Easy Truth

The problem with the argument that there is no chance that some party may get it right is that all parties, all presidents want reelection, if their policy does not seem to improve the lot of people, they get voted out. The "chance" exists because the voting population makes it exist. The other issue is that democrats are socially pro-freedom. As in legalizing marijuana, and in some instances anti intervention as in Yemen right now. Those are two examples that make the argument of no chance go away. On top of that some democrats like Cinema will vote against the minimum wage. As far as likelihood, the Republican party of Eisenhower does not exist anymore. Even the Democratic government of Kennedy would not be acceptable to Republicans nowadays. FDR is the model for Republicans. Many of Trump's ideas like anti immigration were that of Sanders for more than 20 years. So ultimately you would end up arguing for distinctions when similarities are very strong. In other words, with current state of affairs, both Democrats and Republicans will spend us into stagnation or bankruptcy. Both have to be rejected so that the alternative of laissez fair capitalism becomes visible. Saying one is always (far) better than the other obscures vision.

Bottom line either "preference" is giving false hope. As in people who believe in souls that have all sorts of nonsensical duties, are better than those that "try" to believe that we don't have souls or a self. The motive being to convince that: people who believe in corporate welfare are better than those who believe in plain welfare. The truth is that sometimes one or the other is better ... based on many other factors, not these simple overall characteristics.

I won't attempt to prove a negative. I am not asking you to prove the non existence of something, I am asking you to prove the absence of something.

If you can show that there is no chance, you will convince me. If that were the case, it's true, a gamble is better than no chance at all. In both cases there is a chance for good or for bad. But like a casino gamble, it is arbitrary to say we will win the next throw of the dice. Especially when "accepting a flawed leader, like a hitler" is justified because god uses broken instruments. The consequences of that are catastrophic. A Trumpist republican party acts like a fascist system with communist slogans. This emphasis on "soul" and individual is a red herring. You have very collectivist minded societies like Japan and South Korea and Singapore that do well. Many people primarily think in terms of their "team" and they do well. Some socialists are Marxist "power mongers", but most average people who call themselves a Socialist simply want a safety net in a crony capitalist system. The disease, the fundamental problem is the sense of being justified to use lethal force. Fighting for individualism does not justify killing or destruction. Whichever group that believes in that justification is evil. That is why I thought your comment about "they deserved it" should be condemned. This broad based conceptual comparison does not hone in on the "better" poison. As I said previously, actual Marxists are not successful in the long run while the religious power mongers have an almost infinite staying power. An orthodox Jew, Christian, etc. could at some point feel justified in literally killing the infidel (someone who disagrees with them). They could easily be willing to die for the slightest issue. That is what gives them so much power and what makes them a far more immediate problem. A much more imminent threat than people who want public schools and transgenders in your bathroom.

It used to be that way until Trump made the Republican party "the party of the worker". The party of the workers that will choose anyone who is anti abortion. Seems like a merging of Marxist and religious slogans. The distinction is now definitely not there for practical use. It used to be that Republican meant fiscal conservative. That may have coexisted with some of Objectivism. Right now to claim that a party that is going through an identity crisis should be chosen to lead is introducing a large risk as policies could be good or bad. It's like entertaining the arbitrary. It's sort of a choice between choosing a dice vs. someone who wants to make us like California or Sweden. A dice is great until it selects fascism.

(Talk about evasion!!! WOW) Original sin, guilt and shame is at the core of Christian existence. "You are your brother's keeper" means you as an individual should come last. Other's come first. A soul that is worthless does not assert itself, non-functional. Not much different from Marxism. In the case of free speech, which is at the core of all societal freedoms. there is NO free speech support amongst a religious society. Even freedom of thought is chased away. God will hear your thoughts and punish you. Combine that with "God Uses Broken Vessels" ... That means you have no way of knowing what is good. The most blood thirsty dictator holds up a bible to gain or maintain support. Again, not much different than the Stalinist alternative. The Soviet union lasted less that 80 years. The left was not able to hold on. Christianity, Islam, Judaism have lasted for 2000 years and may last forever. And most importantly, a tyrant that holds up a bible to maintain support is not unimaginable, while the idea that "we should not own any property" is still unimaginable.

Unless Israel is not a western theocracy.

Death by fire or death by hanging Terminal Cancer vs. Ebola That sums up the fundamental debate. To claim that one is far better than the other is ridiculous. Kind of like "fight at all costs for death by fire rather than death by hanging". Interesting and concerning was the confusing mishmash of things like: Christianity was good but then it was bad. Islam was good, but then it was bad. Communism was bad and then it was okay. Kand was evil but he was a puritan. We should talk in terms of left and right, no we should not. etc.

Logical perhaps, but wrong because of its necessary premise that "total isolation is viable". Total isolation will kill you. You have to get your food from somewhere, and this particular population needs medical care too. It does not add up.

This is what doesn't make sense. So if someone goes to lunch with you, they can't expect you to: not to sneeze on them not to pee on them not to sit on your lap not to go through their wallet etc That is why it's hard to believe you want to stick with "NO expectations". I understand we don't have a right to others giving us a free ride, it's just that you seem to argue for no expectation at all. Because it that is the case, then what is the point of having a government at all? You can't expect anything from it either.

No expectations and no entitlement at all? You don't mean that.

Thanks David. Keep in mind this is not an affirmation of governmental one size fits all mandates with flimsy data. This issue brings to mind the issues around smoking where simply smoking will not cause a sever illness. Certainly not immediately. There is a percentage that will die of it. The medical establishment says smoking will cause cancer. But it is saying it will "likely cause cancer". There is no causal relationship, is there? (Some will recall Peikoffs bizarre defense of smoking) In the case of Covid, we know that there is exponential growth in transmitters. That would imply that I or you will become one soon enough. To combat the exponential growth we have to do something (or do we?). There are forces that could cause targeted responses: Like, news reports come out that one Supermarket chain has higher percentage of workers that get it. Without some sort of response, without any liability, super spreader events that are attractive will happen. In that sense, what would you propose? In this case, just "being" means becoming a likely transmitter (at some point).

Fair enough. To clarify things, can you elaborate on your "solution", or how it should have been. From what I see, there are two fundamentals environments to talk about: 1. A purely legitimate system (ideal man in the ideal society perspective) 2. A system where some form or authoritarianism is inevitable (i.e. that you can't escape from it, what we live in) I am interested to know about your position regarding "liability". Some do not believe there should be any covid liability as it would create a tsunami of litigation. But from a purely philosophical perspective, if A infects B, A should be liable.

You should get what you deserve (not what you think you deserve). If you don't it is unjust. This is at the basis of objective justice. If you should get what you deserve, then when you don't get what you deserve an injustice has happened. An injustice occurring is an infringement of someone's rights. The mistake in your example is how you determined that the 10 dollars was deserved. "I think I deserve 15 dollars" does not mean I deserve 15 dollars. Was there a free market with supply and demand that came up with 15 dollars and then we agreed? That is when it is deserved. And if it is not paid, that is a use of force (in this context).

Even if it was necessary and effective, the "one size fits all prior restraint" still infringes on the rights of those who are immune or don't carry the disease that don't want to participate. In other words, those who are not transmitting are innocents who's rights are being infringed on. That is the immoral aspect.

Yes. These two examples of deserving are based on free market forces. It is based on voluntary agreements and contracts. But there are also non-contractual rights too, like a right to life. The key is that you objectively and absolutely deserve it. Not just your opinion. This is easily seen in the case of a breach of contract where you have an agreement to get a wage ... but it is not given or stolen from you. The initiation would be at the time of your first paycheck, when you don't get your agreed on paycheck amount. Is time goes on I am realizing that "initiation of force" is in fact based on effect, as David put it (as he disagrees with effect but rather advocates for "intent"). No, but that isn't to say expectations of safety are not relevant. Then how can you flourish? How can you survive without reasonable safety? Always wondering if you will be harmed or stolen from?

Yes. We'll have to go with "sorta kinda know what you mean" and go from there making things more precise. This is an attempt to arrive at/determine the truth. The premise still stands. I'll ask you the same question I asked Dream weaver. Without a right, as you seemed to agree, force can't be determined. Based on the answer, we can drill down and eliminate the vagueness. Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in? This is based on your own definition of reasonably safe. No definition of "reasonably safe" is necessary right now, just the fundamental principle. Please start your answer with either: Yes, No, I don't know

Exposing someone to a disease is not initiation of force by itself. The disease has to be harmful. The "other" may be vaccinated or immune for some reason. Transmitting it to them, i.e. infecting them (meaning they are not immune) with the potentially lethal disease is the exertion of force. It could be an initiation or not depending on if this was requested or not. If it was not requested or chosen, then objectively it was an initiation of force (potentially lethal force). Force in this context is always tied to voluntary or not. This is where you are making the mistake and going outside of this context. It's vague. It's abstract. But it's true. To repeat it: Ultimately "force" is an interference with the good/freedom that you deserve The fact that you deserve something does not mean that you will get it. (descriptively) The fact that you deserve something means you should get it (prescriptively) Once you determine what is deserved, that finally determines if it is force. You mention it and there is no disagreement there. Rights and boundaries determine where there is trespassing. Without them one person will say you are trespassing (initiation force) and another will say no you are not. So first you have to determine what is your "right" to be able to determine if there is force or not.

Descriptively, yes. That may mean people haven't figured out how. Prescriptively, as this is an ethical question, should you have a right to be safe?

Absolutely. But do you have the right?

dream_weaver Just to be clear, can you answer a question: Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in? This is based on your own definition of reasonably safe. No definition of "reasonably safe" is necessary right now, just the fundamental principle. Please start your answer with either: Yes, No, I don't know

Choice is one thing, a choice to do what you want is another. A freedom to do x, is having the choice to do x. The way you are formulating it, "voluntary" ends up having no meaning at all. EVERYTHING is voluntary. You always have a choice. (as in you are always free) But when you have gun to your head, you can't go where you were going to go without this interference. Similarly, if you were tricked into thinking such and such investment is good by someone you trusted, you were not "allowed" to see the truth which you would have done without this interference. Force within this context is a certain kind of interference. Ultimately "force" is an interference with the good/freedom that you deserve (although that is a circular definition but in the end it still fits). A metaphoric judge would have to determine what was deserved in the end. The words "choice" and "interference" are being used within the overall context. That phrase sounds good (within the context indicating interference). Outside the context, one could ask, did he deserve that control in the first place. In that case it would not be a mugger but a police that is retrieving what was stolen. Some choices presented by others "allow" and some choices "disallow", so some don't interfere.

But the issue of ownership is being ignored. If that which you own causes damage, then you by extension are the cause of the damage. People think that ownership is all benefits, not realizing that it also means responsibility. If X has a tumor that causes him to hurt people, it is not intentional, but he is in fact initiating harm i.e. force, because his body, that which he owns is doing it. Nevertheless, your position does have some merit as, intention is not irrelevant. If someone hurt me and said "I didn't mean to", or "it was an accident", I would naturally be more lenient that if they said "I gave you what you deserved". The relevance of intention definitely exists in regards to retaliation. The basic (webster) definition of force itself is "the energy exerted". The question with regards to initiation" is the "source" of the energy. Granted, there is a difference between "intended exertion" vs. "exertion". Let's go with "intention" to be defined as the source: That would imply that "retaliation" to stop this exertion is ONLY morally justified if there was an intention. In practice, people could simply ignore "unintended possible consequences" and cause all sorts of havoc. All you have to do is go to court and say "I did not intend it". How do you absolutely prove intention?

Correct. It is "bad" when your capacity to choose what is good for you is taken way (efficacious thought process). Not just your capacity to choose. If you never had that capacity then there was no interference and therefore no force in this context. If you can only make bad choices for yourself, then the concept of force in this context becomes meaningless. Someone caused you to make a bad choice by taking away your ability to choose a good one (if they were never there(interfered)). By putting a gun to your head, or shining a light in your eyes, breaking your leg, etc.

Not anyone. Someone that can override your freewill. Someone you trust that lies to you in that regard. Generally fraud or a breach of trust.