The idea that government officials (in Australia or elsewhere) have the "right" to restrict personal liberty and suspend representative government based on some sort of Benthamite calculus known only to them is repulsive and is doomed to fail under any measure. The fact that the "vaccines" do not prevent getting or spreading the virus nullifies any social value of mandating them and renders such mandates as discriminatory against those who believe in personal autonomy. Even if they worked, there is no precedent or basis for any modern western government taking the actions they are taking.
To your point about the needs of human nature, some have argued that freedom is the ability to act in a way that potentiates positive change in the world. This is the Protestant conception of freedom (derived from Luther) and presupposes that God is the sole source of all that is good and therefore is the source of all freedom we have. Christians also believe that reconciliation with God is the source of happiness (Ecclesiastes 2:26, Matthew 25). So sitting at home collecting a check won't do it. One of the errors of the founders, in my opinion, was to explicitly identify "the pursuit of happiness" as a universal right. Understanding it in that way leads to mistaken libertine and the utilitarian views (not to mention exponential expansion of government). In fact, for the Christian at least, happiness is a gift rather than a privilege and it is associated with religious liberty. But then again, is Australia still a Christian nation? Are any of the western nations still Christian?
Australians have always had what I would describe as a naive outlook of their government. Or at least that was the impression I had when there and being married to one for almost a decade.
This is prompting me to send a few emails and text to see what the more general consensus is at the moment. I'm betting it's pretty much the same as it's always been.
What I find somewhat amusing is the difference in reaction to the statement ‘it is not about human rights. It is about human life.’ when made by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews vs. a Christian making a pro-life argument. Reminds me of the double standard of ‘my body, my choice’ for abortion vs. (not really a) COVID vaccine
It would be great if his article would be read on the major "news" outlets that the majority stills watches in this country. Otherwise, I think its just sits there while people watch the "delta death cult" spin around their nightly news.
You won't be free. You won't be happy. You will exist...at the Whim of the State.
"Pray tell, my brother,
Why do dictators kill
and make war?
Is it for glory; for things,
for beliefs, for hatred,
for power?
Yes, but more,
because they can."
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
The idea that government officials (in Australia or elsewhere) have the "right" to restrict personal liberty and suspend representative government based on some sort of Benthamite calculus known only to them is repulsive and is doomed to fail under any measure. The fact that the "vaccines" do not prevent getting or spreading the virus nullifies any social value of mandating them and renders such mandates as discriminatory against those who believe in personal autonomy. Even if they worked, there is no precedent or basis for any modern western government taking the actions they are taking.
To your point about the needs of human nature, some have argued that freedom is the ability to act in a way that potentiates positive change in the world. This is the Protestant conception of freedom (derived from Luther) and presupposes that God is the sole source of all that is good and therefore is the source of all freedom we have. Christians also believe that reconciliation with God is the source of happiness (Ecclesiastes 2:26, Matthew 25). So sitting at home collecting a check won't do it. One of the errors of the founders, in my opinion, was to explicitly identify "the pursuit of happiness" as a universal right. Understanding it in that way leads to mistaken libertine and the utilitarian views (not to mention exponential expansion of government). In fact, for the Christian at least, happiness is a gift rather than a privilege and it is associated with religious liberty. But then again, is Australia still a Christian nation? Are any of the western nations still Christian?
Australians have always had what I would describe as a naive outlook of their government. Or at least that was the impression I had when there and being married to one for almost a decade.
This is prompting me to send a few emails and text to see what the more general consensus is at the moment. I'm betting it's pretty much the same as it's always been.
I keep reading about the extreme restriction policies in Australia.
They seem to be about 3 standard deviations from all the other countries in the world.
I haven’t read anything about why?
How does one account for this extreme government policies?
“Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews says:
‘it is not about human rights. It is about human life.’”
Specifically, what about life in Australia relative to life in other less restrictive countries?
Are their Covid medical statistics equally extremely different from other countries?
Friedersdof touches on the subject but does not go deeper into a comprehensive explanation for the massive restricitons.
What I find somewhat amusing is the difference in reaction to the statement ‘it is not about human rights. It is about human life.’ when made by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews vs. a Christian making a pro-life argument. Reminds me of the double standard of ‘my body, my choice’ for abortion vs. (not really a) COVID vaccine
It would be great if his article would be read on the major "news" outlets that the majority stills watches in this country. Otherwise, I think its just sits there while people watch the "delta death cult" spin around their nightly news.