Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Easy Truth last won the day on August 24

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

3138 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. And that is the crux of the issue. It can't be proven. And it can't be known if the vaccine will kill someone or not. Now in that situation, I think you would agree that there is no justification to force a vaccination. Unless … there is a utilitarian reason … as in we'll loose some people, by the vast majority will be better off.
  2. Exactly, and this is when ALL are not carriers. The "SOME who are not carriers" are being forced to do something they don't want to do, when they will not do the "wrong" that they are being accused of "possibly" doing. Now why is it justified to treat those people like that?
  3. So you are including accidents that one is responsible for. Like car accidents or even someone falling when they are on your property. And there we get insurance to handle it. Or the owner has to pay up compensation. But in this case the compensation is for actual injury. An inspector cannot detect all risks. And those risks that should have been dealt with are considered negligence and the person is liable. So it seems that a carrier of Covid should have known about a vaccine that is perfect, and did not inject is liable. 1. In the case of Covid, the vaccine is not perfect so it does not apply. 2. In the case of a vaccine that is perfect, the person who is infected is at fault, because they did not get the vaccine, they were negligent. Again, a mandate treats it as if everyone is a Carrier. Like everyone is a criminal (or potential criminal).
  4. The only pure examples I could think of is regarding government employees and military. But socialized medicine also forced the whole hospital system to comply or else. So the water is muddied for examining the principles involved. It's like arguing for a free society, or an Objectivist type system, where someone will ask "has such a thing ever existed". But one can image some hospitals catering to people who are unvaccinated and some not. The military is different in that it is in fact run on utilitarian rules (although based on contract). As in a few are sacrificed for a larger force. The fundamental question here is "is it ever right for a monopoly on force to ever initiate force on it's population?". In the name of what is good of course. Or is the ultimate good, the respect of individual rights? It is good to have a dam built so you have to pay taxes because you will benefit. It is good to defend our country so you should be drafted and push the "potential" enemy far away from our shores. It is good to have an educated population so money will be taken away from you to pay for public schools. It is good to have food on the table so we will forcibly take from those who have more than a certain amount to pay for that. etc.
  5. You have to keep in mind, we are talking about a Mandate. Liability for whom? Who is this "government" to be held accountable? Who is the person designated to take the fall? You think the government would be saying you have to get the vaccine but if it harms you, you will be compensated? In fact what is the compensation for death? As an aside, is PGE open to liability for the fires it caused? For all that destruction? Or is it protected? A mandate is not a recommendation to do something. It is a command to do something with punitive consequences if you don't. It is given with the power and obfuscation of cause within a monopoly on force … it is to be a monopoly because it is protected.
  6. This philosopher discussed by Yaron. In fact turns out Harari is listened to by leaders of Silicon Valley
  7. It may. So bottom line, when there is enough doubt in the eyes of the powers that be, it is okay for the government to harm an innocent citizen. That the degree of doubt is the justification. So if an innocent is killed due to government policy, there is liability protection. It is the cost of doing business. Ironically, uncertainty, becomes the license to be reckless when it comes to destruction of individual rights. We are not even considering "doubt by whom" which in itself shows the subjective nature of this tyranny. Shooting in the dark may be necessary. But the argument here goes further, saying it is okay, meaning that you should not be prosecuted for it if you kill an innocent. Hey, shit happens! It was dark which causes uncertainty. Ultimately it would mean that when there is enough doubt, a government has the right to kill innocent citizens. In the vaccination mandate case, it would mean that if you force someone to be vaccinated and they die, there should be liability protection, because there was enough uncertainty. After all, you saved all these other people because of what you intended. Sacrificing some for others and justifying it on the grounds that there are more saved.
  8. Here it seems mandate means, that person should be forced to. Which is fine, as a retaliatory measure. I ask again: what is the justification for forcing some who will not endanger anyone, to be vaccinated (known in hindsight)? As in they escaped the mandate, ten years ago by, and it turns out they never got Covid. Should they be compensated for the trouble they went through? Or the degree of uncertainty, the unknown, justifies forcing people to do something? If you can answer that, it will shed some light.
  9. That is a false statement. "Risk" is a statistical issue. If they are sick or not sick is not a risk of them being sick. They either are or are not. The disease in them exists, or it does not. As apposed to they "might" get it. The problem is that it becomes meaningless. Everyone, at anytime is creating a danger of transmitting a disease. There is no distinguishing factor. Using the word "some" is synonymous with "a percentage of". That is the statistical element. That is where the how many comes in. At one point we were discussing in terms of one person, an individual. Again, I emphasize, some are endangering and some are not. A mandate will treat all the same. As if all are endangering when some are not. That is where the initiation of force would be happening toward the "some" that are being treated as if they are endangering when they are not. I ask again: what is the justification for forcing some who will not endanger to be vaccinated? If you can answer that, it will shed some light.
  10. Agreed, the right of one person is important. A mandate is to force a population to do something. Some will see it to their benefit and some will not. Those who do not are NOT all potential transmitters. Some are being forced when they will never be harmful. But the only justification that will be given is what statistics show. Their rights are not important anymore. That one person that you talk about, they will be thrown under the bus. Somehow you have to justify forcing this minority, meaning treating them as if they are sick and transmitters of a disease. What about defending their rights? Well, the only argument will be, there are far more of the other (harmful) guys. Even though you don't want to uphold the majority over the minority, by defending what is supposedly the right of an oppressed, the solution is to oppress another. "Using" a car, or gun means "using" something. What is an unvaccinated person using to endanger someone? Why not have a mandate that no one should go near an unvaccinated person? After all, it is reckless. Ironically, a mandate is a reckless endangerment of rights. It would require a mandate against having such mandates.
  11. A police that does not distinguish (as a policy) between the criminal vs. the non criminal, let us say blowing up a building because it is mostly filled with criminals, is utilitarian. Having no regard for the innocent, is not a respect of individual rights. So a police that does not respect the rights of the unvaccinated, in the name of helping most people, is utilitarian. That is because some of the unvaccinated will never harm anyone. But they fall into the statistic of being a few that can be discarded. A police presence can be based on a utilitarian purpose or on individual rights. A fascist state is an example of utilitarian purpose, as the slogan is that it benefits the majority. The catch phrase is "for the people", i.e. for most of us. As in People's Republic of China or People's Republic of Korea. But the police that you and I talk about, one that protects our rights, is not for the benefit of the majority, it is to protect rights. When based on individual rights as apposed to Utilitarian, it would protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany because it would not be based on benefiting the majority. It is for any individual, ultimately everyone, it is a universal value and the police's use is retaliatory against a specific assailant. It does not choose between the endangered vs. the non endangered, or the advantaged vs. the disadvantaged. That kind of inequality will always exist. It protect all against each other. These rights are not protection from the elements, like floods or fires. It is protection from the agression of another. A virus is an element of nature. So there is no inherent right to protection from a virus. A rights respecting police does not initiate force in the name of benefiting the majority. Even if it does end up protecting the majority. Certainly that is better than protecting a minority. Nevertheless, protection of the majority is not it's prescriptive goal or it's justification. Otherwise, we can have comments like "there are useless lives" measuring the worth based on how many people someone benefits, like the social score proposed by China. Fine, does that mean the non endangered have no individual rights? That their sacrifice, their non-voluntary act, is for the good? Who's good? So the way the mandate works is by eliminating the individual rights of "some" others. Let us say for the sake of argument that it does defend the individual rights of the "endangered". What if some of the "endangered" don't want the vaccine? Some authority will know better, right? That in itself means no individual rights. The argument regarding mandating can be made to support socialist medicine too. As in those who don't take care of themselves are a burden to the rest of us, therefore they are aggressing. Ultimately the mandating argument is an attack on being left alone, unmolested. One could make a utilitarian argument for a free markets or free speech too, that it benefits the majority, which is a winning argument by the way. Not every trade is not a good trade, and for speech, somethings should be said at better times as others. So a free market has risks just as free speech and having a police force has risks too. The justification for implementation of these freedoms is not that it benefits the most of us with some falling through the cracks.
  12. The premise that is being challenged is: To fail to be vaccinated is an aggression on another. Therefore, a mandate (prior restraint type forceful/punitive) rule for those people who cannot show proof of not being harmed by the vaccine, is good, since it will counter this aggression. Considering the purpose of such a law is the key. If unvaccinated people are aggressing through negligence then it is irresponsibility that is being addressed. If it is society or Home owners association where there is a universal agreement to go by some rule, like be vaccinated, it would not be a mandate but a reaction to an agreement that is being breached. Here we are a dealing with a non contract based enforcement. There is no agreement to be vaccinated so not contract was breached. Acting like such a social contract exists may sound civilized or proper. There no social contract that binds you to do being vaccinated. The argument may be made that it will benefit society as a whole. Meaning the majority will benefit. The mandate to vaccinate is utilitarian as apposed to individualistic. Absent any better philosophy, utilitarianism would be fine. But since valuing with your mind is at the core of individual rights: In the case of the perfect vaccine, a mandate to vaccinate is to over ride the ability of the individual to "value", to want with his mind. Ultimately the government is behaving like the population is a bunch of brain dead machines that should be managed for the purposes of some good i.e. in effect some entity/person/group. It is to hold that the individual's life is not an end in itself but to serve some other's interest. In the case of a vaccine that will help most but hurt a few … it will hurt some, it is an initiation of force. The value it pursues is that most will benefit. That is it's justification in utilitarian terms. Some will be harmed but most will benefit. That is the statistical benefit that it being sought, percentage of the beneficiaries is higher than the harmed, it is utilitarian. It would apply to an army where the soldiers have signed an agreement to comply. Not a society where there is no such contract. So in both cases a vaccine mandate is utilitarian. Now you would have a good case if it was made to quarantine. "To fail to be quarantined is an aggression on another". In this case proof of being harmed by the quarantine process does not apply because being symptomatic and transmissible is aggression. It is not based on the majority benefiting. It is a universal value. Each and every person being aggressed on requires the right to self defense to survive.
  13. You see your definition of mandate will end up having no distinction between a preemptive force vs. a response or retaliation to aggression. Socialism is an initiation, a mandate to inject is an initiation. If you consider the police's activities being a mandate, yes, any activity has risk. But the behavior of the police is not through a mandate. The police is a universal requirement to keep law and order and it only acts in response. When it comes to a mandated injection, the police will end up forcing an injection with or without consent of those who cannot prove they will be harmed by it. A Mandate is an activity that is forced on some or all of the population. In your proposal's case, for those that can't prove the vaccine will hurt them. And when the government is wrong, well "shit happens". there is no proper accountability. It was for the good of the public. The most have benefited. This exact scenario has already happened in Africa with the Tetanus vaccine. Infertility and no one being held accountable since the united nations was in charge. The requirement to quarantine is to keep away from someone else as a defensive/retaliatory measure. Each of us individually has that right. You can pull a gun on someone telling them to stay away if you are threatened. It it done in response to someone who has the disease, not someone with no symptoms. Pulling a gun on them and forcing them to take a medicine is another matter.
  • Create New...