COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

Covid Vaccines: The Great Travesty Against Mankind


By Vasko Kohlmayer

October 21, 2023

“More than 5.55 billion people worldwide have received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, equal to about 72.3 percent of the world population,” observed the New York Times in March of this year.

In other words, in the space of twenty-seven months (since the beginning of the rollout), the vaccinators had managed to inject nearly two thirds of the world’s inhabitants with their COVID medicaments. Furthermore, the majority of the vaccinated were subjected to more than one dose. In total more than 13.5 billion injections were administered across the planet.

To pull this off in such a short period of time makes the COVID vaccination campaign one of the most impressive logistical and organizational feats ever accomplished.

A fatal flaw, however, has marred the whole COVID vaccination enterprise: it was a blatant fraud from beginning to end.

To begin with, the whole thing was based on a false premise. We were told that in SARS-CoV-2 we were up against a highly dangerous virus that posed a potentially lethal threat to those who contracted it and that vaccines were the only sure way to escape the scourge. This was a lie. For healthy people of productive age the infection fatality rate was about as high as that of the seasonal flu. For healthy children and young people the danger of a serious outcome was virtually nil.

Lauded as both “safe and effective,” the vaccines turned out to be anything but that. To begin with, it quickly became quite clear that the vaccines would not protect against infection. Only some five months after the start of the vaccination campaign, the authorities started speaking about the need for a booster. This obviously meant that the initial two doses of Pfizer and Moderna (one in the case of Johnson & Johnson) failed to protect their recipients from the SARS-CoV-2 virus beyond a very limited amount of time.

But the first booster also failed to confer any lasting protection and soon a second booster was required. The second booster, however, proved as ineffective as the first booster and a third booster was said to be necessary. But the third booster also failed, and a fourth booster was needed.

Currently, we are on the sixth shot and counting. And this less than 34 months after the COVID vaccines were first introduced. In other words, to keep fully vaccinated as per recommendations from our health authorities, one would have had to have been injected every five months or so.

But even those who got every booster on schedule were not protected against contracting COVID-19. We learn from the website of the Mayo Clinic: “People who are up to date on their vaccines can get breakthrough infections. They can then spread the virus to others.”

When pressed about this issue during a hearing of the European Parliament in October of last year, a Pfizer representative admitted that the company had never tested the vaccines to see whether they would prevent transmission.

What an astonishing admission that was. The objective of vaccines has always been to protect their recipients from the disease for which they were administered thus limiting the spread of infection in the population.

The COVID-19 “vaccines” are the first vaccines in history that do neither protect against infection nor slow its spread.

Do you remember when Joe Biden promised us during a Townhall meeting in 2021 that “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Turns out this was a massive lie. It was brazen disinformation coming from the very top of the US government.

The majority of the injected came down with COVID and most of them more than once. In fact, it appears that getting “vaccinated” against COVID increases one’s chances of contracting COVID. Just ask Joe and Jill Biden who despite being jabbed multiple times have been repeatedly sickened with the disease.

We must ask ourselves, “What kind of vaccines are these?” Never has the world witnessed such a thing — vaccines that require a booster every few months and apparently make their recipients more likely to fall ill with the very disease against which they are supposed to protect.

Neither will the vaccines protect people from serious COVID outcomes. The majority of people who get serious COVID or die of COVID have been vaccinated. That the vaccines are grossly ineffective is becoming clear even to most of those who were previously brainwashed by our corrupt governments and medical authorities. A study published earlier this month found that “uptake of boosters has stalled in the United States at less than 20% of the eligible population.” Please note that the 20% uptake figure refers to only the eligible population. This means that only a small fraction of the whole population has opted to receive the COVID injections. Only 17% of Americans chose to receive the previous booster. This time around the number will be even lower. By now most people have seen through the fraud.

Not only are the vaccines ineffective, but they are also very dangerous. Since the rollout of the vaccination campaign, there has been an explosion of adverse reaction reports across the world. In the United States, the reports related to the COVID shots in the VAERS database exceed those related to all the other vaccines combined. There is no doubt that the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever devised and that by a long shot.

Already early in 2022, there were more than one thousand articles and studies published in scientific journals discussing the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Some of the effects listed include conditions such as pericarditis, myopericarditis, death, Guillain-Barre syndrome, acute venous thromboembolism, lymphadenopathy, acute thrombosis of the coronary tree, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, T-cell lymphoma, aphasia, and thrombophilia among others.

The wider public, however, was never informed about these studies by our government and the medical establishment, both of which are corrupted to the core.

According to a survey conducted by Rasmussen at the end of last year, nearly 30 percent of Americans thought they knew someone who had been killed by a COVID vaccine. This number is undoubtedly much higher today as we keep hearing the news of healthy people who keep inexplicably dying. The stories of hundreds of healthy athletes who have been collapsing and dying since the beginning of the vaccination campaign are especially revealing.

According to researcher Steve Kirsch the death rate of the COVID vaccines is roughly 1 in 1000 doses. This translates into 676,000 dead Americans. It turns out, however, that Kirsch’s analysis, which is based on a breakdown of VAERS figures, may be too conservative. Working with data from 17 countries on all-cause mortality, researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest have come to the conclusion that the death rate of the COVID-19 shots is somewhere in the region of 1 in 800 doses. They estimate that the vaccines have killed some 17 million people worldwide.

As a point of comparison, the number of people exterminated by the Nazis in the Holocaust was about 6 million.

If even the most conservative estimates are correct, the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the bulk of which was carried out under false pretences and coercive mandates, constitutes the greatest crime ever committed against humanity.

Unbelievably, so far no one — either in government or in the medical establishment — has been held responsible for this travesty.

[Sid Belzberg]

This post is by former Premiere Brian Peckford and the last living signatory of The Candian Charter of Rights.

WHAT ? DANIELLE SMITH’S ADMINISTRATION BEGINNING COVID VACCINES ?

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 / BRIANPECKFORD

I thought she was against this!

Experimental , no long term studies , no liability , world wide millions of adverse reactions from taking the vaccines and thousands dead. Government agencies in the USA and Europe are reporting this.

She actually interviewed me about violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Governments were engaged in by coercing people just before she ran for the leadership of her Party?

And now she is the Premier and her Government through her Minster of Health is announcing as reported by the Calgary Herald”

‘ Albertans will be able to start booking appointments for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines beginning Oct. 10.

In a news release Thursday, the government announced that the shots will be available at Alberta Health Services clinics and pharmacies starting Oct. 16. Booking appointments can be done during the previous week through the online Alberta Vaccine Booking System at bookvaccine.alberta.ca/s/booking, by calling 811, or directly through clinics or pharmacies.’

It goes on to say :

‘The government said that ahead of that, starting next Tuesday, Albertans living in congregate care will be able to access respiratory virus vaccinations through their facilities. However, it did not provide details.

The release also didn’t provide any specific information about who is eligible beginning Oct. 16, but encouraged Albertans to help limit the spread of infection by staying at home when feeling sick, washing their hands frequently, covering coughs and disinfecting frequently-touched surfaces.

“Albertans can also choose to wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor spaces to help reduce the risk of becoming sick and help protect others from being exposed. Albertans are encouraged to speak with their primary care provider if they have questions or concerns about immunizations,” the release said.

Health Canada announced it had approved Moderna’s latest Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine for Canadians six months or older, formulated for the XBB.1.5 Omicron variant, two weeks ago.’

And doesn’t this sound like former Premier Kenny’s Chief Medical Health Officer and his former Minister of Health:

“Dr. Mark Joffe, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, said in the release being immunized for influenza and COVID-19 can help protect Albertans and those most at risk for severe disease.

“Taking steps to prevent viral infections will also improve an individual’s overall health,” he said.

“Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, who on Wednesday declined to say whether she would get a COVID-19 shot, said keeping up with immunizations is an excellent way to protect yourself against the respiratory illness season.

“Doing what you can to prevent severe illness will also help secure our health care system for those who need it most,” she said.

Doesn’t this sound like the statements made by Governments at the beginning of the fabricated covid pandemic ?

Obviously they have not read The book “Turtles All The Way Down —Vaccine Science and Myth.’

Nor have they studied the work of real medical scientists like Dr. Peter McCullough who recently appeared before the European Parliament and said:

“Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough asked European lawmakers to take COVID-19 vaccines off the market, warning that the vaccines are responsible for a host of illnesses, including heart inflammation, blood clots, and neurological diseases.”

These elected and appointed people hide the damage these vaccines have caused in scores of independent studies. This information should be front and center so that people will have all the information to decide what if anything they should do.

Where is the cost benefit analysis ? Where is the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of ‘ demonstrably justify’ and ‘a free and democratic society?’

Where is being guided by the supremacy of God and the rule of law?

Isn’t the Smith Government appointed Covid Inquiry supposed to provide a report on mistakes in the past and recommend better ways to respond in the future .

Why is the Government getting ahead of the Inquiry findings ? Sabotaging the Inquiry!

Has the Inquiry held any public hearings?

Alberta’s promise of following independent science , opposed to irrationality, fear and against coercion has been broken.

[Sid Belzberg]

On the other hand, two scientists have just snagged a Nobel Prize for original work on vaccines! Who to believe, who to believe?

Their discovery was made long before the c19 vaccines, and their research was related to gene therapy not working on "vaccines," although that is what the c19 "vaccines" are. The c19 vaccines do not stop infection., or transmission in any way, shape, or form and are purported to slow down the progression of the disease; hence it is just another therapeutic and not a vaccine in any way, shape, or form.
None of this supports a contradiction; hence, the statement "who to believe" makes no sense.


Here is what the Nobel Committee stated;
"RNA contains four bases, abbreviated A, U, G, and C, corresponding to A, T, G, and C in DNA, the letters of the genetic code. Karikó and Weissman knew that bases in RNA from mammalian cells are frequently chemically modified, while in vitro transcribed mRNA is not. They wondered if the absence of altered bases in the in vitro transcribed RNA could explain the unwanted inflammatory reaction. To investigate this, they produced different variants of mRNA, each with unique chemical alterations in their bases, which they delivered to dendritic cells. The results were striking: The inflammatory response was almost abolished when base modifications were included in the mRNA. This was a paradigm change in our understanding of how cells recognize and respond to different forms of mRNA. Karikó and Weissman immediately understood that their discovery had profound significance for using mRNA as therapy. These seminal results were published in 2005, fifteen years before the COVID-19 pandemic."

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/me...press-release/

[Fred Harvey]

On the other hand, two scientists have just snagged a Nobel Prize for original work on the vaccines! Who to believe, who to believe?

[Sid Belzberg]

AAPS Statement Calling for Moratorium on COVID-19 Shot Mandates and Genetic Injections


1. COVID 19 injections are under Emergency Use Authorization and must be considered experimental. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical ethics, yet millions of people have taken COVID-19 injections under duress.

2. The long-term effects of the novel mRNA or DNA technology and the lipid nanoparticles involved in their administration – including carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, autoimmune phenomena, and impairment of fertility – cannot possibly be known.

3. There are numerous safety signals, including excess sudden deaths, that would in the past have prompted immediate withdrawal of vaccines or drugs from the market.

4. The expected intensive, sophisticated investigations of reported adverse effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination, including myocarditis, pericarditis, paralysis, thromboembolism, menstrual abnormalities, and unusual cancers, have not been undertaken.

5. COVID-19 genetic injections have not been shown in randomized, controlled trials to be effective in preventing infection, transmission, hospitalization or death.

6. In children who have virtually zero likelihood of death from COVID, there is no evidence of benefit exceeding risks for these products.

7. Regulatory agencies are corrupted by conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability.

8. Vaccine-injured patients have little if any expectation of compensation, and manufacturers are shielded from liability. This liability protection must be ended.

9. All mandates, including requirements for school attendance or work, should immediately be withdrawn.

10. COVID-19 genetic injections should be withdrawn from the market.
Share this:

[Sid Belzberg]

COVID Vaccines Causally Linked to Increased Mortality, Resulting in 17 Million Deaths: Scientific Report

Data suggest COVID-19 vaccines haven’t saved lives, but instead, have resulted in 17 million deaths and increased all-cause mortality in 17 countries.
By Megan Redshaw
9/28/2023
Updated:
9/29/2023
Print
X 1

0:00


A new scientific report challenges the idea that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented deaths after researchers assessed all-cause mortality in 17 countries and found COVID-19 vaccines did not have any beneficial effect on reducing mortality. Instead, researchers found that unprecedented peaks in high all-cause mortality in each country—especially among the elderly population when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed—coincided with the rollout of third and fourth booster doses.

The report published Sept. 17 by Correlation Research in the Public Interest (pdf) quantified the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) for all ages—which is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a given population. After analyzing mortality data, the researchers calculated a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR of one death per 800 injections across all ages and countries. This equates to 17 million COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths worldwide from 13.25 billion injections as of Sept. 2, 2023.

"This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths," the authors said. The overall risk of death induced by COVID-19 vaccines is 1,000 times greater than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics obtained from death certificates.

What Are They Hiding?—Dr. Robert Malone on the Pfizer Documents and Evidence of Cardiotoxicity, Birth Defects, and the Rise in All-Cause Mortality


5/19/2022

All-cause mortality is the death rate from all causes of death for a population in a specific time period. This is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events driving death and for measuring the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.

"All-cause mortality is a good feature to use in statistical medical analyses since there is no ambiguity in whether someone has died or not," Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told The Epoch Times in an email. "It is highly disturbing that these authors have found a consistent trend among seventeen countries showing a significant increase in all-cause mortality coinciding with extensive COVID vaccine rollout. Their estimate of one death for every 800 injections globally is alarming."

Ms. Seneff said her investigations into potential mechanisms of vaccine injury have led her to believe that it is plausible that these injections are "extremely toxic" and should not have been approved by regulatory agencies.

https://correlation-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-17-Correlation-Covid-vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism vs Democratic Marxism

Post # 3425 - 23/9/27

This topic was introduced here as a Capitalism vs Communism issue. I felt it was a hijacking of the thread, so I moved the discussion to the Human Self-Government thread, where it is currently awaiting processing.

Then this current topic was introduced........all the CT'ers here had read it.......I felt it was really off........and that I should answer it here, rather than just move it like I did the other conversation. And I did. There is now a reply from Dilip Panjwani.

I propose to Dilip that this is hijacking this thread, and I would suggest the discussion go over to "Human Self-Government". But I feel we are at loggerheads. I think it is just best to let CT'ers decide now.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

.....
4. 'Current Libertarianism is based on "Laissez Fair (Wild West/Unregulated)" Capitalism'
another irrelevant statement, as neither me nor Pierre Poilievre are talking about laissez-faire capitalism, but true Libertarianism which I have explained to you several times, and you are free to ask me further clarifications about it if you wish.

......

Yeah, RIIIIIIIGHT.

Bob A. ..... kindly ask Dilip why his idol Pierre P is NOT RUNNING for the Libertairian Party of Canada?

I've asked, but oooooh, I'm a nasty troll, so if you ask, he has "promised" to answer LOL

And please Dilip, no answers about "electability" which would make Pierre P. out to be just another opportunist / wolf in sheep's clothing

[Pargat Perrer]

Why are you polluting the COVID-19 thread with your DM horseshit ......

Sid, why are you not coming down just as hard on your "friend" Dilip for polluting this thread with his "utopia LIbertarianism" BS?

[Bob Armstrong]

Mistake - My DM paper was not intended to be posted here. I will delete it.

Bob A

[Neil Frarey]

They are making 60 billion dollars a year selling vaccines ... ALSO ... making 500 billion dollars a year selling the remedies for the injuries caused by those vaccines!!!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1707071402699083827

So very thankful that I'm not vaccinated, ha!

.

[Sid Belzberg]

Democracy & Diversity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 4

Original – 20/6/22; Revision – See below

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.





The Gamble

Democratic Marxism sets out a platform of self-governance and economics. And it sets up a fundamental structure within which this platform can be implemented. But what happens when ideology meets the local democracy of the Local Political Unit (LPU)?

The problem old-style Communism faced was the revolt of many (Majority?) electors to many of the Communist platforms. Communism's answer? Use the gun; trample human rights of the citizens; suppress all opposition – then implement the ideology & platform without any public opposition. Did it really work?? The jury is still out on Chinese Communism, but it has all the negative features that necessitate its rejection.

What will be Democratic Marxism's answer when an LPU wants to go its own way, differently somehow, democratically? The problem is that DM proudly declares that the LPU's have all power! They have the real control! Democratic Marxism's Global Model LPU can be tweaked by any LPU, or even outright rejected for itself!

This is where Democratic Marxism has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. It is committed first to “democratic process” and “local power”.

Human society is governed by laws. Laws are passed by the governing authority, whether it be by direct democracy (Citizen voting), or, by the representation circle to which the electors have given power over their lives. And if the system is working, and Dem. Marxism has it right, each LPU, hopefully, will implement laws modelled after the proposals of the Democratic Marxist Vetting Committee (DMVC). But should an LPU, within its borders, decide to revert to Wildwest Capitalism, this will be legal........but, hopefully, the effect of such rogue actions will be limited and minimized and restrained by the general structural governing context within which every LPU exists. Diversity will definitely be the order of the day in a true democracy – and maybe one should support the saying used financially: There is safety in diversity.

A Suitable Test Nation for DM

The DMVC has targeted Canada for the first partisan Democratic Marxist Party......and it will be provincial.

The reason is the possibility of fundamental societal structure change within the existing Canadian Constitutional documents. Canada presents the possibility because constitutionally, municipalities are the “creatures” of a province. It is therefore open to a Canadian province to realign local government as currently existing, into the DM LPU structure. The province also has, constitutionally, full jurisdiction over certain civil powers, as against the federal government (Eg. Health Care, Education, etc.). So.....IF it was determined to do it........any Canadian province could “down-load” all of its powers to the LPU's. Thereafter it would identify itself in two ways:

1. as the hand-maiden of the LPU's, while remaining, as a provincial representative circle of the provincial electors;
2. as the traditional province with which the federal government must deal within the existing constitutional structure of Canada.
   
   The federal government may object to the provincial restructuring, but will be toothless....it is within the provincial power of a Canadian province to do this. And the federal government will have to continue to deal with that province as the valid “Provincial Government”.
   
   Commencement of Partisan Democratic Marxism in Canada

The DMVC will receive applications from those wishing to apply for provincial party status as: The Democratic Marxist Party of (Province). For those ideologically acceptable, the DMVC will grant a formal “Endorsement” - the approval of the ginger group's use of the name.

Thereafter, the provincial party will develop a provincial DM platform suitable to their province, in concert with the DMVC.

Should the Provincial Party at any time stray from adhering to fundamental DM principles/platforms, it risks the DMVC withdrawing the “Endorsement”, and disowning the Provincial Party. Of course, the DMVC may still consider itself an ally of the rogue party, and see it as still the best provincial option, and thus continue to work with the provincial party, should it so desire.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, Chairperson, DMGI Vetting Committee
Reviser: Bob Armstrong – 20/10/17

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

Why are you polluting the COVID-19 thread with your DM horseshit as you have with NWO and Anthropogenic climate change threads? I have a great solution for all of this BAN any politicians from relationships with the WEF, destroy the WHO, disband the UN, and finally make big pharma liable for any products they sell especially vaccines. 50% of the money spent by governments on big pharma should go to cheap, repurposed drugs for diseases like cancer, Respiratory diseases, etc. Healthcare costs and budgets will go to a fraction of what they are now.
Any political party that proposes violating a country's constitution or charter of rights should not be on the ballot. The abolition of private property violates Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democracy & Diversity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 4

Post Deleted - posted here in error....sorry.....

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip - Post # 3422 - 23/9/27

Defends Libertarianism (A Variation of Capitalism) against Democratic Marxism

Is it not immoral to persecute the hard and smart working minority by implementing legal theft (forced transfer of hard-earned money from those who earned plenty of it by hard and smart work, to those who did not make the effort to develop themselves and work hard and smart to do so) as the only way to have a fair society, instead of supporting your future, to be democratically elected Prime Minister who believes that there are Libertarian (not Capitalistic or Marxist) ways to provide the fairness?

Response

1. Persecution: No one is "persecuting" the "hard and smart working minority". In current progressive taxation capitalism, the majority view it that the higher the income, the more the individual is winning within "SOCIETY'S" system. So they should pay more to keep the system running, than those benefiting less. And the system, thanks to manipulation by the elite wealthy (Many of whom are neither smart nor hard-working), is skewered towards the wealthy getting many more ways to decrease taxable income than the hard-working, low income majority.

2. Legal Theft: This is internally conflictual. If something is legal, it may be immoral, this is true. But it is the law. Those who don't like it can try to get it changed.......there's a political task for Libertarianism! So the State is NOT "stealing" from the elite....they are simply being asked by the majority of Capitalists to "pay their fair share!".

3. The Lazy Majority (Elitism Unbounded): Dilip re the majority of society: "those who did not make the effort to develop themselves and work hard and smart to do so" - The majority of society, which will be a surprise to your elitist self, is both smart and hard-working. They do develop their talents. But the capitalist system requires a pool of desperate low-income labour to function........and so it is the case in a wealthy country like Canada, that over 50% of Canadians have less than $ 200 of savings to meet any emergency expenditure......they are living paycheque to paycheck........some working two part-time jobs at the same time, and not making it financially. And Capitalism, of necessity, drives the ever-widening gap between the have's and the have-nots.

4. The Libertarian "Fair Society": Current Libertarianism is based on "Laissez Fair (Wild West/Unregulated)" Capitalism:

Wikipedia: In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian^[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted^[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.^[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.^[34] This new form of libertarianism was a revival of classical liberalism in the United States.

It is because of the exploitation of the masses, under Laissez Fair Capitalism, that even capitalists felt having kids work in sweat shops all day long wasn't such a great idea.

Sooooo........NO.........Libertarian Society will NOT be a "fair society". Libertarianism espouses Capitalist Ways to provide what they call "Fairness" (And non-Capitalists beg to disagree).

5. Democratic Marxism: The elimination of Bourgeois Capitalism, with the retention of small personal property ownership, and ownership of enterprises by the worker, or, the State and worker jointly, WILL, without doubt, implement a "FAIRER SOCIETY", with more equality.

Bob A (DM'er)

1 & 2. 'they should pay more to keep the system running'
a libertarian system would run much better with minimal government (hence minimal taxation) ... as your future PM Pierre Poilievre would attest to. But it appears from your argument that you and Bob G want the current capitalist system running, probably because that gives you guys the sadistic pleasure of taxation on the hard and smart working minority. Can't you decide what is it that you want, and stop acting confused?

3. 'But the capitalist system requires a pool of desperate low-income labour to function'
what you are describing is a capitalistic system... another example of your irrelevant arguments in our discussion on the gutter of DM vs. the utopia of Libertarianism.

4. 'Current Libertarianism is based on "Laissez Fair (Wild West/Unregulated)" Capitalism'
another irrelevant statement, as neither me nor Pierre Poilievre are talking about laissez-faire capitalism, but true Libertarianism which I have explained to you several times, and you are free to ask me further clarifications about it if you wish.

5. 'ownership of enterprises by the State'
not a single such enterprise in all of human history has ever worked well, and always ended in disaster, and so Bob A & Bob G, it would be in your best interest if you take your minds out of the gutter of DM...
as far as enterprises owned by workers are concerned, Libertarianism is the only system which would encourage that, not DM or capitalism...

[Bob Gillanders]

Dilip - Post # 3422 - 23/9/27

Defends Libertarianism (A Variation of Capitalism) against Democratic Marxism

Is it not immoral to persecute the hard and smart working minority by implementing legal theft (forced transfer of hard-earned money from those who earned plenty of it by hard and smart work, to those who did not make the effort to develop themselves and work hard and smart to do so) as the only way to have a fair society, instead of supporting your future, to be democratically elected Prime Minister who believes that there are Libertarian (not Capitalistic or Marxist) ways to provide the fairness?

Response

1. Persecution: No one is "persecuting" the "hard and smart working minority". In current progressive taxation capitalism, the majority view it that the higher the income, the more the individual is winning within "SOCIETY'S" system. So they should pay more to keep the system running, than those benefiting less. And the system, thanks to manipulation by the elite wealthy (Many of whom are neither smart nor hard-working), is skewered towards the wealthy getting many more ways to decrease taxable income than the hard-working, low income majority.

2. Legal Theft: This is internally conflictual. If something is legal, it may be immoral, this is true. But it is the law. Those who don't like it can try to get it changed.......there's a political task for Libertarianism! So the State is NOT "stealing" from the elite....they are simply being asked by the majority of Capitalists to "pay their fair share!".

3. The Lazy Majority (Elitism Unbounded): Dilip re the majority of society: "those who did not make the effort to develop themselves and work hard and smart to do so" - The majority of society, which will be a surprise to your elitist self, is both smart and hard-working. They do develop their talents. But the capitalist system requires a pool of desperate low-income labour to function........and so it is the case in a wealthy country like Canada, that over 50% of Canadians have less than $ 200 of savings to meet any emergency expenditure......they are living paycheque to paycheck........some working two part-time jobs at the same time, and not making it financially. And Capitalism, of necessity, drives the ever-widening gap between the have's and the have-nots.

4. The Libertarian "Fair Society": Current Libertarianism is based on "Laissez Fair (Wild West/Unregulated)" Capitalism:

Wikipedia: In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian^[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted^[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.^[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.^[34] This new form of libertarianism was a revival of classical liberalism in the United States.

It is because of the exploitation of the masses, under Laissez Fair Capitalism, that even capitalists felt having kids work in sweat shops all day long wasn't such a great idea.

Sooooo........NO.........Libertarian Society will NOT be a "fair society". Libertarianism espouses Capitalist Ways to provide what they call "Fairness" (And non-Capitalists beg to disagree).

5. Democratic Marxism: The elimination of Bourgeois Capitalism, with the retention of small personal property ownership, and ownership of enterprises by the worker, or, the State and worker jointly, WILL, without doubt, implement a "FAIRER SOCIETY", with more equality.

Bob A (DM'er)

Great rebuttal Bob A. Thank you.