Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I don't see how. That contract is private, between client and businessman. The latest Gvt. power grab soon to be global, is by co-opting the business owner to turn Government Agent by force. He is now responsible for vetting his customers for their mandatory vaccinations and for barring any without (like a policeman).

Currently if someone gets Covid in any business, the business is not held responsible. The disclaimer is implied and global. And therefore the solutions are global too. Government or "society" is considered the solution to the problem. This is by the majority of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He isn't an Objectivist. He is an anarcho-capitalist, although he probably would just say he is a libertarian anarchist.

I didn't know that item, but I recall his proficiency in Objectivism, and I said he was "friendly". Far as I'm concerned, labels like anarcho-capitalist, and looking for fine and theoretical distinctions, have become superfluous when freedom and individualism are under fire. Many a time one can find common cause with such libertarians (and should) The telling truths of his radical approach to this particular topic should speak for itself. The ortho O'ist position has been overly conventional, imo. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Currently if someone gets Covid in any business, the business is not held responsible. The disclaimer is implied and global. And therefore the solutions are global too. Government or "society" is considered the solution to the problem. This is by the majority of the population.

Yes, but I think things are moving rapidly. It is for certain that governments anywhere will climb in on the act when they see massive outcry against the unvaxxed, on social media, particularly. We know how they like to be seen to be doing 'good' for the majority by forcing the dissenting minority to toe the line.  If they don't comply, as in Paris and NYC and many other cities to follow, they will be blocked admission from hundreds of places, public and privately owned.

Those businesses and large corporations which have tried to anticipate or pre-empt the govt. cracking down with regulations, by 'self-regulating', are being a little naive, I reckon. A shrewd lawyer who takes the case of someone supposedly being infected on their property, after the companies, completely within their rights, have a). dismissed employees who don't accept vaccinations, b). required proof of vaccination ("Papers, please": this demand we are going to have to get used to, for the foreseeable future) from their customers on entrance - could argue in his suit that the business has implicitly guaranteed the safety of any entrants by those actions, lost their right to a universal disclaimer (Enter at your own risk) therefore is liable to be sued.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Far as I'm concerned, labels like anarcho-capitalist, and looking for fine and theoretical distinctions, have become superfluous when freedom and individualism are under fire.

I mean, it is a fundamental disagreement, and this topic is about the government and what is appropriate for them to do. He thinks the government is never appropriate, he wants to abolish the government, so even his type of argument will a fundamentally different than anything in the Oist tradition. And he certainly won't help answer why you can't agree to violate your own rights. 

Besides, this is a theoretical discussion. Don't be anti-conceptual. Philosophy is theoretical and practical, but you can't ignore the theoretical part.

I don't know any prominent person's argument about the OP specifically.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Yes, but I think things are moving rapidly. It is for certain that governments anywhere will climb in on the act when they see massive outcry against the unvaxxed, on social media, particularly.

Are you decrying the outcry as being the problem? Because it is not.

A boycott of a business due to their policies is not initiation of force (unless due to fraudulent information).

There is also the right to forcibly quarantine another using force as a self defense measure.

So this type of effect can be achieved in a free society.

The problem is "the system" is based on "no liability" or "global liability" or "the all people's liability" which expands governmental power. Instead of holding an entity or individual liable (which you have spoken against), you are left with collective liability. That is why I said you have chosen a collectivist approach.

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 12:37 PM, Eiuol said:

I don't know any prominent person's argument about the OP specifically.

And to clarify, this was specifically in reference to whether prominent Oists have addressed exactly the questions in the OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 6:37 PM, Eiuol said:

I mean, it is a fundamental disagreement, and this topic is about the government and what is appropriate for them to do. He thinks the government is never appropriate, he wants to abolish the government, so even his type of argument will a fundamentally different than anything in the Oist tradition. And he certainly won't help answer why you can't agree to violate your own rights. 

Besides, this is a theoretical discussion. Don't be anti-conceptual. Philosophy is theoretical and practical, but you can't ignore the theoretical part.

I don't know any prominent person's argument about the OP specifically.

 

Theoretical and "fundamental" in this context - of the basic theory which an individual holds - is gratuitous and irrelevant, aimed at the man, not the truths in his works. 'Book and cover' - again?

Any Objectivist would, one would think, equally acknowledge and condemn every part of this continuing Government coercion.

Tucker is an excellent commentator and better than most conceptualist on the pandemic and the measures taken. Objectivity, indicates to look for the truth-value of a work, regardless who wrote it.

Not to ignore and belittle the literature (since, look who it came from!)

Don't be intinsicist.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 7:02 PM, Easy Truth said:

Are you decrying the outcry as being the problem? Because it is not.

A boycott of a business due to their policies is not initiation of force (unless due to fraudulent information).

There is also the right to forcibly quarantine another using force as a self defense measure.

So this type of effect can be achieved in a free society.

 

The citizens have the right to boycott, the government does not. (And people have the right to shout off about what they wish).

When the Gvt. prevents *a group* of people access to places - and - imposes force upon any private owners to do likewise on their behalf - that is coercion by discrimination. In South Africa that was called Apartheid.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 7:02 PM, Easy Truth said:

... you are left with collective liability. That is why I said you have chosen a collectivist approach.

After I stressed this is a private contract between customer and owner??

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

No, you have stressed that the vulnerable shouldn't go out of their houses.

"Shouldn't" being the operative word. Of course - they can and may and will. At their own risk.

There is ambivalence about rights and freedom of action. Rights don't protect one against one's own foolish choices, poor habits, harmful relationships and deals, weird beliefs and any form or degree of irrationality. They are strictly limited to protect one against the physical actions of those who deliberately impose force/fraud on him. It bears reminding that individual rights are not a moral code in themselves. They allow for any type and variety of belief, habit, behavior (etc.) structure., in society, which doesn't impede others' freedoms.

Like someone who accidentally trips you up or crashes into your car, he isn't initiating force, accidents are what happen sometimes in reality, and it is the awareness of reality and understanding possible consequences which is above all. Knowing the reality of a virus 'out there' which may be fatal to a person who knows he's most or semi-vulnerable, *might* indeed be worth him accepting the risk and - with self-protective measures, we'd assume - venturing outside (assuming he has a greater value and purpose in mind) - though he could be deemed irrational if done for no worthwhile reason, because he feels like it. But he has the RIGHT and the freedom to risk his health, which can't be denied him. If perhaps his calculated risk goes wrong, the rational person isn't the type to blame another, the irrational usually will. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Like someone who accidentally trips you up or crashes into your car, he isn't initiating force, accidents are what happen sometimes in reality

Yes, accidents are not deliberate.

But the level of responsibility is different between someone who is accident prone vs. someone who is NOT accident prone.

Negligence is about likelihood, not a specific deliberate act.

You are fixated on specific deliberate acts only.

Liability is what takes deliberate and non deliberate acts into consideration.

If Negligence should not exist, then liability should not exist, therefore a contract that protects against liability should not exist.

THEREFORE

If you argue against negligence, you argued against the contract (disclaimer) in the OP.

(why would a business want a contract like that if their negligence is never a problem i.e. no liability)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 4:54 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

As Eiuol pointed out, I’m essentially asking if one can consent to the initiation of physical force against oneself (actual or potential).

Yes, otherwise no doctor in his right mind would perform a risky surgery on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Yes, otherwise no doctor in his right mind would perform a risky surgery on you.

Please read the thread because we already talked about this. Risk is not the same as consenting to initiation of force. I mean, otherwise the conversation will go in a circle unless we advance it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Risk is not the same as consenting to initiation of force.

The relevant word is "surgery," as it constitutes an application of physical force on the patient.

The OP seems to be talking about applying physical force rather than initiating its use. If you consent to a surgery, then you are the one initiating the use of physical force by requesting the surgery. The doctor is merely applying the force that you initiated through your consent to its use.

Rand limits her conception of the initiation of the use of physical force to that which forces someone to act against their own judgment. So it doesn't apply to cases where someone consents to being physically forced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does surgery (except by a surgeon who kidnapped you and whisked you to his operating table to steal your organs) have anything to do with this? There is a wrongful idea of "initiation of force" that's come in. This is more like the pacifist libertarians who debate about whether one ought to stop a child from running into the street or a man leap off a bridge; their "non-aggression principle". And gets plain silly.

That means ¬anything¬ which, physically, involves another person, is "force". Maybe a woman's perfume makes you sneeze? Maybe her infectious disease is passed onto someone?

As the immoral option to reasoning with others, genuine coercion is distinct. Useful to keep in mind: "...to act against his own rational judgment". A rational man's judgment takes into consideration that others might and do have infections.

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Rand limits her conception of the initiation of the use of physical force to that which forces someone to act against their own judgment. So it doesn't apply to cases where someone consents to being physically forced. 

I think that's where everything left off. He hasn't said more since then so not sure what else to add yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There is a wrongful idea of "initiation of force" that's come in. This is more like the pacifist libertarians who debate about whether one ought to stop a child from running into the street or a man leap off a bridge; their "non-aggression principle". And gets plain silly.

Yes, but why is it wrong? My point about the surgery was that there is a distinction between initiating the use of force and applying the use of force. I think the two things get conflated.

As for a child running into the street or a man leaping off a bridge, these hopefully are not normal conditions. These are emergencies where immediate action is necessary to prevent potential disaster, and the law should allow for the initiation of the use of force in such cases, under the assumption that the subject would grant consent were it possible to do so, because he wants to live. If someone is trying to commit suicide, however, then that assumption might be wrong, but the law should favor those who try to save a life in emergency situations. If a man really wants to kill himself, he should do it when nobody is around to stop him.

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

That means ¬anything¬ which, physically, involves another person, is "force". Maybe a woman's perfume makes you sneeze? Maybe her infectious disease is passed onto someone?

This is why I am a fan of a social contract theory. When we agree to be part of a community or society, we agree to accept the normal interactions and risks involved with communing and socializing. Certainly we accept the fact that many people wear perfumes and colognes in public areas, and if they make you sneeze, you don't have a right to sue over such a trifle assault on your person. Rational people should be able to sort that out without government involvement.

As for being infected by diseases, I think this is also something we must accept as part of the social contract--to a certain degree. We accept it as a natural risk of interacting with other living organisms in society. If, however, malicious intent or reckless behavior can indeed be proven, then I think a case could be made for a violation of rights. I don't think any social contract should accept purposeful infliction of harm against others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The conflation that is going is unfortunately due to this definition that I assume is contextual and does not embrace the entire context.

Fraud in particular requires no physical force at all.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

This is why I am a fan of a social contract theory. When we agree to be part of a community or society, we agree to accept the normal interactions and risks involved with communing and socializing.

I find contract theory useful as a metaphor. But philosophically there is the problem that if such a contract exists, then intrinsic social values exist. As in, you are born with certain duties toward others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Ayn Rand lexicon:

Fraud

A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.

http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/thevirture.jpg

“The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Fraud involves indirect use of force, because it involves getting physical possession of another's property and refusing to surrender it to its rightful owner

Yes but we're talking about boxing and surgery. Direct application of physical force.

There are other problems with it in that fraud and breach of contract are not the same.

Bottom line, to trick someone causing them harm does not require physical force.

Just a false understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

There are other problems with it in that fraud and breach of contract are not the same.

 

The quotation said similarly, not the same.

4 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Bottom line, to trick someone causing them harm does not require physical force.

 

The physical force has to do with the effects, not the method.

6 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes but we're talking about boxing and surgery. Direct application of physical force.

The OP asked if it was possible to consent to a violation of one's rights.  A perpetrator of fraud would misleadingly claim to have received consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

The physical force has to do with the effects, not the method.

Then saying "initiating physical damage" would be more to the point.

If Mexico fired some artillery shells into an uninhabited desert in the US, and there was no damage, just some dirt and rock being moved, would that not be an initiation of physical force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Then saying "initiating physical damage" would be more to the point.

The effects of physical force may or may not involve damage.  In particular, fraud and breach of contract do not necessarily involve damage.  But they do involve wrongful physical possession of property.

9 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

If Mexico fired some artillery shells into an uninhabited desert in the US, and there was no damage, just some dirt and rock being moved, would that not be an initiation of physical force?

We could quibble about whether some dirt and rock being moved constituted damage. 

If there is a danger of damage, that can make it physical force, even if there is no actual damage.

46 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

The physical force has to do with the effects, not the method.

I should have made clear that this refers to fraud and breach of contract.  In other cases, the method can make it physical force.

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...