We don’t have to owe our souls to the company store. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
America has been turned into a kind of inescapable hospital ward by very sick people, using the cudgel of commerce to compel the healthy – the sane – to play along. As for example by requiring healthy people to play-pretend that they are sick – or spreading sickness – and so they must wear a “mask” to enter a store.
Including car stores.
This form of Sickness Kabuki is returning – not because most people want to “practice” it but rather because car dealerships, being the retail outlets of large corporations, are being pressured to impose it by the large corporations to which they are beholden. The same corporations that have reinstated “mask” requirements on the assembly line floor are insisting on the same on the showroom floor.
This includes General Motors, Ford and the Stellantis combine that owns Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep, who earlier this month decreed that everyone who works for them will “practice” Sickness Kabuki by wearing a “mask,” including those who’ve took the experimental “vaccine” so as to avoid having to wear the soul-effacing things.
These poor people face an economic Sophie’s Choice: Assert their sanity and lose their paycheck. Or play along with the sick Kabuki, in order to continue being paid. The pressure coming from these big corporations is responsible for most of the spread of Sickness Kabuki, which would probably never have taken hold to the degree it did if people were not threatened with loss of livelihood, at the cost of their self-respect.
A dangerously large percentage of Americans work for these corporations, which for that reason wield a dangerous degree of control over America. A literal handful of corporate executives can cause tens of millions of people to dance pitifully from the economic strings they hold. And these corporations are “interlocking” – meaning they do business among themselves and share common interests, often at odds with our individual interests, as formerly independent human beings.
It’s your body and your choice except if you choose not to wear a mask, social distance, or get the vaccine. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
One of the more glaring cognitive dissonances of our time is the assertion, on the one hand – and usually asserted most stridently by people on the Left – that their bodies are inviolable . . . when it comes to their decision about whether to abort the life they are carrying. And on the other hand, the assertion – most rabidly asserted by the same people – that everyone else must submit their bodies for medical treatment that might just abort them.
So much for their contrary decision about their bodies.
This is not meant to be an article about abortion, per se. I merely use abortion to try to make the point about the situationally pirouetting intellectual dishonesty of the Left, which is most aggressively pushing for the violation of everyone else’s body while at the same time unctuously demanding theirs be respected, absolutely.
Even though it’s not their body that’s at issue as regards their most militantly hewed-to issue.
Abortion is by definition the ending of a life. This is inarguable, a biological fact – no getting around it and no matter how awkward or inconvenient the fact may be for some to deal with.
It is also not the life of the mother that is ended when an abortion is performed. Another inarguable fact – vociferously denied by those who know it is a fact and so obviates their talking points about their body.
Many debates about government policy fail to note the nature and scope of government involvement in the issue under debate. From Jeffrey A. Tucker at aier.com:
The number one problem of all public debate about politics and economics is the failure to name the state. If this would change, so would public opinion.
There is no shortage of examples. People talk about health care for all, solving climate change, providing security in old age, universal educational access, boosting wages, ending discrimination, and you can add to the list without end.
That’s one side.
The other speaks of national identity, protecting jobs, making us more moral, forming cultural cohesion, providing security against the foreign enemy, and so on.
All of this, no matter how fancy the language, is obfuscation. What all of this really means is: put the state in charge. What’s strange is the unwillingness to say it outright. This is for a reason. The plans the politicians have for our lives would come across as far less compelling if they admitted the following brutal truth.
There really are only two ways to allocate goods and services in society: the markets (which rely on individual choice) and the state (which runs on compulsion). No one has ever found a third way. You can mix the two — some markets and some state-run operations — but there always is and always will be a toggling between the two. If you replace markets, the result will be more force via the state, which means bureaucratic administration and rule by force. If you reduce the role of the state, you rely more on markets. This is the logic of political choice, and there is no escaping it.
We have so many laws and regulations meant for our own good, our own protection, that it’s impossible to see how anything can go wrong. From Bill Bonner at bonnerandpartners.com:
BALTIMORE – We were disappointed to see the pedestal… naked… forlorn… its statue gone… its purpose defunct.
For more than a century, the bronze statue of Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney – gravely pondering the weighty issues of the mid-19th century – graced the park.
Now he is gone.
Justice Taney’s statue in Baltimore has been hauled off
No Decisions Necessary
Now, we are so much better people.
Because now we have so many rules, regulations, and protocols, we have no choice in the matter. We no longer have to be wise, clever, or good. No pondering necessary. We just have to obey!
For example, you have thousands of choices about which drugs to take.
Many of them will kill you, but you don’t want to go to the grave after taking an “illegal” drug. Better to take a doctor’s prescription; then your grieving spouse can sue somebody.
No fanny pinching without prior consent! If your wife tells you it’s okay, tell her to put it in writing. And consult a lawyer.
Unless, of course, you are famous or powerful; then, the President of the United States of America says you can do whatever you want.
And no tax avoidance… unless it is specifically authorized in one of the 71,689 pages of the U.S. tax code. Or perhaps in the 459-page Senate tax reform proposal.
That is progress! Everything is carefully laid out for us.
“Take off your shoes… take out your laptops…” The SEC gives us 80 years of rulings to guide our investment morality.
And if the impulse to say something hateful to your neighbor comes over you, you’re saved: It’s against the law. Discrimination is unlawful, too.
And according to a full-page warning in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, it is against the law even to “steer” people to neighborhoods where you think they will be more at home (that is, where other people like them live).
To continue reading: A Luddite’s Guide to the Future