and did not constitute unlawful coercion. Clearly, ‘informed consent’ is not equivalent to ‘free consent’. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/unvaccinated-jetstar-exworker-loses-legal-battle-with-airline/news-story/19855f3733dd7299d239909134362ed2

If those who act in your name do not believe in the unconditional right to free medical consent (with no exceptions for martial law, public health emergencies or government approved injections) then you should ask yourself whether they really serve your children’s interests. Ask them.

Protections for Gender Identity lead to Reverse Discrimination and Contradictions in Law. (Version 2)

Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.

Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman in virtue of her sense of having a female body, different from a male body. Her deeply felt sense of being different from the male sex is part of her gender identity.

Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).

Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y (a male) as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity. Specifically, X’s acceptance of Premise 2 would amount to denying her ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.

Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity necessitates invalidation of Y’s gender identity, because of X’s ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.

Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.

What are the objective criteria of moral authority?

A universal standard of morality must be based on the most basic normative property that all humans have in common: the immutable laws of meaning/sense. In this context we must begin the analysis of objective morality indirectly, not by asking what is moral, which is inescapably tainted by our own cultural conditioning, but what is rational, and thus pursue rational morality. In more practical terms, we must work to identify and dismiss any beliefs that are not logically consistent (lead to contradiction), and refine social norms on the basis of systemic consistency and objective grounding. Confusion and disagreement about values and norms that is now sweeping the world due to radical influences of various ideological formations compels us to deliberate towards a universal moral standard, because hiding from one another behind culturally impervious borders is no longer a viable solution to moral disagreement. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO

Communitarians argue that human values and norms are uniquely determined by the cultural community in which particular humans were raised. From this they conclude that moral norms are relative to communities. I contend that culture is not a fundamental principle, but itself a product of human rationality - the capacity to make sense and collectively generate meaning - which is in turn subject to the universal, non-contingent and indispensable laws of logic/sense. As such, all principled conflicts between culturally specific values and norms can be reduced to local deficiencies of reasoning. It is important here to differentiate here two types of disagreements that communitarians tend to conflate: cultural conflicts in principle vs. differences between local preferences, which are not a matter of principle and do not amount to moral contradiction.

My condolences to the citizens of the United Kingdom for their loss. Queen Elizabeth was not only a symbol of righteousness and dignity for the British society and for many citizens of the former colonies but one of the central figures of modern history, a bridge between the classical world and modernity. Her death marks an end of an epoch, at the threshold of unprecedented change. On the symbolic level, she was the Last Monarch, the last stand of monarchy as a political and moral principle.

Don’t Follow Stupid Rules

I told my kids when they went to school, “Look, kids, follow the rules, but don’t follow stupid rules.” Well, who decides if they’re stupid?
 
That’s a hard question because you should follow the rules most of the time. But now and then, the rules get pathological, and you have to stand up. If you’re going to stand up and break a rule, think about it.
 
You have to be willing to take the consequences. There are consequences to not standing up to stupid rules too.
 
And if you think that those consequences are lesser, then you suffer from the delusion that there’s an easy path through life.

Design by @Divine_Instincts

Per request of Barbara zondernaam

BREAKING NEWS: Dan Andrews to use Emergency Powers to put his face on the Five Dollar bill. Newsweek poll conducted following the announcement indicates 96% approval rating for the mandate;)

If anyone here has illustrator/photoshop skills to make a mockup of what the 5$ bill would look like with Dan on it, your creative effort would be greatly appreciated 😁

no worries, here you go

Australia to put the portrait of a head of a foreign parliament on its coins and banknotes. Inexplicable.

It made sense to retain the portrait of the Queen on Australian currency for the duration of her life. She was the original owner of Australia and facilitated Australia’s transition to full independence as a sovereign democratic state. It also made sense to retain ‘the Crown’ as a symbol of natural Right (or universal law) in the Commonwealth and State Constitutions. Australia can still retain the motif of the Crown in this abstract sense, but it no longer makes sense to equate the Crown with a person occupying an office established by Acts of a foreign power. There never was an office of the “Queen of Australia”, no Australian Coronation Act, no Australian Coronation Oath, so by passing the Australia Act 1986 Australia practically became a republic, and retained the Crown only as a symbol. In fact, any person under the Oath of Allegiance to a foreign King or Queen is now technical disqualified from being a member of federal parliament: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html

How Bank Credit causes Income Tax

When the government prints money to fund public expenditure, it appropriates the purchasing power from all money-holders by inflating the currency. Printing money is an indirect tax on all currency in circulation. Once the government gave away this power to publically unaccountable commercial banks, under the guise of unbacked credit, it allowed the banks to appropriate the purchasing power from all money-holders by inflating the broad money supply. As a consequence, income taxation became necessary to fund public expenditure and to offset the price-inflation caused by uncontrolled creation of bank-money. Bank credit and taxation are therefore two faces of the same coin, in effect charging the public TWICE for the same thing, by two different entities, once by creating money and once again by direct taxation on income.

Laws that are Made are necessarily subject to consent, and since consent can be withdrawn they have no force in their own right. Laws that are Discovered have force irrespective of consent, because they relate to the immutable rules of existence; they have existential consequences even if not formally enforced.

If a parliament can legislate anything, irrespective of whether it is objectively right or wrong, then, by virtue of its own constitution, it is not within the law.