Some think taking away their rights is unwarranted
By Lethbridge Herald on January 8, 2022.
Lorne Fitch – Guest columnist
In a land not far from here but in a mental galaxy far removed from the orbit of reasonable people are some who think stop signs are unnecessary, even punitive.
This is apparently government overreach, to take away the freedom of unimpeded travel. It is, in the opinion of the anti-stoppers, trammeling the individual rights of citizens to suggest obeying stop signs at intersections serves the interests of all.
Why they say, on social media platforms are found any number of “experts” who point out stopping is unwarranted, even unsafe.
Some say you could be rear-ended if these freedom-killing signs are obeyed. Statistics showing stop signs save lives are just fake news, drummed up by egg-headed scientists and academics in league with oppressive governments. There is anecdotal evidence that while you’re stopped someone could be directing an aerosol spray your way, filled with mind-controlling substances that turn us all into drones doing the will of a dictatorial central government. (It may well be an aerosol, but it originates from the anti-stoppers and probably contains other viral substances.)
Really, where is the “proof” stop signs work and how safe is stopping anyway? Isn’t stopping inefficient and aren’t there better, less intrusive ways to handle this so-called problem? Who decided where to put up these signs and how can their judgement be trusted?
Slowing down for these signs disrupts the supply chain and ultimately the economy. The economy is, of course the most important part of civilization and any slackening of it needs to be vigorously defended against. Humans are expendable, but the economy—never!
Obligations to others are touted as the reason for stop signs, but how about the obligation to ensure individual rights and freedoms aren’t unduly affected? There is so much whining from the timid and timorous about the overstated carnage this expression of freedom provides.
As our premier alludes, why have such rules if people are going to break them, like running a stop sign?
Flicking your headlights on and off when you approach an intersection should be enough warning to others that you are expressing your right to sail through it without stopping.
That is a reasonable, prudent response, not the requirement to grind to a complete halt while overcautious drivers pile up, impeding a smooth flow of traffic. What could go wrong with this approach? Anti-stoppers say they will ignore these unnecessary interventions to freedom of the road.
If governments (and their scientist underlings) are allowed to continually intrude into the lives of citizens, where will it end? Mandatory seat-belt use, speed limits, health requirements—the list of undue government intervention into our lives is endless and worrisome.
The cry from the anti-stoppers is: unravelling our inalienable rights and freedoms to some overstated risk is unwarranted, unwise and undemocratic.
All we need to do is exercise some more personal responsibility over what we choose to do at stop signs rather than being forced to stop. Will the demonization of someone running a stop sign never end?
Lorne Fitch is a retired biologist and is tired of the tyranny of the minority of anti-vaxxers.
16-15
Re: stop signs, the fine for not stopping at a stop sign, if caught, is $287 and 3 demerits. But now, traffic court is now, supposedly being eliminated in Alberta, so now, it would have to be proven by the offender that a stop at the stop sign did indeed, happen.
Re: anti-stoppers and anti-vaxxers, a sobering result could be death, not only of oneself, but the causative effect, on others. But will the “me-me-me” mantra prevail?
There are many people tired of the tyranny of government.
A stop sign is logical. ,An un-proven vaccine ??
Actually by now ,it’s a proven vaccine.Proven not to work.
It works, but, there has never been a claim that it is 100% effective. It’s the same with flu vaccines, i.e. one would be aware that one could still, get the flu, but more mildly. The disturbing thing with this corona virus though, is the thousands of folks who have, and will, end up with severe and life-altering long haul symptoms, including heart and kidney damage, or, death. It’s one’s choice of assuming risk, either way.
Quite right, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever claimed that any of the COVID-19 vaccines are 100% effective. What has been said, many times, is that the vaccines are effective at reducing the overall number of infections and, more importantly, at reducing the proportion of those who are infected from becoming seriously ill.
By way of illustration, according to AHS data, and as reported in a recent CTV News piece, the rate on January 6 for unvaccinated ICU patients in Alberta was 5.2/100,000, while the rate for vaccinated patients was 0.4/100,000.
if society really cared about one another, and we were resonably egalitarian, that still would not provide a basis for infringing upon the right we each have to determine what we do with our body. of course, the reality is society has not stepped up much for the working poor to date. the disgusting gap in living standards in our land demonstrates just how much we really stand for one another. are you for real?
if the vaxes were deemed to be 100% – and they are far from that, and we still do not know how these mrna mass experiments will play out over the coming years – that would still not be a basis upon which to force one to take something they do not wish to take. choice is obviously a point the authoritarian personality type has no taste for.
the issue is this simple: the rights of one end at the body of another. this is not a new concept. stop signs – are you friggin’ kidding?! – have nothing to do with one’s body. you have right to your choices. you take a vax and other precautions…how is the vax is not enough? was it not enough when you took your measles vax? have you lived your life looking to undermine the rights of the measles unvaxed in the name of your supreme right to decide what others ingest, or not?
as a biologist, i suspect you have some empathy for living creatures. how do you reconcile torturing creatures in the name of prolonging your life? do you have no mercy? would you feel it right and just that a more dominant life form gets to inflcit pain and suffering and misery upon your being in the name of their desire for “medicine” or some other warped sense of acquiring “knowledge?”
ingest what you will, or not, but one does not get to force their choices with regard to the body of another. meanwhile, keep taking your vaxes. maybe 10 will be the lucky one. for me, the basis of pharm is bad karma, very bad karma.
bad enough to be driven into such irrational fear that one is willing to give over ownership of one’s body, and ever the worse to do so over covid fears. world death numbers have changes little comparing pre-covid years to covid years; 5.5 million deaths attributed to covid, over 2 years, from 280+ million cases…a small death rate; but ever the more telling is 5.5 million deaths out of a world pop approaching 8 billion. death from covid is so very unlikely; hardly a pandemic. far more people die due to poisoned environments, about 12.6 million per year, or one quarter of all deaths. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-03-2016-an-estimated-12-6-million-deaths-each-year-are-attributable-to-unhealthy-environments
moreover, “According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.” that is a good bit more than children dying from the shamdemic, and a good more than all people that have died from the shamdemic. https://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
yes, there are pandemics abound, but they are not covid. however, like covid, they are all man-made, and are entirely preventable.