Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Self-Interest Conquers Disease. Mellows Harshed.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Or: They Won't Admit It, but Some Leftists Hate Private Vaccination Requirements
vibes_man.jpg
Image by Mark Adriane, via Unsplash, license.
Not long after I made a similar point, but in what I hope was a somewhat more constructive and positive way despite my exasperation, Hayes Brown of MSNBC chimes in to the effect that it's good business to require employees to be vaccinated.

(Brown does, alas, call these requirements "mandates," further entrenching the apparently near-universal confusion between business and government in our society.)

This leftist columnist should be cheering the move, but he can't help sneering the whole way through, and spitting on the "laissez-faire" -- as if, and if only! -- wagon delivering the good news that we're about to get this pandemic right where we want it:
Hopefully, those same people are glad to learn that their laissez-faire [sic] approach to epidemiology is working. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted Friday that the federal government won't be ordering people to get vaccinated any time soon. Instead, in the absence of government regulation and bureaucratic diktats, American corporations are stepping in. And the free market has spoken clearly: Vaccination mandates [sic] are good.
Those people. Aren't "othering" in general and phrases like those people supposed to be anathema to the left? More to the point, a small remnant of capitalism is showing us the way out of the pandemic: While it might be appropriate to call out many conservatives for being hypocrites about this, the charge of hypocrisy carries with it a subtext of moral agreement when one is not careful.

In that respect, Brown is careful: Leftists can be chaste to the point of unintelligibility when it comes to language, except when they disagree with someone, and then it's no holds barred. So, Brown is calling out hypocrisy, but we still know where his moral compass points, as we shall see.

However, he is like a meticulous navigator steering straight towards a dangerous rock because he is looking at a bad map, but ignoring what he could see through the window next to him.

Strike that: He just saw it. This move is a glaring refutation of the idea that "we" require the government to order us around, for our own good. That, left to our own devices, we'd all just get sick and die -- or worse.

Brown oddly and incorrectly accuses the right of advocating laissez-faire, but doing so hypocritically. (The right should advocate capitalism, but generally doesn't, and usually isn't convincing when it does.)

I'll pass over a tortured analysis of who's hypocritical about what, because here's what I find most interesting about Brown's piece:
All in all, I'm not seeing a downside for these corporate mandates. If anything, this is different from the "woke capitalism" Republicans were briefly yelling about. Rather than wanting to appear like they care about Black or LGBTQ rights [sic], major companies are even more cynically protecting their bottom lines. If that requires that their laborers be protected against disease so they can keep showing up and selling their time and bodies for profit, so be it. [bold added]
Here are apt expressions, although Brown is too pissed off to realize it, of the empty evil of altruism, society's dominant moral code, and collectivism, its political expression. It would appear, despite his claim to not see a "downside," that the government's not coercing everyone to get a vaccine is a downside to Brown, who professes to want vaccinations to happen.

But this defeat pales in comparison to the glimpse of the effectiveness of capitalism and self-interest Brown got and is trying his damnedest to bury: Those greedy corporations making it happen by the marriage of their self interest (called cynical and insinuated as corrupt by the phrase bottom line) and those of their individual workers -- who want to trade with them and freely do so (smeared by a cheap and cowardly analogy to prostitution) -- is proof that self-interest and the system he obviously hates are, in fact, moral and practical.

There is no joy in Mudville: What people like Brown have been claiming to want -- while supporting numerous tyrannical abuses of government -- is starting to happen thanks to the tiniest slivers of the system, capitalism, that have somehow survived in the weeds of our mixed economy, and despite the boots of the pandemic-emboldened thugs people like him support.

Brown is right to point out that the conservatives he calls out should be happy, but they're not the only ones. If they should recognize and celebrate business finding a way to get America closer to herd immunity (as a happy byproduct of trying to earn a living!), Brown should ask himself: If I am so concerned about the welfare of others, why am I unhappy to learn that capitalism and self-interest can deliver exactly those things?

The lack of joy and the dripping bitterness are telling enough. Will anyone notice, or will Brown and his ilk succeed in causing Americans to forget this miracle, and continue, themselves, hiding behind the scoundrel's refuge of a professed concern for others?

-- CAV

Link to Original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, "herd immunity", of the natural sort, was the loathed phrase when it was all about "flattening the curve" through lock downs (and so prolonging, and likely, mutating the virus) and now it is the flavour du jour.

Now - that it is an artificial herd immunity - everybody wants it. Absolutely, one can be glad for the vaccines providing an end in sight. But some degree of herd immunity could have been built up earlier, avoiding the evils of lockdowns, for the vaccines to recently add their efficacy to. (And without, I am certain, any greater and possibly lesser loss of lives). First and only rule: protect yourself, protect your frail and vulnerable, respect others' property rights and personal wishes - and do not count upon the government or society to protect you.

There's no question that the big corps - and we will see this descending to the many more companies and thousands of smaller concerns affecting millions of staff members and employees - have the property rights to insist on employees getting vaccinated or depart. This is inarguable and so, hardly relevant. But what about the individual rights of those who are hesitant to take the jab (especially to their children where I share their misgivings)? Regardless of how irrational one may consider them, they have that right.

Individual choices, self-interest, looking out primarily for the best for one's own life and those closest, and personal risk assessments are what have been missing from the word "go" of the pandemic: You WILL put (the generic) "others"' well-being ahead of your own, you ARE 'selfish' to be concerned about the wrecking of your own life and preferring to try to continue functioning while many are dying. Followed now, by: You are 'selfish' to worry about and resist being vaccinated for the common good.

First enacted by government force - and now I'm afraid, taken up with 'psychological coercion' by the private sector, which I believe is quite rotten, distinct from their rights to do so. Since there can be no doubt that there is - also- a self-publicizing 'woke'  factor in their business policy.  Which opens them to hypocritical accusations by anti-capitalists. Many like myself had high respect for businessmen when their first and moral concern was profit - before the time they developed a 'social conscience'. Oddly, I think, so did their anti-capitalist critics, if reluctantly.

What would be admirable for these big businesses is to pronounce "we trust our employees and do not investigate nor interfere in their life-choices, particularly regarding vaccination" (and anyway, most of you, our customers are safely vaccinated, and/or able to assess the risks of entering our premises for yourselves).

Instead they are sacrificing and stigmatizing their loyal employees - many of whom have been out of work for the interim - to the common 'good', and looking righteous in the process ... and while solidifying the divisions in the society. This long episode has been altruism all the way down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since altruism dominates our society, it has naturally dominated discussion of the pandemic.  There has been little room for more rational considerations, such as the point that increasing the risk of spreading disease puts people in physical danger and may rise to the level of an initiation of physical force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Since altruism dominates our society, it has naturally dominated discussion of the pandemic.  There has been little room for more rational considerations, such as the point that increasing the risk of spreading disease puts people in physical danger and may rise to the level of an initiation of physical force. 

Altruism has not dominated discussion (away from an Oist community). Far from it, though it should have since it is has covertly dominated the blanket response to the pandemic. No one else understands what it really is, is the problem.

No infected person can say for sure where or from whom he caught Covid. This is an invisible 'hostile', which ultimately no government retaliation of force can defend its civilians from. Since undetectable to the naked eye, the worst popular mistake was to weaponize the humans any of whom might be carrying it at any instant. By transference 'the people' then became the common enemy. The first effect we saw is general fear/distrust of all others, then to great divisions in society, now to more dictatorial measures by governments (like are starting in France and Australia) to make everyone conform to vaccines. Doubtless, since SA copies other major countries that will be taken up here too.

We've argued this before, DM, "initiation of force" doesn't enter. And anyhow, can't be proven to be deliberate. Nor can criminal negligence. Has anyone taken this matter to court yet, have you heard?

When in doubt, one should stay well away from the active people and places in society. One hasn't the right not to be infected - certainly so, if one does not take such cautious measures; therefore no force initiated and no court can rule on it. 

Where altruism and individual rights deprivations came to predominance was the automatic, 'science'-driven doctrine to equally block the numbers of the healthy, the younger, etc.etc. who would (they knew at the start) have very small risk from the virus, from going about their purposeful lives and work. This other way would have caused much less disruption to a population, economically and socially and medically, not to add, politically.

To penalize/sacrifice that able segment, in favor of those who (like me) are older, or in the comorbidity danger area, was and is abhorrent to individualists. One only needs a free flow of information. Left to one's own devices one can evaluate their condition and potential risks and look after themselves and those close, thank you very much.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

We've argued this before, DM, "initiation of force" doesn't enter. And anyhow, can't be proven to be deliberate.

In all cases?

Liability is determined by if you took reasonable precautions.

It is at the heart of the right to quarantine someone (by force).

If it cannot ever be proven then the right to quarantine becomes meaningless.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Has anyone taken this matter to court yet, have you heard?

The system gives blanket immunity because the Government is considered liable. Meaning no one in particular. 

There is no winning in court. Individuals are not held responsible.

Also, if the "approved" medicine kills people, they can't sue the FDA, CDC et. al.

This is at the heart of the effect of altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 11:05 PM, Doug Morris said:

As you say, we've argued this before.  I stand by what I said then.

I realize this Doug. I think you are still looking for scapegoats to be held responsible for what has been a badly-considered, draconian, internationally-accepted and collective-sacrificial policy to combat Covid. To blame 'the people', where they generally did little wrong, while struggling to sustain an impossible regimen and losing untold amounts of their lives in the process, is pretty much altruistic also, imo. 'They' are not at fault.

Would you believe there is still no virologist consensus by what means the virus spreads?

http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h588e7d83%2C3e15a317%2C370cd3e9&WT.mc_id=e_DM1476369&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Sub&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Sub20210809&utm_campaign=DM1476369&s=vL0IIhCUDOZ6LZRy2hLkGaXbIf56g0UPQ4O3eIkLo38

 

(And the vax isn't quite the "magic bullet" we'd have liked, what with the vaccinated still capable of infection-transmission, as was just released)

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Would you believe there is still no virologist consensus by what means the virus spreads?

I looked at the article.  What it amounts to is that we know the main way the virus spreads, but there is some disagreement about certain details.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And the vax isn't quite the "magic bullet" we'd have liked, what with the vaccinated still capable of infection-transmission, as was just released)

I don't think any of the experts were claiming or expecting a magic bullet.  The vaccine, in addition to very greatly reducing the risk to the recipient, greatly reduces the risk that the recipient will transmit the disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 12:52 AM, whYNOT said:

Funny, "herd immunity", of the natural sort, was the loathed phrase when it was all about "flattening the curve" through lock downs (and so prolonging, and likely, mutating the virus) and now it is the flavour du jour.

Now - that it is an artificial herd immunity - everybody wants it.

Incoherent writing, as usual. Keep it up. 

On 8/6/2021 at 12:52 AM, whYNOT said:

Instead they are sacrificing and stigmatizing their loyal employees - many of whom have been out of work for the interim

Unvaccinated person: They may take our *cough* lives, but they'll never take our free-- *coughs and collapses from COVID*.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Based on the actual results.  There have been very few COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated.  There have been a lot of COVID-19 deaths among the unvaccinated. 

Well then, that is where things should have always stood: individual freedom to choose and your right to do so. It's your life and your body. One makes one's choices and lives or dies with the (potential) consequences. Of course, those who have recently died must have also been immuno-compromised, sickly or old, so were crazy not to have taken the opportunity to protect themselves and/or those close.

The huge majority, the healthy, will survive without inoculation, mind you.

Both groups have to respect the rights and choices of the other. What do societies wish to see, that the unvaccinated get lined up like sheep and forced to have the vaccine injected? The righteous outrage you hear which the vaxxers level against the ('selfish') vaccine-skeptics indicates just this. We are nearing that stage. That will be the final confirmation that the general wish for security has overcome liberty and we "deserve neither".  

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Incoherent writing, as usual. Keep it up. 

Unvaccinated person: They may take our *cough* lives, but they'll never take our free-- *coughs and collapses from COVID*.

 

Weren't you one of those who objected to "herd immunity" in an exchange, flying in the face of what every virologist knows.

Virology 101.

Every virus that has come among humans hasn't been "stamped out"/"defeated"/etc. -  nor totally disappears. It eventually gets absorbed, contained and tamed by masses of individual immune systems. Pretending otherwise to the public was the ignorance/deceit of some scientists and the media.

I suggested from reading the experienced opinions by immunologists and common sense, that bringing BOTH of them to bear, the "artificial" herd immunity (vaccines) combining and building upon prior "natural" herd immunity, achieves the required results, in the shortest period.

The fearful resistance to acquiring herd immunity was the rationale and justification behind closing down all people's lives and making it 'a collective effort'. Everybody became permanently responsible for everybody else's health and life. I.e. Why should some suffer? Everybody must equally suffer.

The responsive measures to this pandemic is THE example of making a terrible situation an even worse one.

Right, Mel. That altruist submission to others and to authority is a hard habit to break - and the world will take a long time, at least one generation I believe, to recover levels of individualism and freedoms: the ultimate self-sacrifice.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Well then, that is where things should have always stood: individual freedom to choose and your right to do so.

You ignore the other point.

On 8/9/2021 at 11:04 PM, Doug Morris said:

The vaccine, in addition to very greatly reducing the risk to the recipient, greatly reduces the risk that the recipient will transmit the disease.

 

On 8/6/2021 at 8:23 AM, Doug Morris said:

increasing the risk of spreading disease puts people in physical danger and may rise to the level of an initiation of physical force. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founding scientific maxim has apparently been forgotten by epidemiologists who have largely taken over the debate and been given full sway in the media.

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed".

(Obeyed - identified, understood, evaluated).

In their simplistic, statistical, one-size-fits-all methodology to coronavirus, because this virus is 'collectively' transmitted by the collective of people, it therefore must need a 'collective' solution by people, manipulating all the people.

In effect, revising Bacon: All potential human CARRIERS of Covid-19 must be commanded, and they must obey.

Several proponents of the other sciences I read of, virologists and immunologists and medical doctors have a cohesive approach and method - they seemingly know better how viruses behave, how individual immune systems vary greatly, and how there are many other dangerous "secondary" health concerns (physical and mental) too, and that lock-downs etc. weaken people's antibodies so that when they emerge they are more vulnerable to infections, among other areas of expertise and medical ethics. First, Do No Harm. These dissenting scientists were noticeably squeezed out of social media for forthrightly speaking up.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"natural" herd immunity, achieves the required results, in the shortest period.

It's also a good way to maximize deaths. What you wrote is incoherent. You said that natural herd immunity is now artificial herd immunity, which everyone wants. The rest is a rant against some imaginary person.

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Right, Mel.

You missed the irony that someone would care about freedom in their life but is stupid enough not to get a vaccine, showing that they don't care about their life anyway. And then sanctimoniously pretend that they are a freedom fighter to complain about employers asking them to be vaccinated.

I'm not sure how long it will take you before you realize that no one really respects your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not sure how long it will take you before you realize that no one really respects your opinion.

You've taken a poll of the 7 billion people on the planet, assessed how many of them know Tony, and have segregated them accordingly to draw this conclusion?

And before you have to repeat yourself, I know, I know, no one need pay mind to me either.

You demonstrate well how someone versed in the field of psychology can apply tact and diplomacy in conversation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It's also a good way to maximize deaths. What you wrote is incoherent. You said that natural herd immunity is now artificial herd immunity, which everyone wants. The rest is a rant against some imaginary person.

 

Having repeated twice, still you find it hard to understand that allowing some natural immunity to occur from the start of the pandemic *could* and would, have been far more effective when linked with the advent of vaccines - now. There is every indication that the fatalities would have been no greater and perhaps less. (Assuming people realized that Gvts. and societies perform worse at caring for them than do they themselves). 

As you well know, herd immunity was the unmentionable swear word back then. What I call "artificial" immunity is the vaccination.

A "rant" against very real people, who allowed their own and others' individual freedoms to be sacrificed, or haven't you noticed that either?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

You missed the irony that someone would care about freedom in their life but is stupid enough not to get a vaccine, showing that they don't care about their life anyway. And then sanctimoniously pretend that they are a freedom fighter to complain about employers asking them to be vaccinated.

 

Got the irony. Your take is largely unjust. Most of those people well know the findings, and that it's the ageing (and so on) who are really in danger and not being in those brackets, likely do not find sufficient cause to risk a brand new vaccine. And, some will have already contracted and quickly recovered from Corona so consider themselves immune. And - with the uncertainty of reported side effects (e.g. irreparable myocarditis) many would be extremely reluctant to inoculate their youngsters going through their growth phase; after all, who can promise absolutely no long term health consequences in their adulthood? Nobody. Not an enviable decision for parents to make today.

You will soon see un-vaxed children and teens also barred from places and activities and socially stigmatized.

Whatever anyone thinks of them that is their right, the 'property' rights to their bodies. Comes under, I might not approve of what you do but I defend your right to do so.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

You've taken a poll of the 7 billion people on the planet, assessed how many of them know Tony, and have segregated them accordingly to draw this conclusion?

You know that isn't what I meant. Don't be a sophist.

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

You demonstrate well how someone versed in the field of psychology can apply tact and diplomacy in conversation here.

I'm not trying to apply tact or diplomacy. I'm using ridicule. Not all arguments are worth a careful analysis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What evidence do you have that this has happened?

Why should they?

People who died and had a positive test for covid were listed as a covid death. No one ever said that wasn’t SOP here in the States. You assumed the tally was kept otherwise ? Based on what ? 

The total US death count includes those that died with covid , I doubt will may ever get a number that reflects accurately those who died from covid.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...