Anti-vaxxer is a pejorative word, it lumps people together in ways that aren't fair. Many were just skeptical and wanted to discuss and debate the evidence, and that was ridiculed, as evident everywhere in this thread.
I think you're kicking the can of personal responsibility down, or in this case up, the road.
There are groupmind tendencies and competing groupthinks, as well as industrial corruption, in all of our scientific enterprises that I'm aware of. For me this is a serious issue, since I saw first-hand how pusillanimous scientists can become when their livelihoods or grants are endangered.
There is a war on for our minds. I think we each have to decide who we trust and don't trust. For many of us there is also a crisis of trust in our scientific institutions now.
Yeah, 30-40% of the population needs psychologists and propagandists to evaluate or re-educate them. I think this viewpoint you're espousing might be part of the problem.
>The fundamental failure of this logic of trying to go somewhere and built a new city to escape the policy failures of the old city, is that those conflicts are intrinsic problems of large scale human organization. If you bring people, you bring the politics.
That seems like a really jaded view. To my mind there are millions of ways to organize human societies. The more experimentation the better. You're acting like nothing new can ever happen in this area, and I just don't buy that.
There are better and deeper ways of understanding money. You think fiscally sovereign nations need to borrow their own currency, and that isn't correct. You think government spending necessarily precipitates a currency crisis, and this is not only incorrect but goes against the demonstrated history of the United States from the 40s until today.
It seems like you are conflating the role of private and public debt, which is a very common mistake. Private debt does cause economic crises, public debt is a misnomer - it's generally speaking not even correctly referred to as debt. It's referred to as a debt for historical reasons, its not owed to anyone, for example.
A paper by the CATO institute showed that world hyperinflations have not historically arisen from monetary policy changes. They have more to do with... eh, its complicated. Collapses of industry in wartime, famines, militarily-imposed foreign debts and single-resource economies living beyond their means. The understanding you are demonstrating is called the Quantity Theory of Money and its being more and more called into question. The Theory of Ricardian Equivalence is toast. Not sure if you know that those are the high-falutin names of the theories you are describing as being patent fact.
A lot of this boils down to emotions, which are not being fully processed in your system.
When you recognize a strong feeling within yourself, you can work with it to find a balance in the following way.
Find the 'negative' emotion. Now enter a meditative state. Call up the emotion into your awareness - use imagery, imagination, sensing, whatever helps. Once you have a hold on the emotion, amplify it - seek to feel it in your entire being. Whether its sadness, fear, not being appreciated - amplify the feeling until it fills every cell of your body. Do this for a few seconds only, until it feels like the feeling begins to change or subside. (It can take as few as 3 or 5 seconds, or much longer, depending). The goal is to feel the feeling as intensely as you can (without hurting yourself!). Doing this will shift it!
Then, seek to find the opposite feeling. Ask yourself, what is the opposite feeling? Feeling grateful for your job? What does that feel like? Imagine yourself feeling this feeling. Imagine a world-scenario that would trigger this feeling. Visualize yourself in a situation which triggers this opposite feeling. Then, amplify that feeling, and feel it in every cell of your body, for a few seconds.
This will completely shift your experience of the emotion and your viewpoint on the relevant issue/topic/area/domain in which the emotion is being triggered. It's a very effective technique.
It is conceptualized, according to intellectual paradigms, as originating as a 'debt' and being "paid back" by taxes.
But this accounting is fallacious. There is a movement in economics called MMT which is going to challenge these paradigms.
In this case we're pitting this theoretical family's feeling of being wronged, against the actual needs for shelter and economic solvency of another block of the population.
>The real loser here is the future of the US dollar.
This presumes that the quantity theory of money (and/or the theory of Ricardian equivalence) is correct, which it most likely is not[0]. Money printing does not cause hyper-inflation, as demonstrated in this CATO paper[1]. Governments are not households[2], because they hold monopolies on currency creation[3]. Also, currency creation is not 'debt'.[4]
It follows from this that there is a vast and largely unexplored space on the graph of currency creation over time, where the line can rise before it triggers negative systemic effects. A fiscally sovereign nation can never run out of its own currency.
This policy space is where the future lies, awaiting us. The worldview-assumptions implicit in your question would discourage us from exploring this space. That, in my view, would be the heart of folly.
Many thinking people in the economic and policy professions are realizing this, and not a moment too soon.