A more comprehensive title for this rationation would be Uncovering Covert Intentions through voiding false premises by exposing logical contradictions. Essentially, what I intend to do here is show how you can determine whether someone making a claim demonstrates a prima facia showing that the claim is valid. More important is being able to void the claim by demonstrating a logical contradiction put forth by the claimant. Once that is done then you can be on your way to uncovering the true intentions of the claimant.
Did you ever hear the claim by advocates of mandatory vaccinations for school children? They first claimed that “vaccines prevent illness”. Without doing any investigation about the efficacy of vaccines you will be able to dismiss the mandatory vaccination proposal and close the issue.
These advocates provided a warrant for their proposition that vaccines must be compulsory and administered to children against the will of their parents. The basis of that warrant was that the children of parents who chose to have them vaccinated are being put at-risk by associating with unvaccinated children who may be infected.
The two claims are a logical contradiction. If claim one is true -- that vaccines are effective -- then claim two -- that vaccinated children are at risk of contracting an ailment -- is a contradiction.
Once this contradiction is uncovered the proposition that vaccines should be mandatory fails and MUST be dismissed. Upon the moment that second claim is made the debate ends and the proposal is voided.
Recently there have been numerous claims made in regard to Covid-19 and the SARS CoV-2 virus.
You may have heard the claim a few months ago that mandatory business closures were implemented to reduce person-to-person contact and promote well-being by protecting people from possible transmission of the SARS CoV-2 virus. That appears to be a reasonable proposition.
There was a qualification on business closures as not ALL businesses were closed. Therein lies the second claim; some goods needed to remain available to consumers because they were essential to humans and banning those sales would do greater harm such as starving people who couldn’t buy food or sickening those who couldn’t get drugs. That also appears reasonable and consistent with the first claim But it is not.
To find the logical contradiction here one needs to look at what the politicians have deliberately constructed to be the list of essential businesses. I was in Las Vegas at the time that the casinos were closed when the mandatory closures went into effect. However, I was still able to go shopping and spent nearly an hour in a store pawing through hundreds of DVDs to find a few to add to my collection. What was more striking though is that liquor stores remain open in Nevada and numerous other states which have implemented mandatory business closures.
That is the contradiction. Alcohol is not essential to human survival and, quite to the contrary, the effects of alcohol have demonstrated a much greater harm to human well-being than any possible good derived from its consumption. This is such a well known fact that a court could take judicial notice of it.
It is when this contradiction is uncovered that the proposition that businesses are being closed to reduce viral transmission and promote human well-being fails and MUST be dismissed. Upon the moment that liquor stores are allowed to remain open the debate ends, the proposal is voided and the state governors who made such orders are exposed as liars - the highest form of human degenerates.
The true intentions exposed
The actual basis for the various deprivations imposed upon us throughout the Covid-19 / SARS CoV-2 panic response is to test our resolve and our willingness to capitualte and subject ourselves to inconveniences and greater burdens so that others may profit. The denial of our right to engage in free market transactions has been invited by business. Let me be clear on that. The business community wants the government to impose restrictions on free markets.
Super corporations, airlines as an example, have always invited the government to impose more restrictions and regulatory requirements on them. Thus, increasing their costs to operate. This paradox is easily understood when the element of profit and competition is examined.
If all it took to start an airline was buying planes and hiring staff then with $100,000,000 you are up and running. If it fails you sell off the planes at a small loss and may be out 20%. However, if there is an additional $100,000,000 in regulatory start-up costs and it fails then there is a 60% loss. A much riskier investment. Existing airlines like this because the annual regulatory costs are only $10,000,000. They willingly pay that amount to severely limit potential competitors from trying to enter the market. Those costs, which all of the existing competitors bear, are passed onto the consumer. It is basically a legal way of creating a cartel.
The list of “essential” businesses which are allowed to remain open during this panic were carefully crafted for the purpose of reducing competition. Take restaurants for example. What happens to the diner that is located in a strip, maybe around a courthouse square, that is independently owned and does 100% of its sales as dine-in? It is structurally locked by businesses on either side. Thus, there is no way to install a drive-up window. Out back is an alley with dumpsters. In front is a street or fire-lane / parking lot driveway. Curbside pick-up is difficult at best and illegal at worst. So where do these customers go? They go a few blocks away to the stand alone chain restaurant that has the same drive-through operation in all of it’s 10,000 locations.
Then there are all the other walk-in service based businesses such as banks. By closing their lobbies they force customers to use on-line options or the drive-through teller or machine. Necessary in-person transactions are done by appointment only. Instead of a lobby with five clerks waiting to serve customers at their whim, sometimes with only one busy, there are now three but all are busy because customers can easily see the que and decide whether to wait or return when the line is shorter. Appointments are made during times when drive through transactions are known to be low.
The service companies profit in numerous ways. Reduced staff, lower cleaning and maintenance costs and reduced liability insurance as customers are no longer in the building. Some businesses are going so far as to close branches and consolidate operations. Customers can drive an extra mile or two which they do. They can’t walk in anyway.
The big benefit for business is that the customers greatly reduce the financial burdens on the business while still paying the same price. Look at the S&P 500 stock index and the total Gross Domestic Product [GDP] in a historical context. In the first three months of 2020 the GDP dropped by 5%. Yet, the S&P 500 has not been affected nearly to the degree that it has been during times of lower GDP contraction in the past. For instance, when GDP dropped by 2.5% in the year 2009 the S&P 500 dropped over 38% for the year 2008 or 15% for every 1% drop in GDP. The S&P drop occurred in 2008 because investors anticipated that consumer spending was going to drop significantly in 2009 which was reflected by the GDP decline of 2009. Conversely the S&P is nearly flat for the year, currently down only 1% for 2020.
So why would the S&P 500 fare much better now when the drop in revenue is double that of the 2009 contraction? Because it is more profitable for businesses to lose 5% of revenue while cutting costs by 6% or more. Simply put, in 2008 the mega corporations didn’t plan for nor help orchestrate the drop in revenue. More telling is to look where the current decline in revenue is happening. You bet it isn’t in the giant corporations that make up the S&P 500 index. The restaurant that has 10,000 locations and has absorbed the customers of the now closed local diner is in the S&P 500 index while the local diner is not.
If you think that companies like Amazon and eBay are not part of a scheme to promote a paradigm shift in forcing consumers to get their goods outside of the traditional brick and mortar locations then think again. eBay actually implemented a policy months ago prohibiting the sale of goods that may be used to reduce the spread of a viral contagion. It is good for eBay if more people contract and spread the SARS CoV-2 virus because that justifies closing brick and mortar businesses. Netflix is certainly a beneficiary of movie theaters being closed.
So when you hear a politician or corporation telling you that some restriction or denial of service is being imposed upon you for your safety you can tell them to sell that $#!* to the ignorant folks because you aren’t buying their profiteering scheme.
Finally, just a quick note about personal health. Don’t let your health decisions be based upon what lawyers feel that they can potentially persuade a jury to believe. The defendant, company X, is liable to the plaintiff who contracted the virus at work because X did not exercise due diligence in taking proactive remediation efforts such as requiring employees to wear dust or surgical masks. I’ll write about that next.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment