Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

The better approach is to use whyNot as a punching bag for practice on finding fallacies and errors in reasoning. He has a lot of them and it's good practice.

LOL. Try it out, lad. Make an original and substantial - Objectivist - argument against anything I have said.

I suggest DM, not to pay attention to this "captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler". ["Sophist" def.].

Mr Quibbles will let you down. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We must not let this push us into swinging to the other side of the same false coin.

Both 'sides' can hold strange, irrational, unscientific theories about vaccinating. One of them, however, the vaxxers, is trying to force their way on the other, the so-called anti-vaxxers. You won't see the latter loudly and angrily trying to force non-vaccinating upon people and denouncing them (on FB and elsewhere). Although you point to an admittedly false alternative, where one person/side is for individual choice and the other is for collective obedience, I know where my sympathies lie.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TruthSeeker946

If you are interested in this line of debate,

you've actually touched upon the fundamental theme found in Marx's Capital Volume I.

Marx argues that workers consent to their own exploitation.

Whether he is right that workers are exploited, I think he's not.

But this debate has been raging for more than 100 years.

Great question, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 8:08 PM, Doug Morris said:

An example of necessary increase in risk would be a case where someone has a legitimate medical reason for not masking or not vaccinating.  We may need to work on this some more for the purpose of writing laws.

I am trying to clarify one philosophical point.  I am not trying or claiming to give an encyclopedic treatment of all the technical issues of medicine and the philosophy of law that might be relevant to deciding what exactly the law should say.

 

 

 

I am not doing, advocating, or condoning any of these things.

I am not asking for an absolute guarantee.

I am saying we should rationally determine at what point increasing physical risk rises to physical force.

Which philosophical point? There has been nil philosophy, not sufficient Objectivist input too, applied in any of this pandemic and (automatically-) resulting measures until the present. Only a short term, concretist, determinist tactic by bureaucrats, of lumping everybody into the same boat, locking down, masking, distancing - now, forced vaccinating - everyone without distinction: old, young, infirm, potentially ill, healthy, from kids to every adult, a string of autocratic, sacrificial, collectivist, inhumane, anti-life and universalist acts (owing much to Kant's Categorical Imperative*) that, predictably, cost the world an unnecessary excess of casualties. In the process, stifled freedom and individual choice and rights for the forseeable future, creating more divisiveness. And we were warned, the corrupt methodology was advised against by many (censored) aware scientists from the start.

The moral IS the practical. Practically, the world has messed up the handling of the Covid threat and made a bad situation much worse, for all who can see. Justifying the policies were immoral, by consequence, if that immorality wasn't obvious, at the first. Nothing 'had to be' this way, it wasn't determined because of the nature of a virus.

* "Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it become a universal law".

(i.e. One person evidently infects another. Extrapolated to "a universal law", by will, the doctrine which follows is all must prevent every person infecting anyone, and all are responsible to the rest. Then act personally on that maxim. )

That worked well.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Government vs. The “Public Health”

by Harry Binswanger | Sep 22, 2021 | Healthcare

Government has no "public health" role. It has only a "public freedom" role.

 

"In this pandemic, the government’s policy should have been: nothing". HB.

That's Binswanger's stand out line, for me. "Nothing" -  means - nothing. Absolutely - but I think he self-contradicts and is inconsistent by bringing govt. in further on .

He also (e.g.) says the govt. must act against a malicious (presumably, rarely - how do you know?) spreader of Covid, as if he were a dangerous motorist?

A flawed analogy, there may be a tiny few cases of motorists, or a Covid-infected person, targeting a pedestrian or another person with intent. The act must be proven. A reckless motorist is visibly obvious and when reported or witnessed by police will be punished. Does coughing at someone, prove intent - or - recklessness? Some will maliciously claim that occurred to them, out to get an innocent party punished. Proof needed. The courts will be at capacity forever with all the cases.

The individual rights HB appeals to to make govt. retaliation possible, is - the right to freedom of action - it needs repeating. One has the right to drive on the roads. One does not have the right to walk into the road without harm. 

As recent as this essay is, HB makes no specific reference to mandated vaccinations, oddly. This is what matters now. Public health versus private health, in the context of vaxxes. I can only guess he would be against, by virtue of individual rights, govt. interventions, etc.,  but he should say so explicitly.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

As recent as this essay is, HB makes no specific reference to mandated vaccinations, oddly. This is what matters now. Public health versus private health, in the context of vaxxes. I can only guess he would be against, by virtue of individual rights, govt. interventions, etc.,  but he should say so explicitly.

I've heard him speak on the FDA, which he references as the Federal Death Administration. I think he follows the advice she provides in her non-fiction writing course, to delineate a topic and not bring up points that would not be addressed in the time allotted. 

———

As to his stance on what the government ought have done, the context is to leave public health to the public and go about upholding the conditions necessary for folk to act freely. 

During flu season, or when any other pathogen becomes of personal concern, it is the individual responsible for maintaining their immune system, and avoiding "walking in the middle of the road", or going into areas where "crime is more often reported to occur", and to steer clear of venues where a higher risk of contagion exist. 

A local hospital has a temperature checkpoint that does a pre and post mask temperature scan (two stations). To the extent the place is private property, it is their castle, it is their admission hoops to jump through. 

I can take a pulse ox device at home and monitor specific measurable results. Are there other obstacles in the way (other than technological capabilities) of developing general or specific pathogen detectors? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

it starts as plausible then each section is progressively baseless with a lot of sophistry.

The part about ventilators is the worst, and misconstrues things to an incredible degree. It even claims that the CDC recommended using ventilators over noninvasive methods, but I looked at the article they link, and ventilators are not mentioned at all. It's trickery, getting you to think that because ventilators were used meant that ventilators were thought to be a cure.

The icing on the cake are the conspiracies at the end.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There has been nil philosophy, not sufficient Objectivist input too, applied in any of this pandemic and (automatically-) resulting measures until the present. Only a short term, concretist, determinist tactic by bureaucrats,

I am trying to clarify one philosophical point.  Most people in the modern world, especially most politicians, are very unphilosophical.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Which philosophical point?

As I have repeatedly stated, unnecessarily increasing physical risk may rise to physical force. 

52 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I looked at the first three points.

The first needs a lot more documentation.

The second conveniently slides over a key point revealed by its own charts:  The years with Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR) less than 2020 are exactly the most recent years just before 2020.  2020 is a jump upward and a clear exception to the general long-term trend of decline in the ASMR.

The third repeats a very misleading statement about how COVID-19 deaths are counted.  We've been over this before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2021 at 5:34 PM, Doug Morris said:

The second conveniently slides over a key point revealed by its own charts:  The years with Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR) less than 2020 are exactly the most recent years just before 2020.  2020 is a jump upward and a clear exception to the general long-term trend of decline in the ASMR.

The third repeats a very misleading statement about how COVID-19 deaths are counted.  We've been over this before.

There is a tempting and common error to fall into that Covid ~increased~ the global mortality by 4.6 million over this pandemic period. Altogether leaving aside how Covid deaths are counted and the accuracy, the calculation is illogical. Bluntly put, a large number, the extremely aged, also those younger with severe comorbidities - - would have died that year anyway. Known, the 85+ age group formed the bulk of fatalities. It is recorded (below) that 58.39 million died in the world from all causes in 2019, the year pre-pandemic. But 2020 (and 2021) won't record an uptick or 'spike' of 4.6+ mil (totaling ~63+ million) over and above that. A fair percentage, maybe a majority, some math boffin doubtless will estimate, were lost somewhat earlier to Covid by a few weeks or months, briefly shortening their 'natural' lifespan. No less saddening for those personally involved.

Some relevant projections of world birth and deaths from all causes charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to estimate excess deaths by simply counting deaths regardless of cause and comparing actual deaths with a projection based on past data.  This avoids the problems you described.  It estimates total deaths caused one way or another by COVID-19, including COVID-19 deaths not recognized as such and side-effect deaths such as deaths due to overloading the healthcare system.  The Economist published an article today using this method.  It found a 95% confidence interval of between 9.7 million and 18.4 million deaths caused one way or another by COVID-19, with a best estimate of 15.7 million. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Bluntly put, a large number, the extremely aged, also those younger with severe comorbidities - - would have died that year anyway.

That's why it's weighted. It's a common and sensible procedure within statistics. Besides, "would have died anyway" would mean no change from the expected. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

  The Economist published an article today using this method.  It found a 95% confidence interval of between 9.7 million and 18.4 million deaths caused one way or another by COVID-19, with a best estimate of 15.7 million. 

"Excess Deaths".

Indirect fatalities. Unrealistic figures, anyway, for the effects of overloaded hospitals. Maybe so, if they'd cited excess deaths due to lockdowns ...

This: https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/09/covid-19s-official-worldwide-death-toll-is-45m-economists-model-concludes-the-actual-number-could-be-15m.html

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Unrealistic figures.

What are your grounds for this?

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Did you even read the article?  Were you fooled because the link said "45" for 4.5?  This actually describes the same Economist article I talked about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepting on faith what projections scientists take from computer models is a big mistake, we should have learned.

They like to hugely overestimate fatalities, like this one. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-model-for-coronavirus-predictions-should-not-have-been-used-z7dqrkzzd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2021 at 5:07 PM, dream_weaver said:

I've heard him speak on the FDA, which he references as the Federal Death Administration. I think he follows the advice she provides in her non-fiction writing course, to delineate a topic and not bring up points that would not be addressed in the time allotted. 

———

As to his stance on what the government ought have done, the context is to leave public health to the public and go about upholding the conditions necessary for folk to act freely. 

 

Some ambiguity, a disparity between what I mean by "public v. private health". The public sphere IS the gvt. and gvt. regulations imposed on the society of individuals, in the definition I know. 

Private health is individual and the individual's concern, which is what he must be left alone to choose. He/she has the first and final decision to do anything or nothing for their bodies, whether to self-seclude from infection, or to remain active, to select - or not - any of the other Covid 'safety' protocols (while adhering to others' choices and property rights, naturally). Etc.

This logically extends onto vaccinations and govt. mandates, the most pressing issue of the time. AND what we see, in colloboration with gvt., most people "the public" demanding that each person must be vaccinating for the 'public good'. As HB will know vaxxes are part and parcel of the same principle, to be left alone.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
On 9/25/2021 at 11:07 AM, dream_weaver said:

As to his stance on what the government ought have done, the context is to leave public health to the public and go about upholding the conditions necessary for folk to act freely.

Some ambiguity, a disparity between what I mean by "public v. private health". The public sphere IS the gvt. and gvt. regulations imposed on the society of individuals, in the definition I know. 

Let me reword that then:

As to his stance on what the government ought have done, the context is to leave public individual's health to the public individual and go about upholding the conditions necessary for folk to act freely.

This does not substantially alter in my mind what I said with the exception of the technicality of terminology. Who knows, it may even spill over into my useage more casually having given that bit of additional thought.

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of hospitals and available beds has been trending downward for decades while population has been trending upward. The US, Canada , and the UK have larger populations and lower hospital bed capacity now then they had since the 70's. It's become way easier to 'overload' the shrinking capacity.

A curious counterintuitive fact was that in 1975 in the US there were ~1.4 million beds that were ~72% utilized, while in 2015 there were~991k beds at ~69% utilization rate , with a population increase that seems to indicate way better well care ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Accepting on faith what projections scientists take from computer models is a big mistake, we should have learned.

They like to hugely overestimate fatalities,

If the projections used by the Economist study overestimated deaths without COVID-19, then they underestimated the number of deaths caused by COVID-19.  The effect of COVID-19 would then be even worse than they said. 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Some ambiguity, a disparity between what I mean by "public v. private health". The public sphere IS the gvt. and gvt. regulations imposed on the society of individuals, in the definition I know. 

Private health is individual and the individual's concern, which is what he must be left alone to choose. He/she has the first and final decision to do anything or nothing for their bodies, whether to self-seclude from infection, or to remain active, to select - or not - any of the other Covid 'safety' protocols (while adhering to others' choices and property rights, naturally). Etc.

This logically extends onto vaccinations and govt. mandates, the most pressing issue of the time. AND what we see, in colloboration with gvt., most people "the public" demanding that each person must be vaccinating for the 'public good'. As HB will know vaxxes are part and parcel of the same principle, to be left alone.

This distinction ignores how individual choices can increase the risk of spreading the disease. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Accepting on faith what projections scientists take from computer models is a big mistake, we should have learned.

They like to hugely overestimate fatalities, like this one. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-model-for-coronavirus-predictions-should-not-have-been-used-z7dqrkzzd

You mean statisticians, and it isn't "they". It's the particular statistician and his model. It isn't the methods of statistics that are the problem, but what people who aren't statisticians think the statistics mean. Sure, you can't take things on faith because some statisticians are bad at what they do, but you also need to trust at times that sometimes statistics reveal something completely unintuitive. Or better yet, say you don't know - because ultimately lockdowns being enforced by the government is wrong even if the worst-case scenario predicted of covid is true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 10:49 PM, Doug Morris said:

If the projections used by the Economist study overestimated deaths without COVID-19, then they underestimated the number of deaths caused by COVID-19.  The effect of COVID-19 would then be even worse than they said. 

This distinction ignores how individual choices can increase the risk of spreading the disease. 

Can increase and can DEcrease the risk. Humans are capable of self-redirection. Where each is left alone to make personal decisions. Statisticians more than many scientists are essential determinists. This cause can only have that outcome.

What every individual needs is the most accurate, up to date information from their govt. disease control scientists. This promotes and presumes a level of trust going both ways - trust in the officials - and the people not treated like unthinking, non-volitional automata who are too infantile to be left alone, who therefore must be forced to behave for 'the good' of the whole society. In aggregate, everyone's own best self-interested responses adds up to the good of a society. The severity of coronavirus didn't need exaggerating, or facts held back, by statisticians, scientists and media, which it was. People treated like adults and equipped with knowledge will mostly respond with good sense. 

Logic and human values would ensure that all and any interventions should have been concentrated on protecting the group at high risk, by the concerned individuals themselves, while normal functions continue. Almost certainly reducing fatalities, I think. If you spread the responsibility you lessen the care. (And govt, involvement, resources and responsibility aimed only toward those people in the care of the state, and the homeless etc. A mammoth effort, though nothing like the scale of interventions the noble, power-addicted 'crats did undertake "for our good"). For reasons best known to those in Gvt. and the most publicized scientists in the media, the crucial facts relating to comorbidity, age, sex etc. were not very heavily promoted, I noticed. Not many people were aware of them. That raises valid suspicions of pandemic-panic 'politicization'. Because of not following the rational, individual, focused method, the moral suggestion remains that everyone is equally involved and everyone must equally share collective responsibility/guilt for others. The total effects of Covid -and- lockdowns -and- "social responsibility" leading up to these present vaxx mandates have been predictably as bad as they had to be.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 10:49 PM, Doug Morris said:

 

This distinction ignores how individual choices can increase the risk of spreading the disease. 

You load overmuch onto the individual. It's not the moral vice (that you always make it out) for one to "increase the risk of spreading the disease". Individual choices are - individual - and can't be made, with the best of intentions, on behalf of other (in the abstract) people's benefit. They look after their own best interests, or ought to. The natural spread of a virulent virus is not containable, you must have realized by now, DM. After every societal protocol and harsh measure has been imposed and rigidly carried out, they dismally failed to halt mass transmission. So while one might not actively wish to transmit it to others, one also cannot and shouldn't actively attempt to prevent transmission (perhaps by locking oneself away indefinitely and individually reducing 'the risk of spread' by all of (say) .000001%.

Others' property rights assumed, the usual considerate and self-interested behavior applies and little more: when one feels sick stay at home a while, similarly if one tests positive. For those who are vulnerable, they proceed on the assumption that the virus is around in every place and avoid those places.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Individual choices are - individual - and can't be made, with the best of intentions, on behalf of other (in the abstract) people's benefit.

But we must refrain from unnecessarily endangering others.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The natural spread of a virulent virus is not containable

Not entirely true.  The spread can be limited.

Part of the problem was that there was politically motivated resistance to even reasonable control measures.  People misguidedly thought they were fighting for freedom by refusing to take any control measures at all, a very destructive confusion.

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...