Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Easy Truth last won the day on September 21

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

2386 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

109

Reputation

  1. The requirements you mention are based on responsibility of ownership. Someone who does not own a car or have swimming pool etc. doesn't have those responsibilities/requirements. In a social context, we have a requirement not to harm another (I suppose physically but for now it has to remain vague). The idea of increasing risk, unnecessarily, is harming people. In principle, that does have merit. But in the case of vaccination, do I or you have the right to invade someone's body and vaccinate them for the good of the group? The fundamental right is to be unmolested, to keep people away and to be supported in that by "the system".
  2. The key issue is threat identification. The moment it "is" a threat, a reaction begins. If there is agreement on when it began, then we know when initiation happened. But suspect there may not be agreement. Increasing risk to an intolerable level would require identifying the "intolerable level".
  3. But by definition, the potential exists. The potential for this transformation also exist with faith based thinking. At what point should we treat a potentiality as if it were the actual expression of force? A person tells you he fantasizes about stabbing you. There is a knife on a table within his reach. Is the moment of expression when he said that to you, or when he reaches for the knife, or when he lunges at you?
  4. Alright then that would imply that some initiation of force is to be ignored. But nevertheless it is an initiation of force. Which goes back to the issue of an objective cutoff point. At some point it becomes actionable. We are now in the real of "threat identification" which has subjective and objective elements. It seems that some threats, we decide to ignore, because we can't live if every little threatening behavior is disallowed. As in breathing. Or do we define "threat" such that, if it is not actionable, it is not a threat?
  5. So is increasing the risk of death from .00001 percent to .00002 percent due to exhaling an initiation of force? I hope I didn't repeat myself too much.
  6. Doug, a major problem with your argument is simply using the word "risk". If you said 50 percent risk, you would get far more agreement than now. The problem with Covid or the flu is the relatively small risk compared to ebola. I was wondering why you don't use Ebola, but I think it's because the contrast would reveal the problem with Covid or the flu. After all the flu also kills a lot of people every year. Just living in your house has a risk of an airplane crashing into it.
  7. Doug, in a society that uses laws based on objective reality, you can't base laws on unknowable risk levels. What if someone kills another, after being arrested, his defense is "Judge, I'm innocent, you simply can't know the risk I was dealing with".
  8. The "degree of threat" was in response to the above. It is not that you are saying it is the same degree, but a blanket (treat everyone the same) mandate does treat it that way. And if one is a proponent of such a mandate, they are supporting that position. And because of that people who increase the threat actually and "highly" are treated the same as those who do not in fact pose any threat. Keep in mind, I am not against a company creating mandates for its' employees (because they are automatically limited in their force). Worst case is you have to leave. While a threat of incarceration is a threat of death, a reaction to criminal behavior. But you have still not addressed the issue of the "few" who are not a threat at all.
  9. Regarding an older podcast on Valliant I found the text of his criticism https://www.scribd.com/document/9421651/The-Passion-of-James-Valliant-s-Criticism Meanwhile a detailed criticism of his criticism https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/6280-the-passion-of-james-valliants-criticism-part-v/?tab=comments#comment-59958
  10. You're implying that "a degree of threat" is the same as "beyond the cutoff point threat". You never address the issue of the person that is an infinitesimal threat or zero threat. They exist too and they are a part of society. In the case of a "quarantinable threat", it's clear cut. This is a threat that one should and can forcibly separate someone from society. Now that is beyond vaccination as in a vaccine won't fix deal with that. With a vaccine you end up with two designations: potential threat reduced potential threat We are not even talking about an actual threat!!! The "a degree of threat" does not go away even with a vaccine. So the phrase as used is sort of meaningless. Everyone is, was, will be "a degree of threat". So the threat of incarceration is to reduce threat one way or the other. You like to use the idea of "not increasing it" but I don't understand the significance. Bottom line, I am arguing that this tramples on the rights of people in that they are not free to determine their own course of action. Some even know the effectiveness of the vaccine but don't want to take it. It is tantamount to saying "we know better, do what we say or you go to jail and if you resist, we shoot you". The just way to do it is a campaign to convince people with non physical means which include boycotting them if they don't comply. But not a governmental mandate like we have with Biden's decree yesterday. A government should not have that kind of power. Even though China, Cuba, Vietnam and others have it and exercise it regularly.
  11. Agreed. Some extent also includes infinitesimal. You would have to specify everyone is a threat beyond the cutoff point to make it actionable.
  12. Even with DNA, it is very difficult to prove that a particular person caught the disease from a particular source. I don't think that this is an area that we have a major disagreement. I was just bringing up that there seems to be a school of thought in this forum that proposes something like: we should have a disclaimer mandate imposed on all the population like "you cannot sue for damages even if you can prove how the transmission took place". Meaning no liability ... no responsibility ... no right to self defense.
  13. It is definitely a metaphor, something like saying that a murderer is guilty but someone who just slugs another person in the arm is innocent. The principle is that by forcing vaccination, one is a treating a person who is a threat and a person who is not ... the same. The rights of the person who is not a threat are being trampled on. "Each of us" does not pose the same threat nor is "each of us" subject to the same threat as anyone else. The statistical threat is in a sense an average. Not that it does not come in handy in a triage or emergency situation, it does not accurately describe a particular person as a threat or not. An 18 year old person who lives at home get's deliveries and pays his bills online, never interacting with anyone is treated the same as an 80 year old person one who lives among many active cases of Covid. Different levels of risk are being averaged out and being treated as the "same" level of threat to "all", everyone, or each. The idea that we all have the same level of threat is a metaphor, that government is acting on. It is a metaphor that you seem to support. It is the primary tool used by an authoritarian system to control their population. The arguments seem to make sense.
  14. Even if we can quickly expand ICU capacity as needed, needing to do so indicates that we have exceeded the cutoff point. ICU's are not magic. Some of the people in ICU's will die. Others will have serious long-term damage to their bodies. The point being made here was only that governmental management of this disease is not necessarily the fastest way to deliver needed goods and services to deal with it. Laisses faire Capitalism does a far better job. Exceeding cutoff points or people dying in ICUs or ICU's being magical is irrelevant. The problems exist with any system. The comment "it takes time" implied that the market is too slow to respond and I made the point that our governmental response was very slow to back up the point.
  15. I try to stay away from talking about the current government because there is a corrupt crony medical system entrenched, politicised research and implementation, and a population that is not used to be responsible for themselves which could justify anything. In that situation it could be an emergency and it's pick your poison. From what I have seen discussed throughout this forum, there are three fundamental positions: 1. Forced Vaccination by Government 2. Non forced vaccination but allow liability 3. Non forced vaccination and disallow liability I would argue for number 2 in principle. I see some merit to "increasing risk is initiation of force" but only if it is active and intentional because simply "being" increases risk. The amount of risk is going to be relevant in declaring an emergency situation. Also, I would emphasize that to treat a person who is "not a threat" the same way as a person who "is a threat" is unjust. Once injustice permeates a society there are many ways to rationally navigate it.
×
×
  • Create New...