Easy Truth

Some items I have been thinking about are: -Price gouging will be legal, unhampered This would allow more ventilator and masks to be be attracted to areas that need it There will be inequality of service, but all will be serviced Rationing causes some to get no service at all -CDC role only advisory (as a private actor) We would have multiple (private) competing advisory and rating agencies for drugs, doctors and hospitals Has some role as a identification unit. Being able to identify threats Government role as a threat identification area (perhaps military capability) -Doctors can treat people anywhere from anywhere (driving prices down) Even foreign doctors that you trust can treat you without government intervention Drugs prices rise and fall due to demand. FDA, CDC, AMA out of the way -No fear of transparency. Complete freedom of the press and communication And natural support for whistleblowers Probably bounties for valid info from China Suppression of information due to fear of panic (not sure how that plays out) -Online education etc will be more attractive driving costs down The farce of the need for campus revealed

The only point I am making is that the threat assessment is different and so there is a different reaction. Question still stands about what is appropriate reaction. Although we have to rexaming our current reflexive, habitual and normal assessments in certain areas we took for granted, certain principles stay the same. The concept of the innocent stays the same even if our way of assessment of "the potentially guilty" changes. The right of "non participation" (a subset of being left alone) causes more diseased cases, making it more dangerous for yourself. Does such a right of "non-participation" exist? Should it exist? After all, inequality, rejection of equality seems to be acceptance of a more dangerous world for oneself too. Not getting vaccinated also causes that too. The argument will push for: Why not take away as many risks as possible? Isn't that the rational and well reasoned approach? The nature of the innocent includes those who do not want to participate in creating a "better world". One can attack it as being irrational (which even Objectivists do at times). That fact is one has a right to do the irrational that does not damage other's ability to make reasoned choices in their life.

The fundamental question is if one unwittingly infects another, is one still innocent? 1. A knowingly infect B ... A is guilty, B is a victim 2. A unknowingly infect B ... A is cause, B is a victim In (2), is A innocent? In all cases, B has to know that he is infected. B's rights or recourse would require knowing that A was the cause in the first place. In this case we have the unidentifiable perpetrator. As if the thief is long gone into the crowd. Can one disrupt the life of everyone in the crowd? If everyone in the crowd would reasonable agree to it, yes. But what if some don't agree to be searched etc.? Then the money is gone. There is no recourse unless ... B is or has the support of "the tyrant". Finally, if B has no idea that they are infected, there is no recourse even for a tyrant.

Transmission is different: "influenza can spread faster than COVID-19. " "Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza" "The reproductive number – the number of secondary infections generated from one infected individual – is understood to be between 2 and 2.5 for COVID-19 virus, higher than for influenza." "Children are important drivers of influenza virus transmission in the community." .... "preliminary data from household transmission studies in China suggest that children are infected from adults, rather than vice versa." https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza

The severity, ease and method of transmission is different. So there is a higher threat assessment. It does not give authorities any expanded rights. Activities can change because of threat level, that's all.

A sneeze could have killed you with influenza, if you were in a certain risk group. So "a danger" has always been there. Covid-19 has crossed a line to justify a different way for authorities to behave. To be clearer, the statement can be amended to: "Authorities also have reasonable grounds to believe they pose ENOUGH of a danger. " And then "enough" has to be defined. The problem is that there is no objective measure in the threat assessment "used to assess the thresholds". Do we have the right to upend the life of people who pose no threat. They could (maybe, possibly) pose a threat. But we can be certain that there are innocents. The fact that we can't identify the individual threat does not give authorities a "different right" to hurt the innocent. The fact that some are vulnerable and will die, does mean that the ones not vulnerable have a duty to them. It can become a battle of collective rights as in the young vs. the older people's rights. The authorities do (will) have a right to subject a sneezer to a test if they want to interact with even a single vulnerable person. It can then cause them to be put in a forced quarantine.

The dust has not settled so options seem muddied at this point. The 6 Trillion dollar government plan and spending is being implemented. Most likely more will be spent. But the arguments for and against the intervention usually turn out to be utilitarian, based on body count, or money lost. The question of affordability is up in the air. Rarely is the issue of "respect for individual rights" come up. Even amongst Objectivists, for instance Onkar Gate and Salmieri seemed to disagree with the role of the military in all of this (disagreements appear here too). Sweden, a supposedly Socialist leaning country, has decided not to mandate job losses. In France you need a letter to come out of your house. Some countries are paying wages of employees instead of spreading the money to individuals. A clear and complete picture of how is should be done is not presented by the Ayn Rand Institute, only discussions. I was wondering if each of us can attempt it and we can peck holes at it, amend it until there is something that can stand on its own.

Your links go no where. Signature and pdf.

At this point Capitalism has many definitions to people. It is has lost its meaning. Same with Socialism. Both Bernie and Trump have confused the next generation regarding the definition. Articles appear saying that the free market promoters are a fraud because Trump who is an anti socialist has chosen socialist solutions to the problem at hand. They conclude that since Trump is anti socialist, then all anti socialists don't really believe in what they are saying.

True. Indiscriminate surveillance, where as we have now, everyone is quarantined is wrong. As I said: "But, there is one element that is an attack on individual rights. The indiscriminate lock down of EVERYONE, infected and noninfected, (in a sense, criminal and innocent). "

But the battle is not against the virus, the plants or the cows. It is against the infected humans. The sentient infected. I realized it has some element of the argument that guns don't kill, people do.

Yes and if it is overridden completely, it means X was the cause yet not responsible. That seems wrong. The implication is that your right can be violated, someone unknowingly did it, and that "should" be okay. That may be reality. Maybe as a citizen we should be okay with that. Rather than the unchangeable expectation of being made right. Or a right of retaliation. Not sure.

An infected person that can transmit, can violate rights. When you explore options of "disease control" some can violate rights. They can. But the term "emergency powers" implied powers that are different than "normal powers". Emergency is the new normal. Just a matter of degrees now. The little socialism, soon to be "the 70 percent" socialism, is always founded on dealing with "the emergency de jour". We already were using "emergency powers", even before the emergency. The meaning is lost. "Emergency powers" means "more emergency powers". There is no emergency vs. non-emergency anymore.

Could be, I am not sure but my understanding is that you are responsible for what "your" (the one that belongs to you) child. If they break your neighbor's window, you have to fix it. Even if you told your child not to do it a 100 times. The other one is if you damage someone's property when you are sleepwalking. Wouldn't you have to compensate for that? But from an ethics perspective, should you be held responsible? Isn't it reasonable that "even if you don't know that you harmed someone", that you should "make them whole" if you damaged them? Meaning responsible even when you don't know that you are responsible.

That is an interesting differentiation. 1. consciously initiating force 2. unconsciously initiating force But there is a problem with not considering it initiation of force, an infected person can't be held responsible. Looking at it from the eyes of the victim, the one who has the right to be left alone, it looks like aggression. Granted there is no intention on the part of the other individual to harm, but he is harming. There is another complication and that is when both perpetrator and victim don't have knowledge of what is going on until after it has happened. But ultimately it is the issue of ownership and responsibility that governs the situation. If you own a car, and through an act of nature, your car rolls down the street and destroy property or harms people, won't you be held responsible? Even if you did not initiate it? Should it not be that way?

Back to the issue of individual rights. Individual rights, basically means no group based rights. That no group has privileges, all individuals have equal rights. But the group of infected does loose certain rights that "we all have". There is an unavoidable and justified temporary loss of certain rights for people infected. But is this an attack on individual rights? No, for the most part, the framework of individual rights does not change. Except for the exception below (last paragraph): One has a right to be left alone (as long as one is not harming anyone). But in this case, the "as long as" is violated by an infected person. So the framework of individual rights still stands. The rule (as a whole) is not eliminated, in fact it is obeyed. The respect for the individual is still there. Meaning "everyone" is not quarantined. Only the potentially or actual harmers are locked down by force. The shift in rights for this group is based on the right to quarantine by a government which is a defensive move (right to retaliate, right for defense and self defense). This right of defense and self defense is also part of the individual rights framework. Furthermore, the right to be left alone includes the right to boycott. To not interact with the infected. Any business or individual has the right to avoid, to have nothing to do with an infected person, as in: forcefully prevent entry into the business. Our (specific and final) rights don't exist without any justifications. Some people lose their right of free movement. It is contingent on the presence of the alien in the person. They temporarily lose the right of movement until the alien is separated from them. All the (general) individual rights are intact and preserved awaiting for this contingency to be removed. The infected are not identified as a group. The are individually identified, and individually put under quarantine. That is again a respect of individual rights. But, there is one element that is an attack on individual rights. The indiscriminate lock down of EVERYONE, infected and noninfected, (in a sense, criminal and innocent).

Not sure why you don't see this. An environment of competition "pushes". Free market forces push to bring down prices or to get more for the same dollar. vs. Governmental protectionist action push to increase prices and increase income for the ones it is protecting. A bureaucracy is basically size of management. Some management size is optimum. Excessive bureaucracy, is too much or unnecessary management. By definition this is dead weight. It should not exist at all.

A "right" as in "right to be left alone" requires a potential aggressor to "understand" the boundary. A virus can be exterminated at will, a virus does not deserve due process . There is no point in telling a fly that it has the right to an attorney before we swat it. Question is if it is the government's purpose to be every kind of insurance company. Services of the Police, Military, Judicial System are tantamount to functions of an insurance company. Protection against flood, tornado, hurricane, earthquake and fire can be handled by private companies. They don't require a monopoly on force. The market can regulate the level of the insurance/defense against the virus. Voting can do it too, but the market is more indicative of what should happen. The more afraid you are of it, the more money you put into protection (rationally speaking). Assuming the society is not in starvation mode, some will be protected more than others, but a level of protection is available to ALL (unequally). With governmental egalitarian intervention, some will have no protection at all. In Louisiana, there were people selling ice at much higher prices. That was price gouging. Once it was prevented, no one got ice at all.

The flies are not the problem, if the flies imbedded a virus that can be transmitted from human to human, if the human can infect others, the human is the initiator of force. This "thing" is working through a member of society to initiate physical force/damage on another. In this scenario, one person is threatening and causing harm to another. This activity, be it (volitional or non volitional) should be barred. The exploration here is: How can it be accomplished without elimination/diminution of individual rights.

Granted, but market forces push for "lean and mean" systems. Unnecessary (excessive) bureaucracy is not added because a business wants to make money. The excessive bureaucracy is either through bad management or governmental pressure.

You seem to be arguing that when there is chaos, "might over right" is justified until the dust settles. This would be justified in states where rationality is not possible. Where free will is not possible. Where everyone is drunk perhaps. Are you talking about a state beyond ethical guidance? We possibility have to talk in terms of "the ethics of war", not the implementation of a fight, but the ethics of being overrun without a plan of defense or capability to organize one. Isn't this the ethics of emergencies. I am not clear about the morality, immorality, and amorality that comes into play here. Is this a situation where one has to do the best they can and sort it out later? The main problem with this is that it is the justification for authoritarians taking over. That is the excuse that is usually used for the benevolent dictator.

If we delve into that (and other definitions of sacrifice), a choice can only be labeled (seen as) a sacrifice if the whole picture is not seen. In this case, there is NO sacrifice, it is done for a higher reward from God perhaps in an afterlife. In other words, there is a payoff. An actual sacrifice is choosing to do something consciously knowing that there will be NO reward (none at all). This type of choice is not psychologically possible. Choosing a lower value can be done by mistake, but similarly a mistake is never done consciously. (if it is, it was not a mistake) What is possible is to ignore (not take into consideration) the reward, but say that the choice was made for nothing, which is a mind trick. What Rand is attacking is the idea that a sacrifice ought to happen. Altruism and duty is an ethics of doing things for no reason at all, i.e. no benefit at all.

Since most won't, the desired know-how is going to be, how does the population regain its rightful freedom. Strong positive self esteem is going to be necessary at a minimum to fight for what one deserves. A clarity is going to be necessary that allows for the confidence and sense of deserving to exist. The autocratic leaders will always exist and they will push the boundaries. What is happening is a calamity that only some see because it is not like an earthquake or tornado that has immediate harmful consequences. The new way of thinking is that a government can in fact print checks and won't go bankrupt immediately. So it is legitimate for a leader that wants votes to say "my checks will be bigger than the opposition". In addition to that, this is not the last pandemic or even the last wave of this one.

I see what you mean. The word voluntary does not do it justice. But ... There is a continuum between Authoritarian <--------- vs ------------>Voluntarian (if there were such a word i.e. based on free choice rather than oppression). Once the voluntary aspect of people's actions is removed, they are by definition oppressed, the system, authoritarian. But the awareness of the continuum is gone. ONLY "somewhere in between" exists, not the two poles. As a consequence, to solve societal problems we use some sort of chemotherapy, at all times, rather than striving for "the cure". There is no other way and there is no better way. The prevailing understanding in the culture is that "some oppression is necessary". Somewhere in the middle with "moderate oppression" is what is good. After all, taxation is not slavery, just a touch of slavery (which is "the" good). The alternative is not "rightful" freedom (Liberty) vs oppression, it is now "moderate oppression" vs. oppression. So fighting this alien entity is inevitably going to be through some sort of oppression. And the proof is in the pudding! A six-trillion dollar locked-down toilet-paper-shaped pudding.

Yes and no. A healthy under 50 year old may decide they want to be exposed right now and take their chances rather than when they are sick or when the medical system is overwhelmed. Clearly a risk with dire consequences if it goes wrong, but when chances of death is 2 percent, and reward is immunity after that, it may look good to some.