Easy Truth

to officially require (something) : make (something) mandatory : order a law mandating recycling also : to direct or require (someone) to do something a commission mandated to investigate corruption. I was under the impression that you are arguing for official requirements for everyone to get the vaccine coming from the government. Or that the government should have such a function. If not, can you say what you are arguing for?

No Doug, a government mandate is a use of it's immunity to prosecution. The fact that "it has whatever degree of immunity it chooses" and it can mandate something proves the point. You can't mandate and limit your ability to mandate at the same time.

By it's nature, "the government", as in a business that goes bankrupt, will not be destroyed. Just some people will be replaced. The "entity/person" that is the government can only be held responsible in the sense of voting it out. One could say that "monopoly on force" includes a certain "immunity". Is that the level of responsibility that they should be held to? Would you agree that in effect, the government has immunity (and that is a problem). In the case of Cuomo forcing old people homes to accept infected people, he most likely will say it was the best advice he got from many sources, maybe some outside of the country. In the case of Newsom in California, he may be voted out based on the general dissatisfaction around Covid. Most likely not. In the case of deaths due to poverty or lack of services, should a mandate exist to prevent "prevention of transmission" because a weak economy translates into some deaths?

If you are the government, and you force someone to take a vaccine: If that vaccine harms, maybe kills a person, is the government automatically absolved of that damage (due to the mandate)? This seems like the Trolley problem. If you do something, you are responsible. If you don't, someone get's killed.

Recently Yaron has focused on the benefits of Colonialism and to some extent crony capitalism. Colonialism was good - better than the primitive cultures Crony Capitalisms was good - better than socialism There is some truth to them both but they end up being heard as: Ayn Rand is for Colonialism and Crony Capitalism. Amongst our selves we know Ayn Rand was not for any such thing. But isn't arguing the benefits of Colonialism ending up adding this problem? The fundamental (and repeated) problem is: That Capitalism is not what we currently have. Capitalism is not defined as what we have (in Objectivism). When we defend Capitalism, we don't defend what we have. Capitalism is not Colonialism, imperialism, fascism, state capitalism etc. And the biggest problem is that "it" has never existed. And of course the Communist debaters have said Communism has never existed. So what happens repeatedly is the Communist is advocating for that which has never existed and the Objectivist is advocating for that which has never existed … and both ridicule the other for this fact. Yaron argues that the closer we get to the ideals is all we can go by. Are there stronger arguments?

These are in fact interesting questions. As a black and white, true or false question: Freedom or Slavery, which one do you want? The answer becomes freedom (assuming you value a life worth living). Then the question becomes are you willing to fight for it? Or die for it? And if the answer is yes, then one concludes it is worth "a lot" for that person. But the counter argument would be "well, not everyone (a slave owner) thinks slavery is worthless" and may even fight to keep slavery. Could the value of freedom or rights be determined by a marketplace, where supply and demand determine the price of "freedom" or "rights"? In the case of the former East and West Germany, in aggregate, the amount of people running in one or the other direction has indicated something.

I also recently heard some more arguments: 1. There are other societies that had even more slavery like Haiti or Brazil that did not do as well as the United States in their economy. 2. To say there was zero labor cost is false. The "owners" had to give a minimum standard of living to have viable workers. That included lodging, food and southern government had to spend a lot to maintain the system i.e. catch runaways. This expense was constant 24 hours a day even when there was no "work" to be done. 3. The fact that the slave could not go looking for job meant the areas of the economy that needed the most labor could never attract the labor, therefore never achieving maximal efficiency. 4. Slavery in general serviced the wishes of the owner, as in the pyramids which were built by slaves, and pyramids don't do much for an economy.

There is an attempt to conflate the benefits of Capitalism with the effects of Slavery. In this Debate Yaron is pushed into a corner (which he pushes back) with the idea that many interviews with "experts" have determined that Slavery in a sense created wealth. And Yaron dismisses it by 1. The interviews were with people with a certain political agenda 2. More wealth has been created post slavery 3. Slavery has existed before the United States 4. Slavery economically was not a plus but a negative Meanwhile, the fundamental question of Slavery creating wealth was not directly challenged (adequately depth and detail). Ultimately it has to be challenged and destroyed otherwise this argument against Capitalism constantly resurfaces. The fact is that we can't get around the fact that thievery can enrich the thief. And government supported thievery against a "group" can redistribute their wealth. In this case the wealth of the slave i.e. what he or she created with their labor. Now, once the wealth has been created, would there have been more aggregate wealth if there had been no thievery at all?

It seems one basic argument is similar to 1. You are innocent until proven guilty vs. 2. You are guilty until proven innocent But the element of market solution is not prominent in the discussion. The analysis seems to be solely in terms of governmental fixing of the problem. And regarding Doug's example: If someone is firing a gun in the air, and some people saw it, then there are some "self defense measures" that can and should be taken by others. The assumption being that the gun did not go off by itself. I wonder if Doug may mean that If that person was never witnessed and the bullet hit no one, he still initiated force which should be dealt with. Now if risk goes up in society, from a market standpoint, insurance rates go up too. Question being, is governmental fixing mimicking that response?

What I'm trying to get clear is if the core argument is: A Covid infection is never an initiation of force, therefore it is always the responsibility of the "catcher" of the virus. Based on that, no one should be culpable i.e. you live in society, and these are the risks. I am asking if that is Tony and Greg's position? Tad seemed to go that direction and then backed off.

But they will not "only" inform you of it when you try to get in. Because they have a right to do more than just inform you. The point being, they have a "right" to have that requirement. (and I think we agree on that)

Or it would simply mean you are moral and trying to survive. Why the extra baggage?

But you see, viewing a value in terms of a social contract, you're talking about an obligation, a need, a want, a value that is based on a contract. Since you want to fulfill it ... fulfilling the obligation is a value. Either way, born with or born into, you never actually made an agreement. Since the contract/duty exists, because "it just does", the the obligation and/or the value exist, because "it just does".

*** Next 80 posts split from Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point? *** I've never thought about this like this before but I'm leaning toward: it involves damage or potential damage. The key point being the effect and or the potential effect. If there is no potential damage or harm, it can't be something to defend against. There is no need to avoid it or prevent another from "doing" it i.e. having a right to prevent it.

Then saying "initiating physical damage" would be more to the point. If Mexico fired some artillery shells into an uninhabited desert in the US, and there was no damage, just some dirt and rock being moved, would that not be an initiation of physical force?

Yes but we're talking about boxing and surgery. Direct application of physical force. There are other problems with it in that fraud and breach of contract are not the same. Bottom line, to trick someone causing them harm does not require physical force. Just a false understanding.

The conflation that is going is unfortunately due to this definition that I assume is contextual and does not embrace the entire context. Fraud in particular requires no physical force at all. I find contract theory useful as a metaphor. But philosophically there is the problem that if such a contract exists, then intrinsic social values exist. As in, you are born with certain duties toward others.

Yes, accidents are not deliberate. But the level of responsibility is different between someone who is accident prone vs. someone who is NOT accident prone. Negligence is about likelihood, not a specific deliberate act. You are fixated on specific deliberate acts only. Liability is what takes deliberate and non deliberate acts into consideration. If Negligence should not exist, then liability should not exist, therefore a contract that protects against liability should not exist. THEREFORE If you argue against negligence, you argued against the contract (disclaimer) in the OP. (why would a business want a contract like that if their negligence is never a problem i.e. no liability)

No, you have stressed that the vulnerable shouldn't go out of their houses.

Greg, at some point we have to define what far right means. Who are we talking about? What do they want?

Are you decrying the outcry as being the problem? Because it is not. A boycott of a business due to their policies is not initiation of force (unless due to fraudulent information). There is also the right to forcibly quarantine another using force as a self defense measure. So this type of effect can be achieved in a free society. The problem is "the system" is based on "no liability" or "global liability" or "the all people's liability" which expands governmental power. Instead of holding an entity or individual liable (which you have spoken against), you are left with collective liability. That is why I said you have chosen a collectivist approach.

I thought your concern with Islam was specifically about Afghanistan. One can say any group of culturally different or dispossessed will be a drain on any welfare state. British feel that way about Polish immigrants too. Ideology of a person is not static. People see better ways and they choose it. That has been the reality in the United States. But it takes time. If you fear that Islam is so attractive that most of us will be embracing it, don't worry.

Ok, so it's not about Afghanistan after all.

Currently if someone gets Covid in any business, the business is not held responsible. The disclaimer is implied and global. And therefore the solutions are global too. Government or "society" is considered the solution to the problem. This is by the majority of the population.

It's too early to tell. Historically we have been bad at negotiating sometimes. For instance In Vietnam or in Iraq. But I am hoping that two administrations negotiating with Taliban got some sort of assurance that 9/11 would not happen again. If that was the result then the occupation may have achieved something. If not, we lost a lot for nothing. To be specific about your original question Al Qaeda is far more of a threat than Islam in General.