Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How many masks do you wear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The so-what part is that Doug Morris’ argument suggests that the fact of fear is itself sufficient to say that a person has initiated force. I’ve invited him to reject that implication, and I’m inviting you to do likewise.

All right. I'm not Doug Morris. I well understand the difficulties in holding apart various lines of argument in forum conversations such as these, but I do want to stipulate that his arguments are not necessarily my own (nor do I mean here to disparage them; and in fact, I just now see where he has disavowed your paraphrase of his argument). Further, I don't tend to like to operate by "suggestion" and "implication": I much prefer to try to make arguments as clear and as explicit as I can, and deal with them directly.

With all that said, I'm happy to reject the notion that fear is itself sufficient to say that a person has initiated force.

21 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

It’s not the emotion, it’s the specific facts that tend to have some relation to fear which are relevant. However, I do agree that many, perhaps most people act on the basis of emotions and not facts. In fact, that is really the fundamental problem of popular politics, that people do not use reason to arrive at moral principles, instead they decide “I don’t like this: the government should do something about it”. This is a fact of the man-made, not the metaphysically given. I am not denying that corner of reality, I am denouncing it: it is a wrong choice.

The problem with being too concrete-bound is that it’s impossible to hold all of the relevant concretes in your mind. What justifies the conclusion that you should not defend your life when Smith is apparently in the process of murdering you in your home, when you know that Smith is a law enforcement officer? How can you know whether you should not defend yourself? You always have to relate choices to abstract principles.

I'm starting to notice a pattern. Because I use the word "fear," and recognize it as a real phenomenon, that does not mean that I'm advocating that "emotions are tools of cognition"; because I ask that we discuss concrete examples, that does not make me "too concrete-bound" (or "concrete-bound" at all), or mean that I do not wish to relate choices to abstract principles, or refuse to do so. Let's try to rein this in a little, in the interest of a productive discussion.

I fully understand the value and necessity of abstraction, and I do not doubt that we will relate concretes to principles, and vice-versa, as our conversation proceeds. I would still like to discuss some concrete examples:

21 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Your specific shooting example should be compared to a some very similar cases...

Yes, that's fine, we can do that. But before we compare my example to similar cases, wouldn't it be appropriate to take a moment to discuss my "specific shooting example" directly?

Or maybe you consider the answer the question I'd asked to be too obvious to need saying? As though I'd asked it rhetorically? But I do indeed "remember that the position [you're] advocating holds intent to be a crucial determinant of 'initiation of force'," and so I'd like my example considered in that light. The man pulling out his toy gun has no intention at all to shoot or harm the police officer. Who then has initiated force?

21 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

...the man pulls out his toy gun and does not point it; he pulls it out and drops it; he pulls out his cell phone; his wallet; the man reaches for his wallet. In each case, the officer shoots and kills. In those cases, who bears responsibility for the death? Do all of these cases have the same evaluation (the man initiated force)? Does that mean that if I’m in some public place with people around me and I take out my cell phone, that is the initiation of force? If you analyze the facts in terms of reasonable inferences of intent, they are not the same. Remember that the position which I’m advocating holds intent to be a crucial determinant of “initiation of force”.

Is there a shade of difference between "intent" and "reasonable inferences of intent"? In any event, I think the latter hews much more closely to my own ideas, yet... I'm not wholly satisfied on the point. Is the crucial question, "what does this person intend," per se? Or "will this person's intended actions do harm"?

But let's review your examples. Your officer shooting hypotheticals are (as I'm sure you're aware) quite controversial (as my own might be, to some). I think that there are cases where pulling out a cell phone or wallet would constitute the initiation of force, and justify the officer firing in retaliation. At least, I remember having read a case before of someone who held their cellphone as though it were a gun -- and that the officer could not distinguish it. In such cases, there are a host of contextual details (what is the person's demeanor and prior behavior; are they complying generally with instruction; etc.) and we rely to a great extent on the officer's training. There may also be times when the officer acts in some manner contraindicated by his training or the contextual details of his situation, and bears responsibility for the initiation of force. (And we may further find fault with the training itself; these are very complex matters.)

What would you think about it if I said, "If you're pulled over by a police officer, be very clear about what you're doing. Do not pull out your wallet without asking for permission to do so, and then do so slowly." Do you think that any such measures are (or ought to be) rightly undertaken? Or is the fact that we do not intend harm -- that we just intend to take out our wallet, to provide identification -- sufficient, and we should expect nothing bad to happen as a result? (And blame the officer otherwise.) Is what matters here our "intent," or is it the actions we take to communicate our intent to the police officer? What responsibility do we bear for taking actions that suggest to the police officer that he may in fact be in danger?

Pulling out your cellphone in the mall isn't the same thing. The context matters powerfully here, to the point where people are probably not even paying attention to you or trying to infer your "intent." The same action with even the same rough "intention" ("I would like to make a phone call") in two different contexts -- in the mall, among friends versus being pulled over by a police officer who is responding to reports of an armed robbery -- may produce very different results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This discussion has been rather far removed from the fundamental principles regarding man’s rights, and has focused instead on notions of aggression, spreading (versus other means), sensory inputs, af

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.

I wear one when required, out of respect for the fact that a private business is required to enforce the mandate. I never decided on a consistent policy to use in situations where I have a choice. I g

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I am responsible for my own reasonable safety, @Easy Truth

What about these examples?

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Anyone who ventures out is entitled to demand that others not fire guns in inappropriate places such as a supermarket, sidewalk, sports stadium, math classroom, or food court.  Anyone who ventures out is entitled to demand that others not drive in highly reckless ways that can easily cause an accident, such as unnecessarily swerving back and forth or driving 100 miles an hour on a busy downtown street. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "demand" seems to be causing confusion, so let's see if I can find a clearer wording.

If someone fires guns in inappropriate places such as a supermarket, sidewalk, sports stadium, math classroom, or food court, does the responsibility fall entirely on the rest of us to keep ourselves reasonably safe from gunfire?  Or is the shooter violating our rights?

If someone drives in highly reckless ways that can easily cause an accident, such as unnecessarily swerving back and forth or driving 100 miles an hour on a busy downtown street, does the responsibility fall entirely on the rest of us to keep ourselves reasonably safe from accident?  Or is the reckless driver violating our rights?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

The word "demand" seems to be causing confusion, so let's see if I can find a clearer wording.

If someone fires guns in inappropriate places such as a supermarket, sidewalk, sports stadium, math classroom, or food court, does the responsibility fall entirely on the rest of us to keep ourselves reasonably safe from gunfire?  Or is the shooter violating our rights?

If someone drives in highly reckless ways that can easily cause an accident, such as unnecessarily swerving back and forth or driving 100 miles an hour on a busy downtown street, does the responsibility fall entirely on the rest of us to keep ourselves reasonably safe from accident?  Or is the reckless driver violating our rights?

 

There are legitimate laws on the books regarding both scenarios, here in America and most other countries in the world as well.

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

There are legitimate laws on the books regarding both scenarios, here in America and most other countries in the world as well.

Which leads to the question, can laws about mask wearing be legitimate?  Which is the question that gave rise to this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 8:41 AM, whYNOT said:

Would you stroll onto a shooting range or walk across a busy highway - and claim it's others' moral duty to not accidentally injure you? Or have traffic and the guns banned?

Dream_weaver's point about the existence of legitimate laws applies to these scenarios as well.

Edited by Doug Morris
Fix spelling of dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The way you are formulating it, "voluntary" ends up having no meaning at all. EVERYTHING is voluntary. You always have a choice. (as in you are always free)

 

Okay, then you changed the subject. You were talking about the capacity to choose, not in what sense your action is voluntary. The capacity to choose doesn't go away unless, as I said, you are unconscious or asleep. The distinction is like this: no matter what happens to you, you will be able to choose. You could be completely restrained but imagine dancing in the streets. You can think of anything you want. What can change though is your ability to control the world outside your awareness. You don't have any control over your money from the mugger, none at all. You can choose to obey, you can choose to go against his will and say no then get shot. You have an infinite range of choices when it comes to getting your money back. But the one thing you don't have any control over whatsoever is the money. All you can do is convince him to give it back. 

Your distinction about interference with what you deserve is vague as well. I may deserve a higher paycheck from my boss because I'm not being justly compensated for the value I bring to the job. I may deserve receiving tenure at the University, but denied that because of petty department politics. I'm prevented from making the choice that is good for me because of your interference. But these things aren't force. I have not been denied control over anything that I already own. I have not been denied any control over things that I am sovereign over. 
 

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Outside the context, one could ask, did he deserve that control in the first place. In that case it would not be a mugger but a police that is retrieving what was stolen.

Yes, that's where you begin a discussion about initiating force. Who owns what? What do you have a right to control? The question of initiating force is utterly irrelevant until you determine what one ought to control. 
 

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Some choices presented by others "allow" and some choices "disallow", so some don't interfere.

Then money is a massive interference, because people use it as a way to frequently deny you the ability to choose something. To be precise, you can choose it, absolutely, but people won't like you if you don't pay (you "can't" choose to steal, in the sense that it's inadvisable). My point is that interference is a poor standard. 

But once you can demonstrate how or when risk becomes lack of control over something that you possess or are sovereign over, then you will have a stronger case for when exposing others to disease is initiation of force. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

But once you can demonstrate how or when risk becomes lack of control over something that you possess or are sovereign over, then you will have a stronger case for when exposing others to disease is initiation of force. 

Exposing someone to a disease is not initiation of force by itself. The disease has to be harmful.

The "other" may be vaccinated or immune for some reason.

Transmitting it to them, i.e. infecting them (meaning they are not immune) with the potentially lethal disease is the exertion of force. It could be an initiation or not depending on if this was requested or not. If it was not requested or chosen, then objectively it was an initiation of force (potentially lethal force).

18 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Okay, then you changed the subject. You were talking about the capacity to choose, not in what sense your action is voluntary.

Force in this context is always tied to voluntary or not. This is where you are making the mistake and going outside of this context.

20 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Your distinction about interference with what you deserve is vague as well.

It's vague. It's abstract. But it's true. To repeat it:

Ultimately "force" is an interference with the good/freedom that you deserve

24 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I may deserve a higher paycheck from my boss because I'm not being justly compensated for the value I bring to the job. I may deserve receiving tenure at the University, but denied that because of petty department politics.

The fact that you deserve something does not mean that you will get it. (descriptively) The fact that you deserve something means you should get it (prescriptively)

26 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm prevented from making the choice that is good for me because of your interference. But these things aren't force. I have not been denied control over anything that I already own. I have not been denied any control over things that I am sovereign over. 

Once you determine what is deserved, that finally determines if it is force. You mention it and there is no disagreement there.

Rights and boundaries determine where there is trespassing. Without them one person will say you are trespassing (initiation force) and another will say no you are not.

So first you have to determine what is your "right" to be able to determine if there is force or not.

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

It's vague.

If you want to have a discussion about an abstract concept, you shouldn't tolerate vagueness. You equivocate "no choice" with "not voluntary", "deserve" with "rights", without giving a way to distinguish how you are using these words. I sorta kinda know what you mean, but that's about it. It's not enough for a philosophical discussion.

43 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The fact that you deserve something means you should get it (prescriptively)

And based on what you said, someone interfering with what you ought to get (what you deserve) is initiating force. 

43 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

So first you have to determine what is your "right" to be able to determine if there is force or not.

That's right, so deserving isn't really an important part of the question. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

And based on what you said, someone interfering with what you ought to get (what you deserve) is initiating force. 

Yes. 

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If you want to have a discussion about an abstract concept, you shouldn't tolerate vagueness. You equivocate "no choice" with "not voluntary", "deserve" with "rights", without giving a way to distinguish how you are using these words. I sorta kinda know what you mean, but that's about it. It's not enough for a philosophical discussion.

We'll have to go with "sorta kinda know what you mean" and go from there making things more precise. This is an attempt to arrive at/determine the truth. The premise still stands.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dream weaver. Without a right, as you seemed to agree, force can't be determined. Based on the answer, we can drill down and eliminate the vagueness.

Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in?

This is based on your own definition of reasonably safe. No definition of "reasonably safe" is necessary right now, just the fundamental principle. Please start your answer with either: Yes, No, I don't know

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

Yes

Therefore, it is initiation of force if your wage doesn't match what you deserve.

Therefore, it is initiation of force if you don't receive tenure when you deserve to have it.

9 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in?

No, but that isn't to say expectations of safety are not relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Which leads to the question, can laws about mask wearing be legitimate?  Which is the question that gave rise to this discussion.

Shall laws be passed to micromanage other aspects of societies health? Such as: Which vitamins should be taken? Which foods shall be eaten? How much exercise should one get? What types of exercise should one engage in?

While in Nashville, Tn, I visited a Steinway Piano store, and the proprietor offered a mask to be worn after requesting admittance to the facility. Jobs and education do not grow on trees. When mandates, such a mandatory health insurance, or executive orders to wear masks in public facilities,  who is to provide them and at who's expense?

Wayne County's prosecuting attorney recently dismissed over 1800 legal cases regarding infractions regarding CoViD-19 related incidents citing that the supreme court of Michigan had declared that the governor could not use executive orders to "write" laws ex-nihilo.

58 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

How does this relate to your earlier statement that you are responsible for your own reasonable safety?

How do legitimate laws on the books mitigate any citizen's personal responsibility for their own reasonable safety? Reckless drivers and active shooters are not daunted by such laws.

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

Therefore, it is initiation of force if your wage doesn't match what you deserve.

Therefore, it is initiation of force if you don't receive tenure when you deserve to have it.

Yes.

These two examples of deserving are based on free market forces. It is based on voluntary agreements and contracts. But there are also non-contractual rights too, like a right to life.

The key is that you objectively and absolutely deserve it. Not just your opinion.

This is easily seen in the case of a breach of contract where you have an agreement to get a wage ... but it is not given or stolen from you.

The initiation would be at the time of your first paycheck, when you don't get your agreed on paycheck amount. Is time goes on I am realizing that "initiation of force" is in fact based on effect, as David put it (as he disagrees with effect but rather advocates for "intent").

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in?

No, but that isn't to say expectations of safety are not relevant.

Then how can you flourish? How can you survive without reasonable safety? Always wondering if you will be harmed or stolen from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DonAthos, my head is spinning from playing argumentative whack-a-mole in this thread. I really wanted someone to set forth a simple sentence, articulating their principle that guides discussion of a complicated problem. It’s a really big problem, in my opinion, when we can’t set forth general but simple philosophical principles that guide our choices using a few simple unloaded words (avoiding “fear” and vague terms like “threat” which refers to “possibility of negative outcome” – not initiation of force). In particular when we get proposals that being unknowingly diseased in public is the same kind of choice as committing murder, that’s when we need some clarification of fundamental principles.

I will assert my position. First, the government has the right and obligation to establish and enforce laws which punish certain acts: those which constitute initiation of force, as characterized by Schwartz. If the government knows in advance that you are going to do such an act, they may rightfully stop you. That covers “crimes”. In addition, there are acts which, once committed, are wrongs which can be addressed by the law – compensation can be compelled. These are the “torts” and “breaches of contract”. Government involvement is always post-hoc, and the government’s only role is to serve as neutral arbitrator and enforcer of the final judgment (and author of the default rules, in case there is no prior agreement i.e. relevant contract term). Only a small set of torts involve initiation of force.

“Intent” refers to a fact about the suspect’s mind, and inference of intent is about the officer’s mind, so yes, there is a difference, and not just a shade. Under the law, inference (by the actor) of the intent of another is crucial to defenses for otherwise-wrongful acts. A person may shoot another if he reasonably infers an intent (to harm) – based on certain facts. The law does not demand that a person be in possession of all of the facts, it only judges based on the facts that he (probably) knows. In your original scenario, I can’t even begin to imagine what the suspect intended, other than death by cop. Has anyone ever innocently pulled a toy gun and pointed it at a police officer? The vast majority of instances of toy gun shootings without criminal intent, the “mistaken encounters”, involve people lacking basic mental capacity (children and mentally-incapable adults). I assume that in your example, the person has the mental capacity of a child and doesn’t know that you may get shot if you point a toy gun at a police officer. Do you know of a real case like the one you described?

Taking the shooter’s perspective, the probability that this is really a water pistol is so low and the alternatives are so much more likely and the consequences so much more severe that there is no reasonable alternative to shooting him. A person should infer that the gun is real and that the intent is to kill you, even when the facts turn out to be different. What follows is variations that make decent intents more likely, and decrease the reasonableness of the inference “he intends to kill me”. At the cell phone and wallet stage, that is the point where the shooter bears responsibility for the killing. (We can always add facts to change the conclusion, e.g. “after robbing the bank”. It’s all about the context, and your context was very simple).

The law objectively states emergency guidelines where use of force is excused – in self defense. There is a relationship between those guidelines (the law) and the principle that one may not initiate force, but they are not the same thing. Initiation of force is exactly what I’ve said it is above, and “reaching for your wallet” is not initiation of force. But in a certain context, use of force may be excused because of the conceptual possibility that there is in fact initiation of force. When we are looking for moral responsibility, I would lay the blame not on the officer or the victim, but on the low-lives that make it reasonable to conclude that reaching for a wallet is actually an attempt to kill you.

For the rather large and politically-prominent set of officer killings of unarmed people, there is a long list of things that one is not to do, which nevertheless people ignore, often to their extreme detriment. For the most part, this is not initiation of force, it is inferred initiation of force. Sometimes, the inference is unreasonable; but often the media reports “The victim’s gun wasn’t even loaded” as though that is a self-evident fact available to the arresting officer, ignoring the centrality of reasonable conclusions. What remains constant throughout contexts is, what is IOF? But the law can only deal in reasonable inferences about IOF.

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

Which leads to the question, can laws about mask wearing be legitimate?  Which is the question that gave rise to this discussion.

Returning to that specific question, let us remember that there actually is no such law, there is a set of dictatorial emergency decrees. At present, mask-mandates are marginally authorized by open-ended emergency statutes giving governors authority to boss people around in an emergency. Rand has written about emergencies, and how dangerous a concept it is. There is no emergency: there is a new fact of existence. Emergencies last at most a week.

Let’s see what it would take to justify such a law. First we have to say what such a law would demand: “A tight-fitting N95 mask must be worn at any time that a person is outside their own home. Violation will be punished with a month in prison”. To justify the law, there has to be a compelling government interest. The existing justification is “to prevent the spread of disease”. Now subtract covid from the scenario – would it have been justified to force the wearing of masks without covid (to prevent the spread of flu, colds, measles etc)? I have seen nobody anywhere claim that it would have been. It must first be establish that there is something massively different in the case of covid. A covid-specific mask law needs extraordinary justification, to override ordinary constitutional protections of your rights. Secondly, the restriction needs to be demonstrably effective. It is insufficient to say “There is this big problem”, you also have to prove “This actions sufficient eliminates the problem”. Mandatory vaccination is clearly much better justified than the mask mandate, because vaccination is based on infinitely better science and is much less conjectural. Finally, the restriction must be the least-restrictive means of reaching that end. The hypothesized mask law allows only one choice, but there are other alternatives (physical distance from others; being certified disease-free are two obvious ones, and bright, free minds may find others).

The fatal weakness in the covid mask proposal is (a) necessity and (b) effectiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

The fatal weakness in the covid mask proposal is (a) necessity and (b) effectiveness.

Even if it was necessary and effective, the "one size fits all prior restraint" still infringes on the rights of those who are immune or don't carry the disease that don't want to participate. In other words, those who are not transmitting are innocents who's rights are being infringed on.

That is the immoral aspect.

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

The initiation would be at the time of your first paycheck, when you don't get your agreed on paycheck amount.

Someone pays me $10 an hour. I think my labor is worth $15 an hour. I deserve 15. They still only pay me 10. This is initiation of force according to you. Therefore, minimum wage laws are proper. 

All you have done is equivocate deserve (the contract says $15 but they only gave me $10) with deserve (morally speaking, someone should pay me $15 because properly speaking I am worth $15). I'm using this example because I know you don't believe minimum wage laws are proper, and neither do I, but your thoughts about "deserving" doesn't help things.

More than that, initiation of force can't be made contractual. You are saying "it's okay to initiate force if the contract allows it". Wouldn't we say that paying me $10 an hour for my labor is still initiating force once I realize that I'm being exploited? Is it okay because they told me they would exploit me? Can't I become be aware that force was being initiated on me after the fact? 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

This is easily seen in the case of a breach of contract where you have an agreement to get a wage ... but it is not given or stolen from you.

But they certainly prevent you from getting what you deserve! 

My whole point is that you agree with me but you seem to be avoiding accepting that you made a mistake and changed your mind, or the equivocation makes it impossible to see. Exactly, the money was not stolen or given to you. Nothing has been taken from you when you are paid $10 an hour. Control over what you own and what you are sovereign over has not changed. You might not deserve $10 an hour, but freedom has not changed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Someone pays me $10 an hour. I think my labor is worth $15 an hour. I deserve 15. They still only pay me 10. This is initiation of force according to you. Therefore, minimum wage laws are proper. 

You should get what you deserve (not what you think you deserve). If you don't it is unjust.

This is at the basis of objective justice.

If you should get what you deserve, then when you don't get what you deserve an injustice has happened.

An injustice occurring is an infringement of someone's rights.

The mistake in your example is how you determined that the 10 dollars was deserved. "I think I deserve 15 dollars" does not mean I deserve 15 dollars. Was there a free market with supply and demand that came up with 15 dollars and then we agreed? That is when it is deserved. And if it is not paid, that is a use of force (in this context).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

An injustice occurring is an infringement of someone's rights.

I think we found the problem.

There are many injustices you can think of that are not infringements. It is not just to mistreat a friend who has been good to you and a true friend. If you say "but the context is the use of force" then I would say that you are talking about a specific types of injustice. It is not just to initiate force. But this is the equivocation I'm talking about - you are using the wider category in the same way as the narrow category. 

I wrote more before, but I think it was too much. I just wanted to make this point and hopefully encourage you to read the book I mentioned earlier. It's a good read overall and should help you think about this discussion.

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

Even if it was necessary and effective, the "one size fits all prior restraint" still infringes on the rights of those who are immune or don't carry the disease that don't want to participate. In other words, those who are not transmitting are innocents who's rights are being infringed on.

That is the immoral aspect.

My rights are infringed on all the time, when I take a flight. The moral responsibility rests on the terrorists who chose to turn airplanes into weapons of mass destruction: that is the immoral choice that was made. In the case of mask mandates, the immorality resides in the willful refusal to apply reason and even the most elementary moral philosophy in devising these restrictions. What these cases have in common is that the fundamental choice made was evil.

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

Shall laws be passed to micromanage other aspects of societies health? Such as: Which vitamins should be taken? Which foods shall be eaten? How much exercise should one get? What types of exercise should one engage in?

No.  Such activities do not normally involve physical force, and the government has no business managing them at all.  Not wearing a mask increases the risk of spreading disease, and therefore may rise to the level of physical force.  Thus it is in a different category.

It should be illegal to go into a store and poison packages of vitamins, food, or Tylenol.  It should be illegal to steal vitamins, food, or Tylenol.  It should be illegal to get exercise by going around and beating people up.  When people are guilty of such introductions of force into such matters, it is appropriate for the government to respond.  But normal, free market, rights-respecting use of vitamins, food, Tylenol, or exercise is none of the government's business.

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...