Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How would an Objectivist Based Government have Dealt with Covid-19

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Repairman said:

How sweet. I didn't know my opinion was so important.

What's with the sarcasm? 

56 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

3.  The dangers manifest in propagation and exposure which we generally associate with benign, ordinary, behavior, we are accustomed to NOT worrying about ... things like sneezing, coughing, touching, close talking etc.

These actually are behaviors you should normally worry about. This would distort your view of what actually is dangerous. Now it makes sense why you didn't understand my sneezing example. I'm saying because sneezing does have an element of danger, and we don't call the cops when people do that, it's because you take on the risk voluntarily and consensually. 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

If we had giants among us whose girths were such they could not see where they stepped and were quite capable of squishing others. they would not have the "freedom not to know whom they squish" as they walk about...

This is the same as a freeway. If you run out onto the freeway, no one but you is to blame.

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

If we had venomous glands in our noses which were not only poisonous to our prey but to each other, we would not have the "right to accidentally kill people"

These glands would be literally weapons, intended for that use. Having a disease is not comparable, and by nature cannot be misused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Given the nature of the threat I think we have to start with a "new" set of what is normal when thinking of the relationship of activities we take for granted with rights. Why?  Because even thou

The severity, ease and method of transmission is different. So there is a higher threat assessment. It does not give authorities any expanded rights. Activities can change because of threat level, tha

Bluetooth proximity apps on smart phones could track data anonymously, that a positive Covid-19 test could be used to decrypt a single phone number in order to release a message to phone numbers that

@Easy Truth

Stepping back to the title of the thread for a moment: How would an Objectivist Based Government have Dealt with Covid-19?

Differences abound on several fronts.

Would government based on objective law even had to step up to the plate?

Would a laisse-faire capitalist economy have been overwhelmed by the "unexpected" Covid-19? *

Would the insurance companies have already prorated this into their calculations? *

Would the hospitals and other health care facilities have a comprehensive plan in place? *

* These three questions alone have implications to them that are difficult to empirically assess? If the expectation that a government isn't going to swoop in and assist when rights are not in clear objective violation - how would a society under it have evolved. A look into history to discover parallels, contrast economies under different governing bodies and try to abstract the proper principles from it.

What laws could be placed on the books regarding infectious diseases that respect the rights of all individuals?

An individual that perpetrates a criminal act relinquishes his rights by his action. Without respecting the right of his victim, he has implicitly indicated a different standard applies to himself - hence to keep those that do respect other's rights safe, the perpetrator can be incarcerated (objectively.)

People do get ill, and again the reasons are numerous. Being ill does not constitute a criminal act. Knowingly having an infectious disease is not criminal, so what acts transform that knowledge into a criminal act?

More permutations can be constructed, and even longer strands of reasoning can be developed, but to do so, the framework to operate within has to be clear as well. Even to the extent Objectivism teases various aspects out, the comprehension of its advocates differ and manifests as disagreements as between Onkar and Yaron. - With that regard, if two conclusions differ while holding all the same premises, either one or the other or both could be mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Would a laisse-faire capitalist economy have been overwhelmed by the "unexpected" Covid-19?

You brought up a lot but I want to focus on this one item first which touches other  items.

First off we have to enumerate what steps could have stopped (or fixed) it (before we jump into what type of political system would have done the job best)

1. Early Warning

  • My understanding is that with a tiny government, the press's hunger for stories is going to come from company or institutions that commit fraud, steal and harm.
    • So they would be highly motivated to spy on the chinese to obtain the scoop.
    • Now if China throws them out, like china would have, private companies would still be motivated to pay to get the real story and come out as the heroes later on.
    • Perhaps the press would be competing with official spy agencies.
  • Was this a pearl harbor that could have been anticipated, or a 9/11 that had some people wondering?
    • Is there a role for the military or intelligence that was a failure here?
    • How would a laissez faire system operate the military, is not something fleshed out anywhere (which is a serious problem in arguing the case for it).    

2. Ability to test and identify

  • With a laissez faire system, no one is in the way. Institutions all over the country (or even contracted outside the country) could come up with a test. (the germans had the first test I think)
    • You would have one test that is worse than the other with false positives or negatives, but the mindset of testing is there.
    • As better ones come for the the older ones becomes cheaper but available.
  • Currently we supposedly will have good tests (certified by the CDC FDA etc. but not soon enough to stave off a 6 to 10 trillion dollar outlay.
    • (it will possibly be determined that second to the chinese ... the FDA was at fault)
  • If testing was available early, in any system, it would have made a difference because one could catch up to the number of infected.

3. Creating the vaccine and cure

  • There are vaccines and supposed cures (and actual ones) that the cdc or FDA will hold up, even now!!!
    • There will be a German, Italian, Chinese, Israeli, etc. vaccine and our preventative regulatory system will not allow your doctor to prescribe one of them to you. This is a major difference in a laissez faire system, you would be able to obtain any of them without even a doctor's prescription (if you paid what they want for it).
    • There would be private labs, some with good and some with not so good vaccines that will never see the light of day in our current enlightened regulatory system.
  • One big difference with a laissez faire system is that you can listen to multiple rating agencies or other sources of information to determine which work best for you.
    • Clearly some will die with bad information.
    • But in the case of controlled fda rules, one does not know how many died because they were not allowed to try something.
    • The ACLU's answer is: This is the price of Liberty.
      • Maybe we have a better answer.
      • (we should have socialists in the forum to see what the counter argument to this is)
  • Having said that, there will be some that will not take the vaccine.
    • They will be identified, and boycotted by some (will that be enough?). 
    • If identified as carriers, forced quarantine is in order (that is the criminal element)

4. An atmosphere of trust and ability to know what is really going on, what is good for you

  • Here again, the sensationalism caused by big government and the crony capitalism that we currently have (what was predicted by Atlas Shrugged), is a mess compared to what it could be.
    • One could say that the initially (transition to a laissez faire system) a laissez fair medical rating system would not be speaking with one voice. There would be competing voices.
    • But a laissez faire system would eventually latch on to something similar to "gold" which would be expected to be the main currency without intervention.

5. Overall the lackadaisical attitude of "the government will take care of me" goes away.

  • The population would have a different mindset.
    • Similar to the Taiwanese not trusting the chinese government, they were proactive. Here the insurance company might be proactive or the press would attack them.
    • Currently the press did not attack insurance companies NOR the press itself.
  • Even as Objectivists, as a whole, WE are lackadaisical, expecting the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers.
    • (It's not happening).
      • It's just us, we are it
      • Don't expect any reinforcements    

6. The corruption, the graft, the damage to the currency and the lowering of life quality would not be this bad. (for those who got past Covid-19)

  • Corruption as in lack of fraud, theft in the system.
  • In general, the laissez faire capitalist system is seen as a space that allows for theft and fraud but without law and order/respect for property capitalism would be a corrupt system.        
    • We are going to not see benefits we would have had if the economy has not lost (estimating 10 trillion by the time this is done)

Now having said all that: Is the laissez faire system a better system?

The first question is "what does a better system mean?". The is beyond intuitive or emotional assessments. What does "better" mean as a society? How it is measured objectively?

If it is based on body count, then the "better/best" policies will be no different that utilitarianism, in fact, it would be stamp of approval on what is currently happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

You brought up a lot but I want to focus on this one item first which touches other  items.

First off we have to enumerate what steps could have stopped (or fixed) it (before we jump into what type of political system would have done the job best)

Ditto on having brought up a lot.

Secondly, the preface was on an Objectivist Based Government. (I said a government based on objective law.)

Is government a cause or an effect within a culture? If it is a cause, then the type of political system would have a bearing on the matter. As an effect, however, the identification of the cause remains unaddressed, hence outside the province of conscious control.

I think Leonard Peikoff got it right in the following paraphrased and extrapolated section ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;from OPAR:

  • Every type of question reduces to: "What is it?" For example,
    • "Why did a certain event occur?" means: "What is the nature of the cause? ....
    • How?" means "What is the process? ....
    • Where?" means "What is the place? ...
    • When?" means "What is the time? ...

Consciousness is a faculty of discovering identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Even as Objectivists, as a whole, WE are lackadaisical, expecting the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers

Who is this "we" here? I love when someone who doesn't know me "we's" me into whatever their incorrect private thoughts are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Gee, I hit a nerve with my incorrect private thoughts.

It was a question that occurred to myself as well. Whom do you include while invoking the term "we"?

What question do you consider more essential and worth the effort of pursuing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

What question do you consider more essential and worth the effort of pursuing?

We, this forum, other objectivist institutions are dealing with the important question. I assume the answers that are being offered are adequate in your assessment. We can do much better. That's all. 

For instance, David Kelley's answer is basically that "things are complicated". That is already known.

The Ayn Rand institute is dealing is bringing the issue to the forefront, but nothing like Ayn Rand would have herself. Her clarity would have cut through this issue. Much more fiery and direct than we we get nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Gee, I hit a nerve with my incorrect private thoughts.

"The fact that you don't agree with me, a stranger on the internet, telling you what your thoughts and expectations are just proves how triggered you are"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Is government a cause or an effect within a culture? If it is a cause, then the type of political system would have a bearing on the matter. As an effect, however, the identification of the cause remains unaddressed, hence outside the province of conscious control.

Yes Greg, a political system may have a bearing. But not necessarily. 
The items below can be done well in any form of government, depending on how much money is available to them and their specific leadership.

Early Warning
Creating the vaccine and cure
An atmosphere of trust and ability to know what is really going on, what is good for you
Overall the lackadaisical attitude of "the government will take care of me" goes away.

Also, I wonder If you are taking it as I am saying that "we objectivists" think the government will take care of it. NO, I was not saying that and I apologize if it came across that way. I was referring to most people out there (with that "we").

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Secondly, the preface was on an Objectivist Based Government. (I said a government based on objective law.)

Agreed, I had to get the observations and thoughts about a piece of the puzzle out first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 2046 said:
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Even as Objectivists, as a whole, WE are lackadaisical, expecting the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers

Who is this "we" here? I love when someone who doesn't know me "we's" me into whatever their incorrect private thoughts are.

I think I understand, you don't expect the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers. And behind the scenes, unknown to me, you have been doing things that I am not giving you credit for. Fair enough.

I take that statement back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

If the expectation that a government isn't going to swoop in and assist when rights are not in clear objective violation - how would a society under it have evolved.

At a minimum, the mindset moves to toward self responsibility. In this scenario, the form of government is the cause, forming expectations based on its behavior.

But any form of government has to have support of a strong enough majority. There has to have been a philosophy behind the scene that is based on principles that refer to reality, persuasive and easily understandable.

An Objectivist based government, would both have had that support and in turn persuades those who don't believe in it based on its success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

People do get ill, and again the reasons are numerous. Being ill does not constitute a criminal act. Knowingly having an infectious disease is not criminal, so what acts transform that knowledge into a criminal act?

True, criminal is not the proper word, it is more of a metaphor.
Although the word can be objected to, it does communicate the fact that both "people who cause evil" and "people who don't" are treated the same by the government (currently). There is an argument that they are "trying" to compensate for it, but then, that is a justification for eminent domain too.

My question is: Is that wrong in itself (equal treatment of infected and non-infected)? Or does that fact that we are not sure who is who, an overriding principle.

I argue it is wrong in itself, but I would like to hear an argument that could change my mind. I would then be okay with the way things are being handled by our government.

It would help to know definitively, how an Objectivist government or law would in fact handle the situation.

One question would be: What would Rand say in this case?

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

I think I understand, you don't expect the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers. And behind the scenes, unknown to me, you have been doing things that I am not giving you credit for. Fair enough.

I take that statement back.

3 x 0 = 0

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

At a minimum, the mindset moves to toward self responsibility. In this scenario, the form of government is the cause, forming expectations based on its behavior.

But any form of government has to have support of a strong enough majority. There has to have been a philosophy behind the scene that is based on principles that refer to reality, persuasive and easily understandable.

An Objectivist based government, would both have had that support and in turn persuades those who don't believe in it based on its success. 

An individual that commits a criminal act is not arrested and tried in a court of law to be persuaded. The rule of law is cultivated, developed, and subsequently has to be maintained lest it deteriorate.

Human beings are both born into a world where governments already exist. The form of a government one is born under is often projected as a fact of life with the expectation that it is to be accepted, begrudgingly or otherwise. Perhaps in this sense one could choose to believe it is causal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

You brought up a lot but I want to focus on this one item first which touches other  items.

First off we have to enumerate what steps could have stopped (or fixed) it (before we jump into what type of political system would have done the job best)

1. Early Warning

  • My understanding is that with a tiny government, the press's hunger for stories is going to come from company or institutions that commit fraud, steal and harm.
    • So they would be highly motivated to spy on the chinese to obtain the scoop.
    • Now if China throws them out, like china would have, private companies would still be motivated to pay to get the real story and come out as the heroes later on.
    • Perhaps the press would be competing with official spy agencies.
  • Was this a pearl harbor that could have been anticipated, or a 9/11 that had some people wondering?
    • Is there a role for the military or intelligence that was a failure here?
    • How would a laissez faire system operate the military, is not something fleshed out anywhere (which is a serious problem in arguing the case for it).    

2. Ability to test and identify

  • With a laissez faire system, no one is in the way. Institutions all over the country (or even contracted outside the country) could come up with a test. (the germans had the first test I think)
    • You would have one test that is worse than the other with false positives or negatives, but the mindset of testing is there.
    • As better ones come for the the older ones becomes cheaper but available.
  • Currently we supposedly will have good tests (certified by the CDC FDA etc. but not soon enough to stave off a 6 to 10 trillion dollar outlay.
    • (it will possibly be determined that second to the chinese ... the FDA was at fault)
  • If testing was available early, in any system, it would have made a difference because one could catch up to the number of infected.

3. Creating the vaccine and cure

  • There are vaccines and supposed cures (and actual ones) that the cdc or FDA will hold up, even now!!!
    • There will be a German, Italian, Chinese, Israeli, etc. vaccine and our preventative regulatory system will not allow your doctor to prescribe one of them to you. This is a major difference in a laissez faire system, you would be able to obtain any of them without even a doctor's prescription (if you paid what they want for it).
    • There would be private labs, some with good and some with not so good vaccines that will never see the light of day in our current enlightened regulatory system.
  • One big difference with a laissez faire system is that you can listen to multiple rating agencies or other sources of information to determine which work best for you.
    • Clearly some will die with bad information.
    • But in the case of controlled fda rules, one does not know how many died because they were not allowed to try something.
    • The ACLU's answer is: This is the price of Liberty.
      • Maybe we have a better answer.
      • (we should have socialists in the forum to see what the counter argument to this is)
  • Having said that, there will be some that will not take the vaccine.
    • They will be identified, and boycotted by some (will that be enough?). 
    • If identified as carriers, forced quarantine is in order (that is the criminal element)

4. An atmosphere of trust and ability to know what is really going on, what is good for you

  • Here again, the sensationalism caused by big government and the crony capitalism that we currently have (what was predicted by Atlas Shrugged), is a mess compared to what it could be.
    • One could say that the initially (transition to a laissez faire system) a laissez fair medical rating system would not be speaking with one voice. There would be competing voices.
    • But a laissez faire system would eventually latch on to something similar to "gold" which would be expected to be the main currency without intervention.

5. Overall the lackadaisical attitude of "the government will take care of me" goes away.

  • The population would have a different mindset.
    • Similar to the Taiwanese not trusting the chinese government, they were proactive. Here the insurance company might be proactive or the press would attack them.
    • Currently the press did not attack insurance companies NOR the press itself.
  • Even as Objectivists, as a whole, WE are lackadaisical, expecting the Ayn Rand institute to come up with the answers.
    • (It's not happening).
      • It's just us, we are it
      • Don't expect any reinforcements    

6. The corruption, the graft, the damage to the currency and the lowering of life quality would not be this bad. (for those who got past Covid-19)

  • Corruption as in lack of fraud, theft in the system.
  • In general, the laissez faire capitalist system is seen as a space that allows for theft and fraud but without law and order/respect for property capitalism would be a corrupt system.        
    • We are going to not see benefits we would have had if the economy has not lost (estimating 10 trillion by the time this is done)

Now having said all that: Is the laissez faire system a better system?

The first question is "what does a better system mean?". The is beyond intuitive or emotional assessments. What does "better" mean as a society? How it is measured objectively?

If it is based on body count, then the "better/best" policies will be no different that utilitarianism, in fact, it would be stamp of approval on what is currently happening.

I like your original question in the OP a bit better than the one you introduce here in this post:

"First off we have to enumerate what steps could have stopped (or fixed) it (before we jump into what type of political system would have done the job best)"

This one seems directed toward a very specific concrete goal regarding elimination of the virus versus, what would a proper government should have done, which was the main thrust of the OP.

I know you are sussing out the issues but the thrust of this post seems to veer quite a lot.

 

I think, of your enumerated responses, the government would only deem number 6 proper to engage in (see below).  Note, government does not pick and choose what to do based on what private entities are or are not doing, private entities cannot perform government action, they do not have any share in the government's monopoly on use of retaliatory force.  Government has no place outside using that power for protection of rights.

 

One of the first actions I think a proper government would take is to get the police into shape regarding objective law.  What constitutes criminal negligence, what constitutes threats of bodily harm.. in the current factual context.   Since little to no public property would exist, the police would have to be prepared for multiple calls by private entities complaining about guests on their property not following the rules or endangering other guests, and many calls from people regarding others who have violated their safety.  Attempting to train more officers in a very short span would likely not be possible nor prudent.  Upping the system and support staff to take calls, assigning more cars and fewer officers per car might be some normal actions to be taken when the government knows the police system will soon be heavily burdened.  Citizens will know their rights in such a society and will demand protection and enforcement.

I also think, that the government would need to prepare the courts for a deluge of the criminal and civil negligence (including wrongful death) claims that will be on the way.  Whether suits by prisoners, dental or medical patients, seniors or their estates (if dead), ect, etc,  members of the public generally suing each other for negligence.  Attempting to recruit more judges in a very short span would likely not be possible nor prudent.  Upping the system and support staff and doing everything that is possible to make the system as efficient as possible might be some normal actions to be taken when the government knows the justice system will soon be heavily burdened.  Rest assured a free society under a proper government would be a very litigious society, knowing their rights and willing to stand up for themselves.

 

One issue I toyed with, is whether the gathering and dissemination of information is something that the government would actively do.  Certainly, being an ignorant and stupid citizen never was (nor would it be) any defense to criminal negligence or civil liability for negligence (unless you are talking about someone who is clinically mentally deficient to an extreme degree).  Both kinds of negligence law exists in large part to protect the innocent from the idiotic. But would the government engage in education of the "masses" both on the actual pandemic and reminders on the objective standards of care and criminal and civil negligence?  I suspect, that the answer is no, not beyond what is regularly made available by a proper government. 

I think, people themselves will have to apply normal principles of the duty of care not to initiate harm against others, to the very novel context of unusual facts of reality which confronts them during the pandemic... and if they do others wrong they will pay the price under the law according to objective principles.

 

If we turn back to your enumerated responses, I think government would have nothing to do with 1-5 since they never would have been involved previously, and with regard to 6, corruption as always would be dealt with according to proper objective principles.

 

You said "Now having said all that: Is the laissez faire system a better system?"

My response would be Absolutely it is a better system.. better for free individuals living on earth.  As for whether more people would die from the virus, that would depend upon everyone else... but in a truly free society, who knows what we could achieve.

 

I'm curious to know what you think.

 

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Edited for clarity and etiquitte
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

ET,

On a public forum, this is actually a worse way to not address questions or dissent. Worse than simply not responding. You are actually specifically narrowing down the participants, and even excluding people. I guess this should be a sign to me that this forum is mostly a waste of time now. If one of the top posters wants to shut down a conversation, when there are only about 15 consistent posters now (over the span of a month), then what's the point?

I made my satirical post because I didn't know how else to address the suggestion I was just being emotional or making correct decisions.

34 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I also think ET, that the government would need to prepare the courts for a deluge of the criminal and civil negligence (including wrongful death) claims that will be on the way.  Whether suits by prisoners, dental or medical patients, seniors or their estates (if dead), or members of the public generally suing each other for negligence.

Why would this ever happen? It would happen if you encourage it of course (telling citizens to watch out, increasing the number of cops watching for "criminal negligence"). But people don't normally sue each other for disease exposure - because exposure is completely your fault and virtually always with complete knowledge of risks. Besides, criminally negligent isn't even described here. In fact, you are suggesting criminal negligence is rampant and widespread, such that the onslaught of people are a threat to you. What does it mean for a capitalist society if people cannot mutually operate voluntarily and consensually? If we need to be suspicious and watchful, and will call the cops if those suspicions grow? This also goes for the part about private property and trespassing. Actually, these are the exaggerations people use to make fun of capitalists. It's a self-parody.

It's all fine to talk about how the government would respond to a pandemic, and if it should at all. But if you can't talk about your own solution more, then what's the point of discussion? This becomes a floating abstraction if we just speak about rights in the abstract.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW

For those wishing to educate themselves, I made reference to the following legal principles which one or more readers may be ignorant/unaware of, here are some links:

 

Negligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

 

Duty of Care

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

 

Criminal Negligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

 

As mentioned previously, objective application of these legal principles depends specifically upon the context of the pandemic and would in any particular case before the courts, be adjudicated also with specific regard to the particular situational facts of the case, to the behavior of those involved, as well as the outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was looking for, clear and direct.

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Since little to no public property would exist, the police would have to be prepared for multiple calls by private entities complaining about guests on their property not following the rules or endangering other guests, and many calls from people regarding others who have violated their safety. 

 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

the government would need to prepare the courts for a deluge of the criminal and civil negligence (including wrongful death) claims that will be on the way.

 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

people themselves will have to apply normal principles of the duty of care not to initiate harm against others, to the very novel context of unusual facts of reality which confronts them during the pandemic... and if they do others wrong they will pay the price under the law according to objective principles.

Some overall principles:

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

being an ignorant and stupid citizen never was (nor would it be) any defense to criminal negligence or civil liability for negligence (unless you are talking about someone who is clinically mentally deficient to an extreme degree). 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

a free society under a proper government would be a very litigious society, knowing their rights and willing to stand up for themselves.

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

government does not pick and choose what to do based on what private entities are or are not doing, private entities cannot perform government action, they do not have any share in the government's monopoly on use of retaliatory force.  Government has no place outside using that power for protection of rights.

And some questions to look at:

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

would the government engage in education of the "masses" both on the actual pandemic and reminders on the objective standards of care and criminal and civil negligence?  I suspect, that the answer is no, not beyond what is regularly made available by a proper government. 

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

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

You said "Now having said all that: Is the laissez faire system a better system?"

My response would be Absolutely it is a better system.. better for free individuals living on earth.  As for whether more people would die from the virus, that would depend upon everyone else... but in a truly free society, who knows what we could achieve.

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I'll have to circle back to these. Finding stuff like this takes time, and the prerequisite to know how it ties in. In this case, it's a memory jog and an opportunity to refresh my acquaintance with material.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Government has no place outside using that power for protection of rights.

This is an all encompassing point. The one guiding (moral) essence of Objectivist Political thought.

Some of what I was trying to do is to identify the shortcomings that we have had and to see the effects of a free market alone and then move toward Objectivism and how it would improve on that.

The post was answering Greg's question in his post rather than what an Objectivist Government would do. I wanted to see, what the contrast would be. But first I had to determine, what had to be dealt with and those are some points I found. There are more, it was just a first stab at it.

In that vein, a shortcoming I was thinking about was the tendency of current governments (US and China) in particular, to want to put a good face on things. To act as if all is well and not want to allow doubt to bubble up. This is a problem with transparency, honesty and communication.

A legislature and a presidency, positions that are "voted for" are subject to that issue. In other words, democratic institutions have this problem built into them.

At its core, the fundamental problem is the lack of objectivity, the inability to have non-partisan institutions.

The courts seem to be biased too.

How does and Objectivist based Government get around that?

The only thing I have heard is
1. By not having a legislature at all, only a court system (with police to enforce)
2. If one has a legislature, a legislation of a very small government keeps corruption at a minimum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Why would this ever happen? It would happen if you encourage it of course (telling citizens to watch out, increasing the number of cops watching for "criminal negligence"). But people don't normally sue each other for disease exposure - because exposure is completely your fault and virtually always with complete knowledge of risks.

It would happen because of the shock to the system. The government doesn't even have to encourage it. The news of a pandemic alone can do that. Or a disaster that is extremely rare but highly damaging.

Even a raging fire (the types that thousands of homes burn) can do it. It all happens in the background by insurance companies. One property holds the next one responsible, which holds the next one and the insurance companies settle between themselves. But a kind of fire that has never happened before is going to require painstaking conflict resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But a kind of fire that has never happened before is going to require painstaking conflict resolution.

I'd have to say that the Spanish Flu is a comparable precedent from the stand point of infectious diseases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...