Listening to this will be a good way to stimulate my brain as I do some house cleaning later.
However, I wanted to jump in and relate a conversation I had about regulation of restaurants, as I feel it pertains to the general concept of trusting and allowing the government to determine what should and should not be done to keep people safe.
My friends and I visited a restaurant to support its owner's decision to remain open when the Michigan Department of Health declared that no restaurants were allowed to offer in-person dining. She had taken a risk, but was hoping that enough people would choose to eat there to keep her business afloat.
We talked about the fact that the state should not have the authority to close private businesses, and that people could make their own risk assessments and choose whether or not to eat out. But when I suggested that the state had no authority to regulate restaurants in *any* way, she was taken aback. Surely we needed these regulatory agencies to ensure that safe food handling practices were followed. The example she gave to support that view actually supported mine. She said that she had attended an auction at a restaurant that had gone out of business and was trying to liquidate to pay some of its debts. She described how disgustingly dirty the equipment was, and held that up as an example of why we need regulation. But that situation happened *in spite of* the existing regulations.
I guess someone could still argue that we just need to pour even more money into the system, or that without regulation, it would be even worse, and even more restaurants would be cutting corners on cleanliness and food safety.
Kind of reminds me of the covid shot campaign. We just need even more people to take even more shots. And when they get covid anyhow, at least they were vaccinated; it would have been so much worse otherwise.
I actually just recorded another episode with a restaurant owner who had his business destroyed because he did not go along with the Covid BS. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of his story is how little support he got from others around him, including those in the industry, who were also being victimized by the rules.
Yes, it's so interesting to hear views like this from the very people who are harmed and controlled by the regulatory state. Even some doctors who see how medical licensing boards hold them hostage to the pharmaceutical industry still believe that that kind of power is 'necessary.' It's not though. And I hope we do a good job of explaining why that is in this episode.
Great that you discussed the marriage license. Marriage licensing is laughable to me, as a person who believes marriage is a sacrament. Why would I ask Satan (government) for permission to celebrate a Christian sacrament?
Jeremy's comment to the pastor about placing the state above God in reference to marriage licensing is so important. This played out during the covid theater in that churches whose leadership had already given the state authority that should only be God's were much more likely to go along with government edicts. A church leader with spiritual discernment should have recognized that the orders to keep people physically distant at first, and then adding on the emotional distancing of covering everyone's faces were NOT in alignment with Biblical principles. I lived in Michigan at the time, too, just as Jeremy did, and this was a real problem for me as a Christian, to see those who named the name of Christ acting in such a fearful way - either fearful of sickness or fearful of the government's iron fist - that they would turn from the mission Jesus gave them to go into the world and proclaim the good news to everyone. Treating other people as primarily vectors of disease does not fit into that mission at all.
And because so many churches reinforced the lies of the government by behaving as though the virus would kill everyone unless they did all the viral protection rituals imposed by the state, I fear that many more lives were lost due to fear, unwise trust in the medical system for treatment, and eventually, trust in the dangerous injections.
Listening through this again after having listened to the panel with Dr. Francis Collins addressing possible mistakes made in the covid response, it just solidifies my view, which Jeremy summed up so well here @13:30-15:48. Public health/CDC/health care systems/medical associations and licensing boards do NOT have the goal of better health in mind. Their goal is a policy goal of high vaccination rates. And the two are not equivalent, and likely even diametrically opposed. They have been allowed for far too long to use high vaccination rates as a surrogate for good health by claiming they are protecting people from illness. But, as Collins admitted, they are hyper-fixated on the idea of preventing certain specific illnesses (which they don't even effectively do) while completely ignoring any downstream effects in the form of chronic conditions caused by vaccines.
Yes. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that those claiming to act in the interest of "public health" are disinterested, objective, etc. Any time an entity is granted power to make decisions over other people's lives, that entity WILL be captured by specific interests. It's what happens any time there is a legal monopoly on force.
Listening to this will be a good way to stimulate my brain as I do some house cleaning later.
However, I wanted to jump in and relate a conversation I had about regulation of restaurants, as I feel it pertains to the general concept of trusting and allowing the government to determine what should and should not be done to keep people safe.
My friends and I visited a restaurant to support its owner's decision to remain open when the Michigan Department of Health declared that no restaurants were allowed to offer in-person dining. She had taken a risk, but was hoping that enough people would choose to eat there to keep her business afloat.
We talked about the fact that the state should not have the authority to close private businesses, and that people could make their own risk assessments and choose whether or not to eat out. But when I suggested that the state had no authority to regulate restaurants in *any* way, she was taken aback. Surely we needed these regulatory agencies to ensure that safe food handling practices were followed. The example she gave to support that view actually supported mine. She said that she had attended an auction at a restaurant that had gone out of business and was trying to liquidate to pay some of its debts. She described how disgustingly dirty the equipment was, and held that up as an example of why we need regulation. But that situation happened *in spite of* the existing regulations.
I guess someone could still argue that we just need to pour even more money into the system, or that without regulation, it would be even worse, and even more restaurants would be cutting corners on cleanliness and food safety.
Kind of reminds me of the covid shot campaign. We just need even more people to take even more shots. And when they get covid anyhow, at least they were vaccinated; it would have been so much worse otherwise.
I actually just recorded another episode with a restaurant owner who had his business destroyed because he did not go along with the Covid BS. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of his story is how little support he got from others around him, including those in the industry, who were also being victimized by the rules.
Yes, it's so interesting to hear views like this from the very people who are harmed and controlled by the regulatory state. Even some doctors who see how medical licensing boards hold them hostage to the pharmaceutical industry still believe that that kind of power is 'necessary.' It's not though. And I hope we do a good job of explaining why that is in this episode.
Great that you discussed the marriage license. Marriage licensing is laughable to me, as a person who believes marriage is a sacrament. Why would I ask Satan (government) for permission to celebrate a Christian sacrament?
YES!!! 💯 Ok, now I’ll read the post.
Each and every form of thought control should be abolished, and that includes all forms of professional licensing.
If there ever was a "general interest of the public" it has to be this one.
Absolutely.
Yes! Private rating agencies would be much better.
Jeremy's comment to the pastor about placing the state above God in reference to marriage licensing is so important. This played out during the covid theater in that churches whose leadership had already given the state authority that should only be God's were much more likely to go along with government edicts. A church leader with spiritual discernment should have recognized that the orders to keep people physically distant at first, and then adding on the emotional distancing of covering everyone's faces were NOT in alignment with Biblical principles. I lived in Michigan at the time, too, just as Jeremy did, and this was a real problem for me as a Christian, to see those who named the name of Christ acting in such a fearful way - either fearful of sickness or fearful of the government's iron fist - that they would turn from the mission Jesus gave them to go into the world and proclaim the good news to everyone. Treating other people as primarily vectors of disease does not fit into that mission at all.
And because so many churches reinforced the lies of the government by behaving as though the virus would kill everyone unless they did all the viral protection rituals imposed by the state, I fear that many more lives were lost due to fear, unwise trust in the medical system for treatment, and eventually, trust in the dangerous injections.
"Treating other people as primarily vectors of disease does not fit into that mission at all."
Bingo.
On the bright side, this whole episode has revealed what so many people, and institutions, are really about.
Listening through this again after having listened to the panel with Dr. Francis Collins addressing possible mistakes made in the covid response, it just solidifies my view, which Jeremy summed up so well here @13:30-15:48. Public health/CDC/health care systems/medical associations and licensing boards do NOT have the goal of better health in mind. Their goal is a policy goal of high vaccination rates. And the two are not equivalent, and likely even diametrically opposed. They have been allowed for far too long to use high vaccination rates as a surrogate for good health by claiming they are protecting people from illness. But, as Collins admitted, they are hyper-fixated on the idea of preventing certain specific illnesses (which they don't even effectively do) while completely ignoring any downstream effects in the form of chronic conditions caused by vaccines.
Yes. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that those claiming to act in the interest of "public health" are disinterested, objective, etc. Any time an entity is granted power to make decisions over other people's lives, that entity WILL be captured by specific interests. It's what happens any time there is a legal monopoly on force.