Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    2951
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. DM all anyone has to take from basic Objectivism, is that any deviation from individual rights, that is the free will of an individual to act in his favor (or not) has one outcome, the anti-concept, 'collective rights', where 'groups' compete to get government favor/power on their sides. The rest follows, either way. The two approaches of groupist competition anyone is familiar with: a) those 'others' are inferior or stupid people and must be shunned, condemned or worse b). those 'others' oppressed 'us' in the past and must be suppressed and shunned now for punishment and 'compensation'. There we get sacrifices forced by group on group; or "altruism-collectivism". The vaxx fascists as I think of some like these CNN presenters, manipulate every angle. Lemon plainly indicates his feeling of superiority over 'those' people and he further believes he has the moral righteousness on his side from ancestral racial victimhood. He is an "egregious" collectivist and tribalist very pleased to foster one more group division - vaxxers from unvaxxers - so to politicize the issue. This is a preview of socialist control, brought about by pitting tribe on tribe, and why one has to insist on individual rights of choice (in this case and every case) for vaccination, not merely 'permitted' as a dispensation but actively fought for. It's only in the absence of 'group rights' (and the subsequent controls) that that one can contemplate open immigration. That's the context you drop. In the mean time, with individual rights not what they should be in the States (assuredly worse elsewhere), the rights of the present citizens take precedence.
  2. DM, This man can see way past the simple incident. He can reason from -this- to *that*. From: a small business (illegally) imposed upon by the state to turn an ordinary employee into a policeman checking 'papers' at the door, making a most commonplace outing a harassment for customers. To: the theft of rights by our govt's for everybody. And businesses losing too. He's rightfully and rationally angry. As would anyone who prizes the principle of liberty. If you abstract from that one sample to the millions of times this same officiousness is happening every minute in the world ...what do you think the outcome is to human lives? We need to "be rational" of course; without reasoning the statement is meaningless. The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.
  3. You are right. Okay? Again, such a minor occurrence in the over all scheme of a mass-transmitted disease, your point is remarkably trivial. What next? The govt. must retaliate against the person, right? That is self-evidently how they increase their powers during the pandemic, is my point. "The only people who can say give up your rights if you want your rights back is the government". Touching base with reality and real lives, a [vaccinated] Canadian lawyer insightfully vents frustration at the cult of govt. force/obedience which messed up his simple night out. An everyday occurrence soon coming to all of us, vaxxed or non. No one is free when any man or group is unfree. This man knows it.
  4. Thanks for that, I wouldn't have known about apartheid otherwise. btw, you sound like a certain other poster here... You mean, that being repressed for what you have no control over, race, color, ancestry, ethnicity... is utterly worse a form of collectivism than being repressed for the volitional choices of you and others, considered your "group"? Does it make any better, the victimization, because you and your 'group' could surrender your convictions, your mind, anytime (coercively) to avoid that treatment? I think any collectivism (i.e., identifying/treating someone as a member of a 'group') - by their birth - or by their convictions - is irrational and immoral. When you think in individualist principles you'll find little distinction: the consequences of what's being forcibly created at this moment is going to be a sub-class of citizens globally, those selfish "anti-vaxxers" who will be harshly restricted and discriminated against as another collectivist 'group', because they don't need or want what the majority and their Govt's order them to comply with. A vaccination touted for the collective 'good of all', that they think or believe runs against their individual well-being, self-interest, rights - and convictions, e.g. of self sovereignty, freedom of choice.
  5. We've been around this, never let it be said you're not consistent... At first glance your argument is trivial and infinitesimal. The disease HAS spread, immensely. If by the actions 1. maybe of a few - purposefully 2. by many - inadvertently and accidentally- you won't find those actions causing, explaining and adding up to the large figures of the spread. And people after all are human, committing forgetful and other errors every second. Obvious - the transmission barriers officially prescribed and used by most everyone have been pretty useless. How else do you judge what "unnecessarily increasing the risk..." etc. amounts to? Who did what to whom, and what results? I haven't ignored your key point, while you ignore mine. The consequences. The 'cure' that's worse than the disease. Your insistence on placing the blame with - a tiny few - 'somebodies' for physical force on others - gives intellectual weight to further tyrannical Gvt. interventions and more social divisions. First with mandated lockdowns and now with mandated vaxxes. See, you provide the justification for such policies.
  6. "The claim is that without governmental restraints, “people” would fall for hucksters selling them worthless and unsafe treatments. But protecting the irrational from themselves requires putting in place prohibitions for everyone. So the reasonable people have to lose their medical freedom in order that the unreasonable people can’t harm themselves. This is the sacrifice of the rational to the irrational—an evil so vicious that the mind recoils from it. But this is the ultimate, lethal consequence of putting the government in charge of public health". (From Binswanger's essay). --- What is missing I think is ¬the rights¬ of the "irrational" - on whatever basis they can be judged - must be as energetically defended by the "rational" as those of the rational. Anyone has to be left alone to pursue one's ends by whatever means - with the consequences in reality, as the rational understand, one's only arbiter. When you commit errors and evasions it's you who pays and conversely you who collects from rational deeds. Most times do people eventually learn from their mistakes - certainly, at concrete levels. "Learning the hard way". An irrational person might become more rational tomorrow, and the reverse. A supposedly anti-science, irrational treatment for disease, can sometimes be found to have substance (drugs are quite often re-purposed), given later studies. A formal, designed, "scientific" vaccine might not quite be as efficacious as first hailed. The fundamental thing is that freedom is freedom of action from govt. - and any others. The single state which enables one to make mistakes (exclusively) at one's cost or to collect earned material-spiritual dividends. There's no dichotomy, one may deplore others' acts, beliefs, ethics and philosophies while equally upholding their individual rights to follow those. This fundamental implication of Rand's rights is treated ambiguously I seem to notice. HB's dead right, as far as it goes - the paternalist gvt. sacrifices rational actions by actors to the irrational behavior of others, by imposing blanket prohibitions on everyone. The greater sacrifice, imo, is of universal freedoms: to remove their - and one's own - right to be wrong and so all lose rights. Therefore, must forced 'good behavior' onto the unvaccinated be resisted strongly, irrespective of how "irrational" one deems them to be. And they are not always or majorly.
  7. The inessential difference with apartheid being that presenting a compulsory pass, the obscene "dompas", to move around and enter places was exclusively for blacks.
  8. I'm disturbed you could seriously consider my suggestion. Next step, confinement, next, the camps. One only has to accept the 'common good' and that there is a class/group/race of people who are "not like us" standing in the way, for what follows in action to be consistent. Naturally, it's for their best interests too. Why and how a systematic doctrine like apartheid could gain legal and populist traction - it was apparently both good for 'them' as for 'us' that 'we' be separated.
  9. There is no one to scapegoat and punish any more. Those equipped with bullet-proof suits needn't be scared. They have been vaccinated against "live rounds", right? The pro-personal choice, unvaxxed, pose harm only to each other. They, for the great majority, will easily recover from infection and achieve natural immunity and herd immunity, of a higher durability than vaxxes, or some high risk ones who should definitely have got the vaccine will themselves pay the price. But still, even now with these -mostly- effective and pretty safe, if not perfectly safe vaccines, let's have the authorities detain and arrest those potential shooters who haven't been bullet-proofed - under suspicion of intent and reckless endangerment to cause "physical force". DM, You have to realize what it's really about - for some of the noisiest anti-choice vaxxers. Vaccination isn't the issue. They hate and fear the signs of independence in other people.
  10. The very least, for our safety those unvaxxed should be marked with a compulsory symbol so they can be shunned on sight. Something indicating the corona... a star, that's it. A yellow star to separate the present day untermensch from the vaxx-obsessed fascists. (DM How's that ridiculously excessive? I think it's quite logical)
  11. Maybe the misguided could see further ahead than most, that the loss of freedom to choose for themselves - then - would inevitably lead to more loss - now? Turned out correct. Losing freedom is more a slide than an instance. What's basic, everyone who thinks they individually know best for their lives, despite what the government decrees is "good for us all", has to be positively and unequivocally defended on that right by, even, their detractors. That's why blanket "control measures" are unworkable. Even those who may accede to some controls, by practical necessity and security, could reason well enough to support the rights of those who don't. Else they know it's goodbye to individual rights.
  12. You load overmuch onto the individual. It's not the moral vice (that you always make it out) for one to "increase the risk of spreading the disease". Individual choices are - individual - and can't be made, with the best of intentions, on behalf of other (in the abstract) people's benefit. They look after their own best interests, or ought to. The natural spread of a virulent virus is not containable, you must have realized by now, DM. After every societal protocol and harsh measure has been imposed and rigidly carried out, they dismally failed to halt mass transmission. So while one might not actively wish to transmit it to others, one also cannot and shouldn't actively attempt to prevent transmission (perhaps by locking oneself away indefinitely and individually reducing 'the risk of spread' by all of (say) .000001%. Others' property rights assumed, the usual considerate and self-interested behavior applies and little more: when one feels sick stay at home a while, similarly if one tests positive. For those who are vulnerable, they proceed on the assumption that the virus is around in every place and avoid those places.
  13. Can increase and can DEcrease the risk. Humans are capable of self-redirection. Where each is left alone to make personal decisions. Statisticians more than many scientists are essential determinists. This cause can only have that outcome. What every individual needs is the most accurate, up to date information from their govt. disease control scientists. This promotes and presumes a level of trust going both ways - trust in the officials - and the people not treated like unthinking, non-volitional automata who are too infantile to be left alone, who therefore must be forced to behave for 'the good' of the whole society. In aggregate, everyone's own best self-interested responses adds up to the good of a society. The severity of coronavirus didn't need exaggerating, or facts held back, by statisticians, scientists and media, which it was. People treated like adults and equipped with knowledge will mostly respond with good sense. Logic and human values would ensure that all and any interventions should have been concentrated on protecting the group at high risk, by the concerned individuals themselves, while normal functions continue. Almost certainly reducing fatalities, I think. If you spread the responsibility you lessen the care. (And govt, involvement, resources and responsibility aimed only toward those people in the care of the state, and the homeless etc. A mammoth effort, though nothing like the scale of interventions the noble, power-addicted 'crats did undertake "for our good"). For reasons best known to those in Gvt. and the most publicized scientists in the media, the crucial facts relating to comorbidity, age, sex etc. were not very heavily promoted, I noticed. Not many people were aware of them. That raises valid suspicions of pandemic-panic 'politicization'. Because of not following the rational, individual, focused method, the moral suggestion remains that everyone is equally involved and everyone must equally share collective responsibility/guilt for others. The total effects of Covid -and- lockdowns -and- "social responsibility" leading up to these present vaxx mandates have been predictably as bad as they had to be.
  14. Some ambiguity, a disparity between what I mean by "public v. private health". The public sphere IS the gvt. and gvt. regulations imposed on the society of individuals, in the definition I know. Private health is individual and the individual's concern, which is what he must be left alone to choose. He/she has the first and final decision to do anything or nothing for their bodies, whether to self-seclude from infection, or to remain active, to select - or not - any of the other Covid 'safety' protocols (while adhering to others' choices and property rights, naturally). Etc. This logically extends onto vaccinations and govt. mandates, the most pressing issue of the time. AND what we see, in colloboration with gvt., most people "the public" demanding that each person must be vaccinating for the 'public good'. As HB will know vaxxes are part and parcel of the same principle, to be left alone.
  15. Accepting on faith what projections scientists take from computer models is a big mistake, we should have learned. They like to hugely overestimate fatalities, like this one. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-model-for-coronavirus-predictions-should-not-have-been-used-z7dqrkzzd
  16. "Excess Deaths". Indirect fatalities. Unrealistic figures, anyway, for the effects of overloaded hospitals. Maybe so, if they'd cited excess deaths due to lockdowns ... This: https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/09/covid-19s-official-worldwide-death-toll-is-45m-economists-model-concludes-the-actual-number-could-be-15m.html
  17. There is a tempting and common error to fall into that Covid ~increased~ the global mortality by 4.6 million over this pandemic period. Altogether leaving aside how Covid deaths are counted and the accuracy, the calculation is illogical. Bluntly put, a large number, the extremely aged, also those younger with severe comorbidities - - would have died that year anyway. Known, the 85+ age group formed the bulk of fatalities. It is recorded (below) that 58.39 million died in the world from all causes in 2019, the year pre-pandemic. But 2020 (and 2021) won't record an uptick or 'spike' of 4.6+ mil (totaling ~63+ million) over and above that. A fair percentage, maybe a majority, some math boffin doubtless will estimate, were lost somewhat earlier to Covid by a few weeks or months, briefly shortening their 'natural' lifespan. No less saddening for those personally involved. Some relevant projections of world birth and deaths from all causes charts: https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths
  18. Useful fact sheet: https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/
  19. "In this pandemic, the government’s policy should have been: nothing". HB. That's Binswanger's stand out line, for me. "Nothing" - means - nothing. Absolutely - but I think he self-contradicts and is inconsistent by bringing govt. in further on . He also (e.g.) says the govt. must act against a malicious (presumably, rarely - how do you know?) spreader of Covid, as if he were a dangerous motorist? A flawed analogy, there may be a tiny few cases of motorists, or a Covid-infected person, targeting a pedestrian or another person with intent. The act must be proven. A reckless motorist is visibly obvious and when reported or witnessed by police will be punished. Does coughing at someone, prove intent - or - recklessness? Some will maliciously claim that occurred to them, out to get an innocent party punished. Proof needed. The courts will be at capacity forever with all the cases. The individual rights HB appeals to to make govt. retaliation possible, is - the right to freedom of action - it needs repeating. One has the right to drive on the roads. One does not have the right to walk into the road without harm. As recent as this essay is, HB makes no specific reference to mandated vaccinations, oddly. This is what matters now. Public health versus private health, in the context of vaxxes. I can only guess he would be against, by virtue of individual rights, govt. interventions, etc., but he should say so explicitly.
  20. Which philosophical point? There has been nil philosophy, not sufficient Objectivist input too, applied in any of this pandemic and (automatically-) resulting measures until the present. Only a short term, concretist, determinist tactic by bureaucrats, of lumping everybody into the same boat, locking down, masking, distancing - now, forced vaccinating - everyone without distinction: old, young, infirm, potentially ill, healthy, from kids to every adult, a string of autocratic, sacrificial, collectivist, inhumane, anti-life and universalist acts (owing much to Kant's Categorical Imperative*) that, predictably, cost the world an unnecessary excess of casualties. In the process, stifled freedom and individual choice and rights for the forseeable future, creating more divisiveness. And we were warned, the corrupt methodology was advised against by many (censored) aware scientists from the start. The moral IS the practical. Practically, the world has messed up the handling of the Covid threat and made a bad situation much worse, for all who can see. Justifying the policies were immoral, by consequence, if that immorality wasn't obvious, at the first. Nothing 'had to be' this way, it wasn't determined because of the nature of a virus. * "Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it become a universal law". (i.e. One person evidently infects another. Extrapolated to "a universal law", by will, the doctrine which follows is all must prevent every person infecting anyone, and all are responsible to the rest. Then act personally on that maxim. ) That worked well.
  21. Both 'sides' can hold strange, irrational, unscientific theories about vaccinating. One of them, however, the vaxxers, is trying to force their way on the other, the so-called anti-vaxxers. You won't see the latter loudly and angrily trying to force non-vaccinating upon people and denouncing them (on FB and elsewhere). Although you point to an admittedly false alternative, where one person/side is for individual choice and the other is for collective obedience, I know where my sympathies lie.
  22. LOL. Try it out, lad. Make an original and substantial - Objectivist - argument against anything I have said. I suggest DM, not to pay attention to this "captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler". ["Sophist" def.]. Mr Quibbles will let you down.
  23. No, by many scientists, possible and future mutations of the virus could be most harmful to the repeatedly mass-vaxxed especially. There are those who definitely should, in self-interest, get vaccinated because of preexisting conditions. Their risk-benefit ratio, Covid infection v. vaccination, is heavily weighted in favor. There are those who don't need to. There are those who don't want to. All have the rights to refuse or be temporarily hesitant, regardless of the reasons for those choices.
×
×
  • Create New...