5 ms·

A person does not belong to society or to the government. Sane or not, a person who chooses to not get mental, physical or preventive treatment (like vaccines)

by _8j50 3y ago

A person does not belong to society or to the government. Sane or not, a person who chooses to not get mental, physical or preventive treatment (like vaccines) or other social manadates should not be compelled because humans lack the authority to do so. What should happen is they should be expelled from society. Expulsion was very common in historical societies. The famous version of this is leper colonies. The land of thr country belongs to them, so designate a place for them to live in isolation except for volunteers that wish to visit them and offer aid/help. People should be asked that in the event they are deemed by professionals to be incapable of making their own decisions that they delegate the power of decision making on their behalf to the courts or society. This is a pervasive issue, even things like not wanting to be dependent on tech for day to day survival is a person's right. Compelling a person to do anything means you have deprived them of liberty and subjugated them, and to do that, having a good and legitimate reason is not enough, you also need authority. In communist governments for example, people are subjucts of the state and the state assumes authority even over what people belief. But in the US at least, the government that derives all its power and authority from the governed has not been granted such unlimited authority over law abiding citizens, or authority to pass laws to manipulate peoples bodies, regulate their beliefs and convictions or imprison them when they have not broken a law "for their own well being and without their prior consent. The people did not consent to have their wellbeing and safety taken care of against their will. If insane people, unvaccinated people, naked people and other people are considered to place a burden to society or to cause harm in the future, simply forbid them from coming into contact with society and only enforce complelled measures when they persistently refuse to comply.

veave 3y ago
There isn't much difference between expulsion and putting them in an asylum, no?
- _8j50 3y ago
  There is, more space and freedom to do whatever they want there.
  - veave 3y ago
    Most likely they will simply die of starvation.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      They can take what they want with them, farm the land, fish, build houses, cities,etc...
      - doctor_eval 3y ago
        If they could do these things, they wouldn't be banished.
        _8j50 3y ago
        Yes they would, we are not talking about mental/physical handicapped people here. It's people who are already in mainstream society and end up being insane from the perspective of society, they can still fish, hunt, farm. Moreover, concerned people or even the government can provide them aid if they need it, they are still citizens.
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        How many regular people do you think are able to fish, hunt and farm - and whose life now depends on it? What about agoraphobics or germaphobes? Who will give up the very valuable arable land and clean water needed for these activities? Who will teach them to do it? It’s very difficult to shake the idea that you’re trolling.
        _8j50 3y ago
        I am very serious, I too can't shake the idea that you don't get this is a choice. If you choose this, you prepare for it or you have accepted this future. I am not suggesting this as punishment but as an option to existing punishment, to being thrown into jails and asylums. Would you not prefer to be allowed to live in a forest or some set aside survivable place than rot in an institution? I am even all for basic survival training if people choose it. America was built by people that kept migrating to the west to live out their ways or as punishment. Same with australia. The only thing new in my suggestion is having it be a consensual option.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  There is from a sociological perspective. It's the difference between therapy and nihilation[1]. The section on therapy and nihilation comprises just a few paragraphs, but the general gist is this. Therapy prevents immigrations from reality and nihilation prevents contamination of reality. They are, of course, both machines of universe maintenance. However just because they share a telos, doesn't mean there isn't much of a difference. There is a vast difference between the experience of being subjected to either therapy or nihilation depending on the social and material particulars of each. 1. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday & Company, New York.
- lurquer 3y ago
  [flagged]
wolverine876 3y ago
I think you should be expelled from society for promulgating yet another sensationalist, inflammatory, absurd Internet theory. Why not? Who gets to say who is expelled? That's why we have human rights - people are free to do what they want, without giving a f- if you like it or not. You are free to do what you want without giving a f- if I like it or not. Yes, there are limits where we harm others. Let's be honest: People just don't like other people who lack housing and look dirty; people are scared of what's different; the rest is mostly rationalization for oppression.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Take your own emotional reactions down a couple of notches there yourself first. Wtf! What part of what I said was an "internet theory" and exactly what are my other theories? Do you just mean ideas you merely react to at a surface level instead if attempting any level of undersranding or discourse?? > That's why we have human rights No, the only reason there are human rights is because people are human. > people are free to do what they want, without giving a f- if you like it or not What does this even mean? Are you saying society should be able to lock up arbitrary people for no reason or do you not know this already happens? Asylums are the institutuions, forced incarceration when you are considered insane is a thing, as are many laws that jail people who are not harming others on suspicion that they will cause harm or are behaving undesirably. > Yes, there are limits where we harm others. Or yourself, that's what the entire discussion here is about in case you missed it. > Let's be honest: People just don't like other people who lack housing and look dirty; people are scared of what's different; the rest is mostly rationalization for oppression. And my "internet theory" as you put it, instead of opression, it allows freedom for the would be oppressed to chase the life they choose. Have you heard of nudist colonies? That's the idea except you cannot rejoin mainstream society so long as you refuse to conform to its ways, but you should not have similar obligations either like taxation. If you are in these expelled communities like the insane, unvaccinated, etc... you still get to vote, access the internet and do just about anything so long as you stick to your physical isolation. It decriminalizes many victimless crimes. And mainstream/majority society will decide like it already is doing.
  - 3y ago
worik 3y ago
> A person does not belong to society or to the government. Then..... > In communist governments for example, people are subjucts of the state and the state assumes authority even over what people belief. That is a false dichotomy. Who does a person belong too? We are nothing without our communities. Naked apes at the mercy of fate. It is our communities that make us able to survive. Our families, neighbors, friends, foes, we are all in it together. Bonds of love and mutual obligation Supporting each other, meeting the needs of others and having our needs met does not mean we live in North Korea Mutual aid is not the end of individual liberty. It is the engine that makes it possible
- _8j50 3y ago
  > Who does a person belong too? Their Maker if you believe in one (read declaration of independence to see similar views around foundation of America), or no one I suppose if you are an atheist. This is why the government shouldn't tell you what to believe in. > We are nothing without our communities. Naked apes at the mercy of fate. You own your community/government in the US. Not the other way around. For example, conscientuous objection to participating in combat, for soldiers! (As government property as you get) is a thing because ultimately the government lacks authority over a person to override their beliefs or ways. The "community" as you put it only has authority over you over activities that affect it. My suggestion is to simply remove people from a community who refuse to play by its rules while allowing them to pursue their own ways. > It is our communities that make us able to survive. Our families, neighbors, friends, foes, we are all in it together. Bonds of love and mutual obligation Communities are consensual relationships not ones formed out of natural hierarchial authority over others. None of what you said here is relevant because the subject here is when people are being forced to do things against their will just because the majority wants it that way, making them lesser subjects and prisoners of the community instead of equal and consensual participants of it. > Supporting each other, meeting the needs of others and having our needs met does not mean we live in North Korea When your support jails people or makes it so that they can't function without conformance, it does indeed become opressive to them. > Mutual aid is not the end of individual liberty. It is the engine that makes it possible That's nice but what part of this topic is mutual aid?

by _8j50 3y ago

veave 3y ago

There isn't much difference between expulsion and putting them in an asylum, no?

_8j50 3y ago
There is, more space and freedom to do whatever they want there.
- veave 3y ago
  Most likely they will simply die of starvation.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    They can take what they want with them, farm the land, fish, build houses, cities,etc...
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      If they could do these things, they wouldn't be banished.
      - _8j50 3y ago
        Yes they would, we are not talking about mental/physical handicapped people here. It's people who are already in mainstream society and end up being insane from the perspective of society, they can still fish, hunt, farm. Moreover, concerned people or even the government can provide them aid if they need it, they are still citizens.
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        How many regular people do you think are able to fish, hunt and farm - and whose life now depends on it? What about agoraphobics or germaphobes? Who will give up the very valuable arable land and clean water needed for these activities? Who will teach them to do it? It’s very difficult to shake the idea that you’re trolling.
        _8j50 3y ago
        I am very serious, I too can't shake the idea that you don't get this is a choice. If you choose this, you prepare for it or you have accepted this future. I am not suggesting this as punishment but as an option to existing punishment, to being thrown into jails and asylums. Would you not prefer to be allowed to live in a forest or some set aside survivable place than rot in an institution? I am even all for basic survival training if people choose it. America was built by people that kept migrating to the west to live out their ways or as punishment. Same with australia. The only thing new in my suggestion is having it be a consensual option.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
There is from a sociological perspective. It's the difference between therapy and nihilation[1]. The section on therapy and nihilation comprises just a few paragraphs, but the general gist is this. Therapy prevents immigrations from reality and nihilation prevents contamination of reality. They are, of course, both machines of universe maintenance. However just because they share a telos, doesn't mean there isn't much of a difference. There is a vast difference between the experience of being subjected to either therapy or nihilation depending on the social and material particulars of each. 1. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday & Company, New York.
lurquer 3y ago
[flagged]

wolverine876 3y ago

I think you should be expelled from society for promulgating yet another sensationalist, inflammatory, absurd Internet theory. Why not? Who gets to say who is expelled? That's why we have human rights - people are free to do what they want, without giving a f- if you like it or not. You are free to do what you want without giving a f- if I like it or not. Yes, there are limits where we harm others. Let's be honest: People just don't like other people who lack housing and look dirty; people are scared of what's different; the rest is mostly rationalization for oppression.

_8j50 3y ago
Take your own emotional reactions down a couple of notches there yourself first. Wtf! What part of what I said was an "internet theory" and exactly what are my other theories? Do you just mean ideas you merely react to at a surface level instead if attempting any level of undersranding or discourse?? > That's why we have human rights No, the only reason there are human rights is because people are human. > people are free to do what they want, without giving a f- if you like it or not What does this even mean? Are you saying society should be able to lock up arbitrary people for no reason or do you not know this already happens? Asylums are the institutuions, forced incarceration when you are considered insane is a thing, as are many laws that jail people who are not harming others on suspicion that they will cause harm or are behaving undesirably. > Yes, there are limits where we harm others. Or yourself, that's what the entire discussion here is about in case you missed it. > Let's be honest: People just don't like other people who lack housing and look dirty; people are scared of what's different; the rest is mostly rationalization for oppression. And my "internet theory" as you put it, instead of opression, it allows freedom for the would be oppressed to chase the life they choose. Have you heard of nudist colonies? That's the idea except you cannot rejoin mainstream society so long as you refuse to conform to its ways, but you should not have similar obligations either like taxation. If you are in these expelled communities like the insane, unvaccinated, etc... you still get to vote, access the internet and do just about anything so long as you stick to your physical isolation. It decriminalizes many victimless crimes. And mainstream/majority society will decide like it already is doing.
- 3y ago

worik 3y ago

> A person does not belong to society or to the government. Then..... > In communist governments for example, people are subjucts of the state and the state assumes authority even over what people belief. That is a false dichotomy. Who does a person belong too? We are nothing without our communities. Naked apes at the mercy of fate. It is our communities that make us able to survive. Our families, neighbors, friends, foes, we are all in it together. Bonds of love and mutual obligation Supporting each other, meeting the needs of others and having our needs met does not mean we live in North Korea Mutual aid is not the end of individual liberty. It is the engine that makes it possible

_8j50 3y ago
> Who does a person belong too? Their Maker if you believe in one (read declaration of independence to see similar views around foundation of America), or no one I suppose if you are an atheist. This is why the government shouldn't tell you what to believe in. > We are nothing without our communities. Naked apes at the mercy of fate. You own your community/government in the US. Not the other way around. For example, conscientuous objection to participating in combat, for soldiers! (As government property as you get) is a thing because ultimately the government lacks authority over a person to override their beliefs or ways. The "community" as you put it only has authority over you over activities that affect it. My suggestion is to simply remove people from a community who refuse to play by its rules while allowing them to pursue their own ways. > It is our communities that make us able to survive. Our families, neighbors, friends, foes, we are all in it together. Bonds of love and mutual obligation Communities are consensual relationships not ones formed out of natural hierarchial authority over others. None of what you said here is relevant because the subject here is when people are being forced to do things against their will just because the majority wants it that way, making them lesser subjects and prisoners of the community instead of equal and consensual participants of it. > Supporting each other, meeting the needs of others and having our needs met does not mean we live in North Korea When your support jails people or makes it so that they can't function without conformance, it does indeed become opressive to them. > Mutual aid is not the end of individual liberty. It is the engine that makes it possible That's nice but what part of this topic is mutual aid?