Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on April 4

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

24027 profile views
  1. This would be fine. No cops necessary, helps people manage danger as they see fit, and no need to create a culture of suspicion and reporting. A culture of consent and transparency is much better.
  2. You still didn't give any examples of different means of transmission (I guess I was a little vague when I just said "the" transmission). Those are just differences in speed of transmission.
  3. The transmission is not different, I don't know what you're talking about. Sneezing, coughing, close contact, breathing on someone, etc. All of these things pose a risk of harm, even death, at all times throughout the year. On top of this, these are not hidden risks (as with sexually-transmitted diseases), so the risk is only apparent when you consent to the risk. There is no special fact about covid that changes the way you can consent, or anything that can intrude upon you without you being aware. There are cases where any disease can be weaponized, but these are special cases and infrequent. I would hope that Repairman will post. SL's post is deeply concerning. It's one thing to discuss the risk disease poses, it's another to propose expansion of surveillance, both by law enforcement and citizens. There is no mention of how this would be done.
  4. I can't believe I didn't realize this, disagreeing with you must mean I ignored everything you wrote! Thank you for pointing this out, without any additional reasoning, it's really convincing. Your examples cannot be questioned, they are flawless. There are so many perpetrators around that we really need to start having citizens watch each other. You have opened my eyes. Remind me to call the police next time I see someone's sneezes on another person. Of course I would never know if the person has the virus without a test even if they are out in public. Many people are okay with this risk, and how they run their life is still completely voluntary. But that doesn't matter! It's dangerous and people don't always know what's best for them. %.01 death rate isn't so bad, but 1-2%, oh boy, the game has changed! These infected people around us must be stopped. We must shame them socially. They must conform or be cast out, and the police should go after them. They are just so dirty. They are deadly. We must be vigilant. The infected are one of the greatest threats to humanity. We should obtain warrants when there are suspicious sneezes. Although the innocent completely realize that they can avoid illness quite easily, and some really don't mind the risk, the innocent must still be protected. Keep out a careful eye for potentially ill people. Are you doing your part? Become a citizen watch member today and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship!
  5. You use the word "danger" without much reference to the nature of the danger. In fact, what you are talking about is risk. Diseases can be considered dangerous in all kinds of ways, but people can be reasonably expected to take care of themselves from the risk. If you are part of a high risk population, then don't go out as much. Death can be reasonably avoided with your own precautions, and if you get the disease, it is from your own lack of precaution (or in other words, it was your willingness to take a risk). It is up to you, not the government, to determine the risk you want to put yourself through. Criminal negligence might be applicable if death is near certain from a disease, or if you work with Iris populations. Still, this is barely happening. The most anyone is really doing is taking a stupid risk. This is how you get a police state. What do you propose to report? "Officer, somebody sneezed on me, and sneezing can be a sign of coronavirus!" It would be a weird thing to say, because you chose to stand near them. Essentially, even if you don't desire it, you would be promoting government surveillance. You aren't just talking about special cases like an infected person working with a high risk population. You are suggesting that there is widespread violation of rights by individuals.
  6. I don't think much would happen as far as the government. There might be involvement as far as how diseases can contribute to criminal negligence, but that isn't a special case. The good of the people, protection of the people, resources to the people, making life easier to deal with, etc., these should not be the concern of government. The only concern is objective law, that is, creating the rules by which we determine how to relegate the use of force, and when people initiate force. Although emergencies at the individual level may alter moral action, emergencies are not so broad that they cover an entire geographic region. Not even war justifies "emergency measures"of any extent. Anything and everything else must be voluntary. Given the power of trade and voluntary interaction, we can expect a functioning society - even when major things happen. If you don't like something, do something about it. If people don't agree, persuade them. When you respect rights, creativity becomes possible. These are the sort of things you need to talk about if you want to bring focus to respect for individual rights. Discuss innovative solutions to problems! The complete picture is voluntary action. To make that sound sensible, you also need to discuss people with the resources, what they can do, and how you can persuade them to help.
  7. What do you mean by justice? They are throwing out the milk, destroying what they produce. With a little creativity, any option would be better than throwing it out. Even giving things away for free provides publicity.
  8. I'm kind of surprised how stupid those dairy farmers are. Even giving out the milk for free is better than dumping it.
  9. Right, because your example was that by being selfish, they probably wouldn't. You know, the whole moral justification of capitalism. *I edited my previous post to make it clearer, and said "would" instead of "could"
  10. What are you talking about? You literally told me that you don't think a capitalist would do anything about it. Anyway, I'm not really reading the rest of what you're writing.
  11. Your position sounds like: "Disasters are special circumstances. They cost a lot of money and require a lot of organization to get through. Even wealthy advocates of capitalism cannot offer that, because by acting selfishly, they won't see any benefit in spending their money to do so. Therefore, the government needs to do it." I just found it comical that this line of reasoning was used by characters in Atlas Shrugged to justify authoritarian control.
  12. ...who initiate force. So things like mass surveillance are inappropriate.
  13. Yeah (besides criminal negligence anyway). Besides, I don't think non-sentient aliens would have the capacity of invading anything, let alone inventing rockets. It would just be a "space virus".
  14. I really don't follow any more what your position is. That's all that matters. If there were no billionaires in the world, then you might have a point you could argue. But there are. And if they decline to do it, that's just too bad.
  • Create New...