Doug Morris

People have no choice other than to be economically productive in order to live. For people who enjoy the tremendous benefit of living in a society, as opposed to being a hermit or a lone survivor, economic productiveness usually involves competition. This is an essential part of living in a society. It does not violate the no-force principle. If a person says that there may be a better system than capitalism without being able to say what it would be, their statement is arbitrary and is logically equivalent to saying nothing. If someone has a particular suggestion, we can discuss whether it is better.

Human beings do not have instincts. Human beings are able to use our reason and to override impulses and temptations with reason. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean a fight. It means survival of the organisms that are best adapted to their environment. It is also called "natural selection", but the word "selection" can also confuse people. The crucial reason humans have been so successful is not aggression but our faculty of reason.

People enjoy seeing people work hard to achieve a goal. This does not have to involve competition. But having to compete with other people makes the struggle more challenging, and therefore more interesting.

This is a grotesque libel against humankind. Communism is based on sacrificing some people to others. This masquerades as benevolence to the recipients, but is not in their true self-interest, and is grossly malevolent against those who are sacrificed. Any system based on sacrificing people naturally leads to mass murdering monsters.

Competition is part of capitalism. But the crucial ingredient in capitalism is economic productiveness.

If the fight is mutually agreed to, it does not violate the no-force principle. If A physically attacks B against B's will, and B defends himself, then A is violating the no-force principle, and B's actions are legitimate self-defense. This is true regardless of who wins.

The no-force principle does not refer to force in the sense of physics. The Earth and Moon are applying gravitational force to each other, but this has nothing to do with the no-force principle. Threatening force can count as a violation of the no-force principle, even if force in the sense of physics is not actually applied. Force in the sense of physics applies to shuffling, dealing, picking up, laying down, and gathering playing cards, and it applies to removing money from one's wallet or purse, placing it on the table, and picking it up later, but not so much to winning a game.

Firing a gun is a physical act, and causing a bullet to strike another person is an act of physical force against that person. This is true regardless of how the gun is fired. It is using one's mind to win an agreed-on game, contest, or competition.

The point of the trader principle is that people should interact with each other to mutual benefit, with neither being sacrificed to the other. If a rational person voluntarily agrees to take part in a game, contest, or competition, it must be because they think they have at least a chance either of winning or of gaining some other benefit, such as entertainment or experience. This is consistent with the trader principle. Whatever people do, there is no guarantee of benefit; situations vary from a near guarantee to a long shot chance. The loser of a game, contest, or competition is not being sacrificed. The point about physical force has to do with one's basic approach to another person. If one uses force to subject another person to one's will, as one would with an inanimate object, but acting against their will since they are a person with a will, that is what the no-force principle forbids. If people voluntarily agree to something and abide by the agreement, this does not violate the no-force principle. This is true even if the agreed-upon activity is some sort of contest of physical prowess and/or it involves physical contact.

This is crucial. A player who joins and participates in an NFL team is voluntarily agreeing to contests in which limited physical force plays a role. This makes it an example of the trader principle. This is not physical force. The money is obtained, not from the defeated students, but from whoever is funding the scholarships. Any stock market transaction is a voluntary exchange consistent with the trader principle. Outsmarting or outperforming or outlucking someone while operating under mutually agreed-upon rules is not physical force. Politicians obtain their offices from the voters, not from their rivals. They are subject to judgment by the voters for broken promises and other failings. Prize winners get their prizes from whoever is funding them, not from the other competitors. Your concept of "mental force" is nonsense.

One distinction we need to draw is between risk that is within the norm and risk that goes beyond the norm. COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent. To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.

You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are. Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?

You introduced the word "imminent" into this thread. Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.

Please explain what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that something has to be abnormal in order to be about to happen. Please clarify. Please state what definition of "imminent" you are using.

From the web: im·mi·nent /ˈimənənt/ Learn to pronounce adjective adjective: imminent 1. about to happen. "they were in imminent danger of being swept away" 2. ARCHAIC overhanging. You don't seem to be using either of these definitions. Please state your definition.

If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn't that pretty imminent? Maybe you should explain further how you are drawing and applying the distinction. As long as we have the current situation in which most people don't understand the principles involved and there is a lot of pressure-group warfare, we will have this problem with all issues. Better understanding of the fundamental principles allows for a better approach to the technicalities of applying them to any particular situation. My primary concern in these discussions has been to try to clarify the fundamental principles. But I have also responded to some comments about the technicalities.

Are you sure that this is what you meant to say? The laws against drunk driving are aimed at the endangering, not the intoxication. They do not apply to someone who gets drunk but doesn't drive. If someone has liquor poured down their throat against their will, so that they have to swallow or drown, and they become intoxicated thereby, it should still be illegal for them to drive. It is right to forbid someone to drive who has lost their ability to drive safely because of effects of old age, even though aging is not a volitional act.

So you want a guarantee. Might that be too stringent a requirement? I don't know what you consider to be the alleged health benefit. What I am saying is that if staying unvaccinated creates too much risk, this justifies the mandate. It is legitimate to outlaw drunk driving because it creates too much risk, even though any given instance of drunk driving may not do harm, and even though people will still die in traffic accidents due to other causes.

Tadmjones is the one who introduced the word "meaningful" into this discussion (in adverb form) and therefore is the one who should define it. The CDC director's statement makes clear that she is taking the word "prevention" to mean reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored. I took tadmjones's phrase " to meaningfully slow transmission" to mean slowing transmission to an extent that makes the slowing worthwhile, which is clearly different from reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored. Until your post, this thread had been about vaccination, not lockdowns.

tadmjones, Again, you are conflating prevention with meaningful slowing.

Here is a study that contradicts you. Vaccinated people with breakthrough COVID infections had ... https://newsroom.ucla.edu › releases › vaccinated-work...

Does this take into account the distinction between shedding infectious viruses and shedding non-infectious viral remnants?

Does this take into account the severity of the disease?

This proves that vaccines do not completely stop transmission. It proves nothing about whether vaccines work to meaningfully slow transmission. You seem to be assuming that COVID-19 vaccines are "0 %", which is certainly not true. If real time tests are sufficiently available, it would make sense to use them in addition or instead.

This should be considered insider trading. But I gather that insider trading laws are considered to apply mainly to officers of companies. Government officials are in effect overbosses of companies, but I don't think the law recognizes that.