Easy Truth

I can agree that infection is physical harm. I am having trouble with determining what unnecessary risk is in this context. In the case of Covid, taking into consideration all other risks, not just lock downs, but risks of adverse effects of the vaccine, in particular the lack of testing in regards to reproduction, how does one determine what unnecessary risk means?

I'll go as far as agreeing that if even one person is harmed, that's one too many in the context of governmental action. Any entity that harms should be held accountable. I have harped on this before ... there is no accountability when the government mandates. Far more than just one person is harmed in the case of COVID by a mandate to ingest something. A mandate is ultimately supported by the uses of physical force and the institution with the monopoly on force is being allowed to do so (especially when the risk to some is minimal). You are not acknowledging that you are making a utilitarian argument, that most of us will benefit so the minority that suffers ... is okay to suffer. Isn't that at the heart of your argument? If so, why don't you expand on that? I would argue that It is not the place of the government to force you to do life properly. It is you and me that have to do our lives properly. The idea of increasing risk being equated with a threat of physical force invites authoritarianism. It has to be far more specific. Currently you have an implicit endorsement of mandates which is pushing the socialist narrative as far as I can see. This where I just don't get it. You're joining the dark side Doug.

For the sake of argument, let's go with that. Now, when does one have to consider other risks as in death caused by economic damage, loss of hospital capacity for other illnesses, etc. In other words is that risk that is beyond the norm, the only risk to be considered without any ROI calculations? The risk of dying from taking the vaccine is a high risk for some and not others. Should we consider it as an aggregate risk and apply it to all people?

Depends if your logic is grounded in reality (or connected to reality). If drinking a gallon of arsenic increases your life span to two hundred years, then that would lead us to the conclusion that drinking a gallon of arsenic is ethical. Furthermore your "basic axioms" don't seem to be that self evident.

You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are. No Doug, with your formulation, just spreading is increasing risk. There is no mention of spreading how much and to whom. That is what I am objecting to. Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives? If enforcement is based on an individual level, then it should be done. Keep in mind, I said enforcement not laws. The basic law is that you are not to infringe on another's rights. In most cases that does not require more laws. If you see your neighbor has fifty riffles or is shooting up the neighborhood, you have a right to self defense which starts with investigative right to have the person interviewed and then escalate if something dangerous is determined. But we don't have a right to jail someone simply because they own a gun or even explosives. Their competence at handling it can and should be legitimately ascertained. In this case, the neighbor complains to the police to do it. The issue you bring up is ultimately about "recklessness". Are you equating that with "not choosing to be vaccinated?" If that is the case, then self determination, liberty, is by it's nature "reckless". Kind of like freedom of speech. Dissent can get people killed sometimes. I'm not talking about crying fire in a movie theatre. Legitimate free speech can get people killed. Should there be laws against legitimate freedom of speech (which is a nonsensical question). I have avoided the driving issue because it is muddied by the fact that we have public roads and governmental licenses. The issue of rules of the road has to be contractual and different roads as in different road in different countries have different rules. But yes, you can and should have rules to go by when driving.

Please explain what you were talking about when you said this. It's related to the idea of clear and present danger. The fundamental question of when is a threat actionable. The final calculation takes into account the ROI. At what point is it cheapest to win the battle? How much would it hurt if we defended ourselves and how? Is there a better way? etc. I am arguing that just because I or you see a threat it does not make it actionable. Passports means forced vaccination in addition to the issue of an attack on privacy. A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe. Based on that, I would add that it is not justification for governmentally forced vaccination for many reasons. . The most important is the issue of liberty meaning the right to flourish. Implied in the right to flourish is your hopes and your choices, your autonomy and your freedom to act rationally. Without it, you, in a sense don't exist. You don't have a right to exist. Eventually you will have to shut up and do as you are told ... or else. As I said, I am vaccinated. To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing "unnecessary risk" as aggression, liberty at it's core is under threat.

Doug, I'm using your definition. "about to happen". Germs are always being spread. You are doing it right now, I am doing it too. It is not about to happen, it is happening. It is normal. It is expected. It's not about to happen but rather already happening. We are not moving from a state of it's not happening to it's about to happen to it is happening. It's already happening. To claim that something that is already happening is imminent implies that it was not happening and it is about to happen.

Germ spreading is pretty much ALWAYS "about to happen".

Wow. Maybe now I have a chance to convince you. No, it's not imminent. It is in fact the norm. It is always possible to spread germs and it is always happening. The other issue is the hazard is based on the recipient. Like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, similarly, danger is relative to the person being infected, as in young or old, weak or strong etc. So imminence also has to be define as imminent to whom? In some ways, one could say that spreading germs is necessary, it is a necessary condition of survival. Without freedom to spread germs one cannot survive. Now if the germ has a high mortality rate, and high has to be declared in a non objective "voting" fashion, the policy will be determined by that. (unless someone can propose an objective measure) Right now a child or the young have a .03 percent chance of dying of it. If we voted on the danger, would this be dangerous? And then the question arises of when this voting can and will be manipulated by crony system that exists all around the world. The answer is: it it inevitable. So there is that unnecessary damage that has to be considered to. In a sense I think you are looking at the germ risk in a vacuum without the other potential risks.

Fair enough. I should have said forced behavior based on ANY possibility of harmfulness (conflation of imminent vs. not imminent). Doug, your comments can upset me so much that I have a heart attack. Shouldn't we restrict you from posting? (in fact that goes for anyone including myself) That is the absurdity that is not being addressed. There is this vapor of an idea that you are promoting that you are basing justification for loss of liberty. The other issue is that every municipality can have it's own cutoff at which they consider something hazardous. At a minimum that ambiguity/non-objectiveness has to be acknowledged. I will grant you that a certain probability of harmfulness can require some defensive measure, but I would argue that it is an "individual" matter. Meaning a person has a right to defend himself against what he things is imminent and pay compensation when wrong. But governmental action ... one size fits all preemptive restrictions should be based on unanimous consent.

That whole statement seems meaningless because prevention is in fact "meaningful slowing". Again there still is no definition of what percent of lethality of the virus … lockdowns and authoritarian techniques become justified. Kind of like there is an objective delineation of when to give up one's right's. What if someone said "you're not being meaningfully reasonable"? The word "meaningful" seems to be a way to bring in an arbitrary and make it sound good.

Would you agree that people who are vaccinated and those who are not "shed" similar amounts of the virus when they are infected? (I showed studies that show that) So your argument will rest on vaccines decrease likelihood of being infected in the first place. Is that correct?

"unnecessarily endangering people", now is this an exaggeration when you look at the percentage of people it kills, especially nowadays with the treatments that are available. I would rail against socialized medicine that does not allow for the treatments to be widely available and sooner.

Serious exaggeration. Not from what I have seen. I have seen father's look at the son who is not vaxxed as an irresponsible scum. I have seen professors that want to wait and see. I have seen people get fired simply because they don't want to get vaccinated for a disease that only is dangerous to people above 65 (statistically and reasonably speaking). No exaggeration. Instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we have the dictatorships of the elderly. But the discrimination and the dehumanization is serious and not taken seriously (because it's an exaggeration)!

I don't disagree with you but I was hoping you could make far stronger argument. What is a sterilizing vaccine? Why would coercion not be necessary if we accept a premise that they are increasing risk? Would it ever be necessary or justified? Let's say the vaccine worked and it worked one hundred percent. I would argue that a person has right live their life as stupidly as they want as long as it does not harm others. The counter is made that they are in fact harming others. But why? Let us say the utopia is a covid free world, like a small pox free world. Do we have a right to force a utopia on another? Is there such a right? I would argue there is no such right. In fact, I would argue that we each have right to be unmolested by another's Utopian vision. Be it a green climate world, an Islamic republic, or a worker's paradise. In this case there is a risk to taking the vaccine. Especially long term effects on reproduction. There is no justification to force parents to inoculate their children with such an experiment. Ultimately there is a risk that something may be discovered later on and all us who took that vaccine may regret. It is not impossible. There is a right to quarantine that others have. But that is a right to quarantine a person who has an infectious disease. Not a right to quarantine a person who MIGHT have it. Let us say there was NO vaccine. Then everyone MIGHT have it. Then we throw a dice to incarcerate some people? Or we find a scapegoat. The unvaxxed are now the new version of the sewer rats of the Nazi's. They're not people anymore. When don't we have a right to have concentration camps to quarantine them. All in the name of the common good. Vaccine passports are the new Scarlet Letter. To be clear, I am vaccinated. I am not making a case to serve me specifically. The principle is of liberty and one's rights is at stake here.

What is the definition of knocking down the pandemic, especially in regards to areas that have not had much vaccination (but perhaps have developed natural immunity) and are not seeing as high a surge as vaccinated areas.

Swig, it's rational to carry a gun to a riot???

Doug I'm not sure, here are several articles that seem to challenge that idea. https://www.medicalauthoritarianism.com/index.php/category/unvaccinated/

LOL. I actually agree with your post, but I would say going to the gym and working out may do you more good in this realm. It's not the "Objectivist correct" thing to say, but that is my experience.

Then ultimately: That most valuable thing that one cannot have, cannot be the thing that defines one's value to oneself. That great job that one did not qualify for That great car that one cannot afford That respectable country club that does not accept you The in crowd that does not take you in And the success that is so elusive They all have to be put aside as something that happened, rather than "that is the failure that I am". Otherwise the consequence is dire. And sadly, self generated.

I've read through this thread and I still don't know the definition of "having" or "attaining" someone. If you get to kiss her, did you have her? If you get to have intercourse (sorry to be so direct), did you have her? If you get a commitment from her to not sleep with anyone else for the next two months, did you have her? Or if you get a lifetime commitment to be monogamous, did you have her? Also, what is a definition of a date? Is a walk in the park a date or just a walk in the park where someone is tagging along? Do both people have to acknowledge that it is a date? I've seen where some people put it on their calendar and that's considered a date.

Tad, you'll have to elaborate on this. I just can't imaging a scenario where the government EVER has the right to put a gun to your head and inject something in your body without your consent. I can imagine a person being forced to stay at home but not the injection.

I doubt if anyone could argue that vaccines should never be required. The question is by whom in what venue. Privately they can be required. The argument is against a mandate that everyone should get a vaccine or be incarcerated.

Yes and no. Even with an afterlife, life could still be considered meaningless.

"Yes", "No" or "Maybe", or "I don't know" are going to be common answers. "No" in this case simply means he disagrees. The only option you have is to make your case or ignore and move on. There are no judges here and there are no rescuers either. One thing that may help would be if you said what could or should have been said for people do understand it better.