I incline to agree with you. That government should have less control. The things I suggest dont have to be implemented by the government. They are suggestions I believe would help peoples health and functioning. This whole website should be a civil discourse of sorts, where people figure out how to deal with situations. And then there should be local implementations. I suppose what theyre doing in the current administration with dismantling federal departments makes it be more decentralized. Which could give people more of a say again. I encourage you to send a letter to RFK and another to the administration. Where you let them know your opinion on these matters and give examples of how you see it play out. For example in relation to resolving the listed issues mentioned in my post. You can also make a post about it under “Liberty” as a topic if you havent.
I think that when we get health right. There will be no “big pharma”. It wont be necessary and what medication is used will be made by smaller companies.
What I mention with pine tar, sunlight, window glass, food, EMF signals, artificial light standards, less usage of vaccines, plant compounds as treaments. These dont require the government to implement them. Though they do require that people use technology able to apply to local standards. And that the concerns people have for other people around thems usages are addressed. Like you cant go shooting someone on the street without repercussions, there should be standards for say “what can I do with EMF?” where people agree on that. Because it can reach other peoples properties, shared space and areas of movement.
People can discuss it out amongst one another or in court. If their arguments are strong enough.
What you suggest is somewhat similar to Trumps “no tarriffs if you dont give tariffs” type of idea I feel. And removing regulations.
Some of the classical questions are:
- What to do when interests overlap?
- What to do when knowledge needed is not agreed upon by the parties?
- What to do when one party has vastly strong financial accumulation than the other party, and can leverage that against the other party?
These are then taken to court or discussed among people.
The financial part must be fought with great health in the population. Because better health and better morals go hand in hand. And great morals are needed to be able to fight in court against parties with high financial leverage.
There should be a system where the financial leverage does not change what influences you can make in court or politics. Corruption lowering, anti-trust laws are some of that.
As I see it. Where we are headed. There is a rejuvenation in nation and global level health among people. And through that we will see people make better decisions and the world restore itself. The health is a core of that. Liberty, individuals deciding amongst one another, is something that allows flexibility in managing forthcoming changes. Then there are sometimes changes that influence large groups of people. And commonly seen, those must be addressed somehow. That is what government has been used for. When peoples health got worse and financial interests faired short term stronger they resorted more to government assistance.
Each country is on the shoulders of its citizens. Every one of them.
That means it requires them to be strong. And they are. Though we must also make people aware that they are being affected by all these health factors. And that they are influencing peoples decision making, shared spaces and much more. And then there is the “how do we address this so there are good solutions found?” question.
It is the continued negotiation we call society. Right now. I have made this post because I think that it has a chance to improve the health of the population with the tools available. In the longer term. I am hoping and believing that there is a high chance that the average person will come to understand all this more. So that this is left more in the hands of smaller more decentralized areas, such as states, counties or perhaps individual properties. People are then likely to conglomerate where they most agree on how things are run, as is the intention with the separation into state control. Instead of federal control.
There are some questions that relate to all of us though. For example what materials are used. What energy devices are used (EMF can affect insects, cows, deer). As an example, plastic and flame retardants building up in food chains. What pesticides are used (these and their derivatives build up in eco systems, they also bind to minerals and kill soil microbiomes). Or common healthcare solutions affecting peoples healths due to doctor educations being misinformed.
Have a great day.