Easy Truth

Karl Marx argued that competition over limited resources was inherent in society and framed it as a perpetual conflict of interest of the members of that society. Marx’s theory of exploitation of the working class in capitalist societies is summed up with a ruling bourgeoisie and an oppressed proletariat are not interacting using rational means (voluntary agreements).
“The bourgeoisie maintains social order through domination rather than agreement.” This state of affairs is considered a constant conflict of interest going on in society … not voluntary trading.
"Exploitation: when workers receive less money than what their labor is worth." Rand argues for a political/economic/civilization model in which demonstrates that the conflict is not a valid conflict i.e. in a laissez fair Capitalist system, this conflict is simply nonsensical.
Similarly, "Problems become noticeable because the upper class is looking to get the most production possible for the least amount of money." would also indicate a conflict that does not exist.
"Consider the relationship between the owner of a housing complex and a tenant in that same housing complex”. An Austrian economist “might suggest that the relationship between the owner and the tenant is founded on mutual benefit. In contrast, a conflict theorist might argue the relationship is based on a conflict in which the owner and tenant are struggling against each other."
And sure enough "Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus."
In Objectivism/Austrian economics, these conflicts don’t exist. In other words their (Marxist) ideologically based perspective observes a conflict that is not valid.
The implication of the Marx’s analysis is that "conflict of interest among men" will be perpetual since bourgeoisie “domination” is itself a "conflict of interest". A Hegelian Dialectic progression that will never end. So they see Capitalism attempting to create law and order … through "conflict of interest" (i.e. domination and subjugation).
In a free market society, by it’s nature, no one is dominating. This is seen as impossible in the Marxist view so Rand’s “no conflict of interest” is a refutation of the impossibility.
Competition over limited resources (a normal free market operation for an Objectivist) is considered to be a state of “conflict of interest” by a Marxist, in fact, it a perpetual state of conflict of interest. So based on Marxist reasoning, (what an Objectivist would consider normal) as in a competitive market pricing allocation supply and demand based system with the inequality of outcome it produces is viewed as a perpetual conflict of interest.
According to them rational agreements, between members, are not happening (perhaps because they are impossible in a Marxist perspective).
As far as rationality goes, Irrational justice, or justice among irrational people, at best may refer to a momentary blip where these people were lucky and there was some justice. Perpetual is the key word that Rand uses specify conflict.
Rand writes: "Only an irrationalist ... exists in a perpetual conflict of 'interests.' Not only do his alleged interests clash with those of other men, but they clash also with one another." (VOS, p. 58)
The momentary aspect of “conflict” or “interest”, their not being in the long run has some relevance. Rand is to attacking the perpetual aspect of Marx’s formulation. Perpetuity is an implication that has been omitted from “conflict” but essential to gain a proper interpretation. Therefore, I would argue that in the context of refuting Marx’s argument, conflict refers to perpetual conflict.
So whenever she says conflict, she means “perpetual conflict”, and no conflict means no perpetual conflict. It is obvious to any observer, that “no conflict” cannot mean absence of all conflict (as was observed in the thread).
She is also attacking the Marxist idea that Capitalism. by its nature, is an exercise in dealing with “conflict of interest” via brute force, subjugation of the worker by the bourgeoisie.
Finally, it is common sense that, rationality is at the core of eliminating “perpetual conflict of any kind”, including conflict over scarce resources. But in Marxism you are a product of your environment, so rationality has no import.
This is currently is my most plausible interpretation of “no conflict of interest” among rational men which is her response to the Marxist notion an “inherent” perpetual conflict of interest exists among men in a Capitalist society.
I think I am satisfied no and I'm letting it go. Thanks for helping get me here (all of you in the thread).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory
https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/gzswQoUGEZSTPk9xcGS2T/what-is-conflict-theory/
 
 

This is another good point. I have a bit of a soft spot for the ordinary language school. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the everyday common sense usage of "conflicts of interest" comports with the meaning Rand employs here. And if it does not (which it definitely doesn't) what motivates our moving from the one usage to the other?
And the answer to that lies in the answer to the question: why does Rand need there to be no conflicts of interest? What work is this doing in her overall system? I mean what's the cash value of the thing? Suppose she's wrong, sometimes my good will just conflict with other people's, and that's just a pervasive fact of reality? So what?
I think she needs it due to her political philosophy. She needs a free society that does not, at least structurally, prejudice some people's good over others. And she needs that because she needs it to be entirely up to you whether or not your good is achieved. That's why taking a wider view of the context of your interests refocuses you on what's in your control vs not. That's why the ending is not weird or odd that she take it to politics at the end of the day. (What's weird to me is that she gives it two sentences and ends right there.)

There seems to be agreement that "conflict" will always exist no matter what.
The disagreement is about "conflict of interest" not "conflict". (problem is that any conflict is about wants, is that interest?) The question hinges on the definition of interest. Does interest mean wants, as in desires? If so, there will always be conflict of wants. But the definition must be "what is objectively good for you" not simply what you want. What is actually good for you is your interest. If so, then the precondition is rational thinking, meaning a "well thought through want".
But rational thinking will not necessarily bring one to the truth at all times, because of the contextual nature of knowledge. 2046 mentions taking all contexts into account, but wouldn't that be omniscience?
If even with rational thought, one would not know what is ultimately and absolutely to one's interest, then some interests will simply be wants and desires and will inevitably conflict.
It seems that the belief is that rationality will always come up with what is to your interest. Discounting the issue of mistakes, (as in rational men will consider that mistakes will happen and they will be dealt with rationally too), thought through desires will make conflict less likely (as in the percent issue that Merjet brought  up).
Conflict of interest, even with complete rationality would make conflict less likely, but not impossible. In other words, rational self interest is an objective good, but the ideal situation she talks about (no conflict of interest) may be a metaphoric statement to emphasise the point.

Interesting, I had not made the connection between "arbitrary" and anything is possible. (now that you mention it, it's embarrassingly obvious)
So that is at the heart of it. It is what the whole exercise it all about.
We are beings that need to know "the possible" to survive.
We are like hungry mouths, waiting to be nourished by "the possible", and sometimes we take in a trash/poison/virus that is "the arbitrary" that looks like food.
The arbitrary misguides us when we miscategorized it as possible, it will take us well ... to the arbitrary. (sometimes the impossible, after all, it's arbitrary)
And Objectivism is saying that it does not have to be that way. In fact, it should not be that way.
The defense/disinfection starts with "I can know the difference".
Sad to note that they refuse the healing respect we provide when they reject it with "who am I to know?"
 

I think this is the hold up because purpose is a subspecies of standard (in a certain context). Standard and Purpose, both give guidance. (but with Rand the primary difference seems to be that one is abstract, the other concrete)
The difference between “standard” and “purpose” in this context is as follows: a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. “That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.
Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

I think this is the hold up because purpose is a subspecies of standard (in a certain context). Standard and Purpose, both give guidance. (but with Rand the primary difference seems to be that one is abstract, the other concrete)
The difference between “standard” and “purpose” in this context is as follows: a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. “That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.
Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

I meant what I said. In the examples that I gave, his orders clearly violated well-established law, though perhaps you are not happy about with the law on these points. Your response is mostly part directed at a different question, namely whether it is reasonable to ignore the law. Given that the purpose of a president in our republican form of government is to implement the law, Trump is dysfunctional. This is a basic divide within the population of those calling themselves Objectivists: some consider law to be optional, others consider it to be fundamental to living in a civilized society. There’s a really simple explanation for lots of Trump’s behavior: he sees himself as being above the law; the law impedes him getting what he things we need.

That is arguably the most dangerous issue that we are dealing with as a country. To hear that Trump has been talking about removing the two year limit for a President, was terrifying. Then his believe in complete presidential immunity and the fact that he pardoned people convicted of doing his dirty work. I thought this type of thing only happens in third world fascist systems. When Trump recently tried to remove the position of inspector general, the GOP revolted.
I admit, I was a Trump fan for a generation, watching the Apprentice and trying to learn something from him and yet, from day one of his presidency, claiming his crowd was bigger than Obama's first inauguration, not acknowledging that it is hard to beat an actual first African American President in the History of the United States was shockingly disappointing.
You are assuming that Trump is not a socialist. He wants to create public works like FDR, having the government become the biggest employer. When the Covid first bailout was being negotiated, he wanted the government to have equity in the bailed out companies (even Bernie had not pushed for overt communism).
What will Trump Veto?? He claims that Biden has stolen his economic plan.
Currently he is exacerbating racial tensions, appealing to a silent majority mob, and acting like he fights the evil that he already embodies.
People are worried about a highly unlikely journey to communism with Biden and his Supreme Court nominees, while the worst Americans will tolerate is what it is like in Canada or the UK or Sweden. We are not headed to Communism.
But, we are already a crony capitalist, fascist lite country. Full blown fascism is any easy next step. Trump will not stop it, in fact he is opening the door to it (potentially for the next racist leader that actually likes to kill people). 
The other possibility is civil war. Again, who is best equipped and temperamentally suited to bring factions together?

I'm not sure this was covered yet.
I think of consciousness as specifically general awareness with mental states. A process, as was mentioned before.
Self in this context would be the entire history of that conscious activity. Memories of your life, history of mental states, cognitive development, things like that. A self would be more complex, because it requires directed thinking. A relatively simple consciousness like a beetle can be vaguely aware of things like the presence of food, but it doesn't direct its thinking in terms of values or memories. 

SL, Poetically said, I think the poetic manner is a singular way to condense and express this unbelievable totality of life and one's life's existence. There are wonders here, how this animal made of star-stuff could become consciously rational and aware of its consciousness which ~almost~ seem mythological or religious. "Lest we be mythologizing ourselves" - of the species and of the individual being, I don't know of how one cannot. Obviously, without the supernaturalism. That autonomous "I" unique to you was who could observe, will to think those things, question them and marvel. This recalls, I like that old "You are a child of the universe: no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here". We are "right" to be here and right for "here", without any intention of the Universe.  And another, from that song: "I sing the Body Electric ... I toast to my own reunion, when I become one with the Sun".

Warning:  The following is to be taken as poetic rather than literal...
 
Religio - re connect or re-linking back
 
Identifying the self with the universe, or the planet... is in the direction of mythical or religious thinking... because although you are in and of these things, you are not identical with them... being unseparated from them and indeed embedded in them.. it is a natural direction in which mystical thinking points... we are star stuff... made from elements formed in supernovae... in a literal "tree of life" billions of years old... each a node on an unbroken branch of ancestry and direct physical, chemical, biological causality ... the eyes, ears and minds of the Earth, the solar system... this is religion and myth... and so perhaps such is going too far.
 
So too perhaps, identifying the self, the "I" with the whole person, an undivided individual, is mythical thinking.   Those far flung parts of our physical bodies not under voluntary control even indirectly: secreting, pumping, and processing, just as the stars whirl, the planet spins, and the continents drift. So too, identifying the "I" and "self" with the body is going too far into myth and religion.
 
So too even with identifying "I" with the whole of the brain and its doing, in identifying with the whole of its processes... where so much occurs autonomously, in the background, subconsciously, or in the depths of sleep.  So much is unbidden and out of our conscious control that we should treat them as foreign as all the rest... lest we be mythologizing ourselves... and such would be going too far.
 
 
Perhaps finally then we might hold onto the "I" as only that tiny portion of all that which is the first-person view of willed conscious experience... whose range of will is a feeble and fleeting "focus or not"... perhaps a rejection of anything mythical or anything religious is to identify only with that one little spark and its feeble range of direct causative power...
 
And yet there is room for something more akin to mythologizing the self... perhaps... for that tiny spark can be the root cause of whole civilizations, and one day, cause continents or even planets to move ...
and perhaps there also is room for a re-linking to those things with which any "I" participates and is enmeshed: in a complex relationship as literally as old as time and as wide as the universe...
identifying the "I" and the "self" with the Objective experience of the nigh infinite whirling whole through but one of many of its utterly unique center points about which it all goes round and round and round. 

Just to confirm, isn't "I" self? If so, I is a power, or "the power".
Based on that definition.
"I", implies "the power". (in me (but that may be redundant)) 
It has interesting psychological effects.
Also, to be selfless is to be powerless.
I was just entertained by it, not making any assertions here.
 

SR,
There are concrete things that can only be identified by abstract thought. An example would be an electron or the magnetic field it generates if the electron is moving. An attribute such as the electron’s electric charge or it ability to produce a magnetic field are attributes. I suggest that faculties are just functional attributes.
Functional items arise only in a biological setting. The mental is only within the biological. Those are positions of Rand (me too).
As you know, in the ITOE, Rand called out a category of primary existents which she titled entities. Here other basic ontological categories called out there were actions, attributes, and relationships. In your quotation, she is saying that consciousness is an attribute, not an entity. By “certain sort of entity” she would mean certain animals. The attribute consciousness is a functional attribute, and such would seem reasonable to call faculties, continuous of a philosophic tradition of speaking of mental faculties.
Faculties are powers, I’d say. If we spoke of the faculty of walking, we would not mean anything but the ability or power to walk. I imagine it’s just traditions of talking to typically say ability to walk or faculty of thought.
It would be natural within Rand’s metaphysics, I’d say, to take primacy of existence to consciousness to be statement about a relationship. All of Rand’s fundamental categories—entity, action, attribute, and relationship—are existents. The latter three, as you know, are dependent on the first one, the primary form of existent.
Rand took the solar system to be an entity. The biological consciousness-system could be an entity, and this is natural to call mind. It can be an entity set within a larger entity, just as the solar system. But mind is a functional system set within a larger array of functions of the animal. A self is that mind.
Consciousness is sometimes not awareness of an awareness. It is just awareness of things not itself sometimes and most fundamentally. Some animals could have consciousness-selves without awareness of their consciousness-selves, I think.
The question of how one identifies what constitutes one’s mind is something I’ll have to leave. For the answer, I’d look both to modern developmental cognitive psychology and to history of philosophy on the constitution of the mind: the Greeks, Arabs/Scholastics, early Moderns, right on through philosophers to now. Big project, that one!
I think it is right to see consciousness as action, as attribute, or as to relationships. These fundamental categories do not have the exclusivity had by Aristotle’s categories. The can all be true characterizations of a thing, appropriate in different contexts of consideration. 

I have to digress first: The situation cannot ONLY be described in terms of retaliation, as some of it is random and illegitimate simply blowing off steam. Some are people trying to find something to express their frustration with. Young men being bored, people being upset at losing their jobs and wondering about their future. Aggression will go up. So to prevent it, other pressures have to be alleviated too.
Having said that, back to the current thread:
If this violent activity is reduced to the premise that "this is only justified if it were retaliating against the officer who was on Floyds neck", then this is not retaliation.
But ... that would imply that retaliation is only justified against the necessary and sufficient cause (which can't be true).
Amount of legitimacy in retaliation is based on destroying a proximate cause (anything that supports the existence of (the harm/damage/effect)).
To defend yourself against a larger assailant you have a right to hit them where you can, not only the hand that contains the weapon. And yes, the closer to the necessary cause, the more legitimate the retaliation.
A proximate cause could be the "supporting police", or the employing police station, or the state that has the police force, or the nation or society that finances it.
Now, if these people went to Senegal/Africa and brunt their police cars, they had nothing to do with the Floyd Killing. That would be retaliation that was absolutely and objectively illegitimate (zero amount of Legitimacy).
What is going on in cities in the US has "some" legitimacy as retaliation. Therefore it "eventually" requires and deserves some sort of non violent alleviation. The areas where it had zero legitimacy it deserves aggressive retaliation by the government. 

I have to digress first: The situation cannot ONLY be described in terms of retaliation, as some of it is random and illegitimate simply blowing off steam. Some are people trying to find something to express their frustration with. Young men being bored, people being upset at losing their jobs and wondering about their future. Aggression will go up. So to prevent it, other pressures have to be alleviated too.
Having said that, back to the current thread:
If this violent activity is reduced to the premise that "this is only justified if it were retaliating against the officer who was on Floyds neck", then this is not retaliation.
But ... that would imply that retaliation is only justified against the necessary and sufficient cause (which can't be true).
Amount of legitimacy in retaliation is based on destroying a proximate cause (anything that supports the existence of (the harm/damage/effect)).
To defend yourself against a larger assailant you have a right to hit them where you can, not only the hand that contains the weapon. And yes, the closer to the necessary cause, the more legitimate the retaliation.
A proximate cause could be the "supporting police", or the employing police station, or the state that has the police force, or the nation or society that finances it.
Now, if these people went to Senegal/Africa and brunt their police cars, they had nothing to do with the Floyd Killing. That would be retaliation that was absolutely and objectively illegitimate (zero amount of Legitimacy).
What is going on in cities in the US has "some" legitimacy as retaliation. Therefore it "eventually" requires and deserves some sort of non violent alleviation. The areas where it had zero legitimacy it deserves aggressive retaliation by the government. 

Regarding "retaliation" Ayn Rand wrote: "Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use" (Lexicon).  
So violence against a Minneapolis police officer who was not on the scene of the George Floyd incident would not qualify as "retaliation" in her view.
 
 

I go to Ford to purchase a new car. I buy a car with all the latest features, but I get home and the car is missing some features. I go back to the Ford dealer and summoning my best Karen, I ask to speak to the manager. I bought the package with all these features, but my car doesn't have these features, I say.
Ah, but you bought the car from StrictlyLogical and Merjet. They were your salesmen. And they're not here. They're gone. Sorry, you're out of luck. And they won't be in tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, they're saying home and we're shielding them. And you can't get reimbursed from Ford because, see, you only have the right to get reimbursement from those who sold you the car. No such entity "Ford" sold you the car, see? SL and MJ sold you the car. And you will never see them again. Now begone!
If I were to do some cliche Randian analysis, beyond just peppering every other sentence with boilerplate jargon like "objective" this and "metaphysical" that, would probably conclude that this is the "concrete-bound" mentality. I would probably conclude that it is the refusal to abstract. And the reason for that is because organisations and institutions are groups of people, and these various people are representatives of the organization. And they know that, they're just being an insufferable pedantic.

Yes, if you can talk you can breathe, but you might be able to say you can't breathe a few seconds before you stop breathing. 
But that's stupid to talk about. Do we really need some linguistic argument to understand that he was in severe medical distress? 
The category is police abuse, full stop. 
It might be justified, I haven't really decided, but it's a pretty simple connection between initiation of force to retaliatory force. 
 

Guaranteeing they will need another job?  Ooops there's that n-word ... "NEED"
 
Hogwash.
You base your entire argument re. $15 upon nothing but a subjective whim, an arbitrary edict, as all proponents of minimum wage do.
 
Who decides what kind of food, (basic or fancy), what kind of shelter (living alone in a mansion, or in an apartment with 6 others), what kind of clothing (basic or brand-name), what kind of leisure activities and luxuries (smart phones, movies, game consoles, cigarettes, booze, junk food, etc.) are "necessary" to a person's "need" of a certain wage or number of jobs?
 
What about an intelligent industrious 13 year old hoping to become a doctor.  What is wrong with him starting with summer employment in a kitchen because he has in an interest in cooking - say at $3-$5 an hour?  He has no expenses at all and he might find that very much "worth" it while being very worthy and good at it, maybe he'll take the job for the experience only, or the odd cookie.
...and wouldn't responsible parents want their children to learn the importance of employment at an early age, to learn that as adults they will not be "entitled" to get anything from anyone except by voluntary trade?
 
What about a young trade college student with flexible hours, already on a scholarship or funded by parents, wanting to do a little work on the side.  Who's to tell him he cant accept a $3-$5 an hour job if that is all he is currently good for?
What about a "failure... to launch" adult who lives with his parents or lives with 6 room-mates, and the household costs to him are so low he is nowhere near "needing" a second job?
What about an honest hard working person willing to take two jobs but looking to move up in value so that one day they can stick with one?
Who should decide that a person "should" only have one job?
Who should decide how many hours a week a person is allowed to devote to productive money earning work? 
What about an unskilled wife or (an unskilled husband for that matter) of a professional who wants to do something and is willing to work for $3-$5 as a cook?
Who should decide how much a couple "should" earn, or how many jobs a couple "should" have?
 
Moral wage rates include everything, right down to $0 where volunteers are willing to work in exchange only for the experience of working.  And I'll tell you who should decide the rates, the employer and the potential employee, and given their specific circumstances either the employee will accept the job for a wage which is also acceptable to the employer, or they will part ways.
THAT is moral.
 
 

The terms used sometimes confuse the subject, as in "completely fair" vs. "fair" vs. "moral".
One fundamental problem is that if you objectively as a third person look at many transactions, you will see that one person gets more value than the other. Frequently!! You can conclude that most transactions are unfair.
What makes it fair, or just, or enforceable is the fact that there was an unforced agreement, a voluntary one.
The "agreement" is what makes it voluntary. Voluntary meaning "not tricked into it" or not threatened by the other party into it. 
We are not born with the ability to make the best transaction all the time, we learn to make better and better ones. Some people have low self esteem and are consistently taken advantage of. In many of these cases, resentment builds and they will not transact anymore. 
The example you bring up is more about what is workable or practical or a best practice for one of the transactors. To observe the other person and IF a long term relationship is desired to make sure that the other person is satisfied as to not create problems later on. It is not about fairness, it is dealing with your own rational self interest (personal ethics).
But what if a rational person does business with an irrational person. Does the rational person have to determine what the irrational person should get? In most cases, it can't be done.
You may say that 15 dollars is what they should get, but then I think it should be 50.3425 dollars per hour. Why? It feels right to me.
Here you are controlling the process of transacting as a third person, as an authoritarian. Don't they have a right to be free to transact? Without you refereeing it? Or perhaps regulating it?

Merlin Jetton in “Coronavirus - Death of a Campaign”
“It is often said that Bernie Sanders' greatest support comes from young people. They aren't swayed by the common arguments against socialism or the history of socialism when put into practice. Why do they support Sanders, or more accurately, socialism? An audio on this page by Professor Stephen Hicks tries to answer this question. Starting at about 17 minutes Professor Hicks describes several mindsets he has found among young people who consider themselves socialists and the values on which they base their support of socialism. He calls these positions anti-cronyist, altruistic, central-planning, free stuff, communalist, welfare state, environmentalist, and emotionalist. His goal is only to explain, without criticism.
“In an earlier audio Professor Hicks described socialism in theory or put into political practice by eight historical people. Their ideas of socialism are very different from those of modern young people.”
Stephen Boydstun ~
When I was a young socialist, the meaning I had was the abolition of private property, because I could see that that institution allowed people to be selfish. It was not an opposition to capitalism expressly in that I’d scarcely heard of that and wouldn’t have really known anything about what it was. Mine was what Prof. Hicks called altruistic socialism. At the same time, there was an individualism value and democracy value in my set, so I was in favor of civil liberties and democratic process. If I’d seen the position of the American Socialist Norman Thomas, I think I’d have gone for it (and that would have tempered my blanket opposition to private property slightly). I did not have the reasons #1,3,4,5,6,7,8, set out in Hicks' good piece, and I would have found them boring. I do not mean to suggest that my sort of socialism and its reasons was most prevalent in those days (mid-to-late 60’s); I don’t know what variety was most prevalent, although the environmental one was not in play at all, as I recall among young socialists I knew. I do think that in those days, when we declared ourselves to be socialist, we meant something more radical than what can get called that today by those favoring or opposing it.
The arguments Hicks' has found to lack traction with young socialists today would also have gotten no traction with me. Those would be like trying to persuade Leibniz that this is not the best of all possible worlds because of all its badness. You’d need to persuade him that his ideas about God were wrong to get any traction, and similarly you’d need to persuade me as a young socialist that altruism as a moral ideal, indeed as THE moral ideal, was mistaken to get any traction with the young socialist that I was.
I don’t have data, by the way, and I don’t know if there were more young socialists in my young era than in Prof. Hicks' own (later) young era and how the numbers would compare to today.

The most important element in the battle against Covid-19, other than technological capability, seems to be minimal reaction time.
The question comes up if a free market would have detected the problem sooner than our current system did.
It is not entirely a form of governance that determines it. A feudal lord that is fascinated by epidemiology, and the money to create tests or buy them, may have dealt with it in an effective way too.
But as a likely hood, would a free market, with its free and transactional cooperation have found and dealt with it faster?
Here is an argument from the Mises Institute.
"most private industry can be trusted, because the alternative for poor or unscrupulous providers is failure. Private industry can be sued and suffer financial decline, unlike government, which simply demands more money for poor performance. Business or individuals that commit fraud are subject to civil and criminal penalties."
"We all know that any time we expect service from the government, it will be slow and painful vs. the private sector, which is mostly fast and courteous. In spite of some minor shortages, due to hoarding, the private sector is supplying us with gas, food, prepared meals, medical supplies, and healthcare."
"America’s robust private sector, including Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Roche Laboratories, and LabCorp, came up with a solution for mass testing. Roche has received fast-track FDA approval for its COVID-19 diagnostic test. "
"South Korea’s rapid testing allowed for early treatment and containment of the virus. These test kits were created in three weeks. Many labs in the US could have solved the test kit problem but were restrained by the FDA and CDC. The South Koreans offered to help us, but was the CDC listening? Evidently not."
"The CDC does not have a solution, but it also becomes the classic blocker to progress. Labs cannot act without a lengthy approval process from CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These government controls violate the principle of subsidiarity (that problems should be solved at the lowest level possible). Ultimately care is provided by local hospitals, care facilities, and labs."
"Decentralization is critical to a functioning society but often precluded by federal regulations."
https://mises.org/wire/government-no-match-coronavirus

All that is being said here is that there will be more incidence of it. In other words, the negligence does not increase as in its gravity, only the prevalence increases, requiring more resources to deal with the conflicts that arise. At a minimum would you at least agree with that?
First let us talk about citizens that are complacent, not diligent about this. Right now it mostly shows up as expecting the government to fix it. The think "go ahead, shut it all down". You (the government) will surely fix it later on. This mindset dramatically changes in an Objectivist based government.
vs.
Diligence
I the business owner am going to shut it down because my people can sue me because of my negligence. I saw so and so sneeze, I am keeping away from them. The nursing home had a virus positive person and he was immediately separated and we cleaned the whole place up and tested everyone. Reporting Criminal Negligent behavior
I got the virus because I was required to hold hands in a circle in a small room at work. I saw so and so sneeze on the can of soup and the employees ignored it completely. He tested positive and I saw him accept patients for teeth cleaning. In this case lack of diligence can end one's own life. If no one cares it is a disaster. I (the business owner or even client) saw some guy sneeze on the cans of soup in the market and acted like nothing happened. The less dilignet you are, the more this thing harms you or spreads ultimately.
Now you see another concretized scenario. That everyone watches everyone and ASSUMES they are carriers which is ugly, like in the Soviet Union. That is unfortunate. But don't we do that now? By using masks? By staying away from people? By washing hands when we came from the store? The bottom line difference is that in the Soviet Union it was not temporary.

Let's break it down then.
1. Rights are being violated due to the transmission from person to person at a far higher rate (exponentially unchecked would be huge) 
worse than with the draconian measures - which may be a justification for them (to be determined)) 2. Negligence is what SL used, I used criminal negligence. People not washing their hands, shaking your hands, kissing you etc. is not criminal but negligent. This can violate your rights. They would could be held for negligence as in they are the cause.
3. There is going to be far more of this stuff with a pandemic.
Now he uses criminal negligence. That refers to people who know they have or even may have the disease and don't self isolate or take other prudent measures, causing the transmission. Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that more of these people would exist, as the infections spread out?
The current political system will shut us all down to prevent people from doing this. (and treat everyone as if they WILL be negligent or criminally negligent) In an Objectivist based government, you have a far more active role in defending yourself and those who are criminal and those who are not are to be treated differently.
There is no implication that you are claiming this or that. I may be referent to other people's claims. (you are acting like you are on trial and you have to defend yourself ... none of us are in that position) The claims I make have to stand on their own. Forget that I, you or someone else said this or that. Attack the idea, the person is immaterial. As in an objective reality that is independent of consciousness.
There are different kinds of watching others. There is the type that you want to make money and want to know what needs you can fulfill. Then there is a malevolent kind, where you want to collect dirt on others to help your situation.
In this case, watching others is knowing where the fire that burnt your house started from. Did the disease happen because your boss did not take proper precautions at work? Did you catch it because someone required to do something that caused it? The watching in the case means "knowing who caused it".

This is what I was looking for, clear and direct.
 
 
Some overall principles:
And some questions to look at:
The one thing I wonder about is the overlap of what government would do in some cases.
1. Military may in fact have some of the solution for private companies to implement or mass produce
2. Gathering of (life saving) information may also be done by the press. Some journalists may die trying to find out like an intelligence agent
Personally, of course I agree with that. In fact I almost plead with leftists to understand that. But they don't buy it when I say it. I have made no dent at all.
(I will continue with more later)