Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

This man is greatly exaggerating.

We need to be rational about exactly what restrictions to impose.  It doesn't help any that there is a lot of irrationality on both sides.

DM, This man can see way past the simple incident. He can reason from -this- to *that*.  From: a small business (illegally) imposed upon by the state to turn an ordinary employee into a policeman checking 'papers' at the door, making a most commonplace outing a harassment for customers. To: the theft of rights by our govt's for everybody. And businesses losing too.

He's rightfully and rationally angry. As would anyone who prizes the principle of liberty.

If you abstract from that one sample to the millions of times this same officiousness is happening every minute in the world ...what do you think the outcome is to human lives?

We need to "be rational" of course; without reasoning the statement is meaningless.

The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What exactly are the ‘sides’?

The side that thinks that vaccines should be required to at least some extent in at least some cases and the side that thinks they should never be required.  Some people might want to draw the line differently; perhaps it would be better to say that there are more than two sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

The side that thinks that vaccines should be required to at least some extent in at least some cases and the side that thinks they should never be required.  Some people might want to draw the line differently; perhaps it would be better to say that there are more than two sides.

I doubt if anyone could argue that vaccines should never be required. The question is by whom in what venue.

Privately they can be required.

The argument is against a mandate that everyone should get a vaccine or be incarcerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

The side that thinks that vaccines should be required to at least some extent in at least some cases and the side that thinks they should never be required.  Some people might want to draw the line differently; perhaps it would be better to say that there are more than two sides.

Fair enough, consider me in the first camp. I think given proper consideration of the populations’ risk of/ from disease, requirements for inoculation would/could be a rational response. ‘Public’ safety and health would be an overriding concern , based on the idea that unnecessary risk can/should be curtailed.

I’m not convinced the current slate of covid vaccines are provably as save and effective ‘enough’  to be considered necessarily safe so that their requirement , itself, isn’t , itself, an unnecessary risk , the thing the principle is trying to avoid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Fair enough, consider me in the first camp. I think given proper consideration of the populations’ risk of/ from disease, requirements for inoculation would/could be a rational response. ‘Public’ safety and health would be an overriding concern , based on the idea that unnecessary risk can/should be curtailed.

I’m not convinced the current slate of covid vaccines are provably as save and effective ‘enough’  to be considered necessarily safe so that their requirement , itself, isn’t , itself, an unnecessary risk , the thing the principle is trying to avoid. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-er-doctor-resigns-over-mandatory-vaccines-and-falsehoods/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The article headline focuses on "Kilian estimated that 80 percent of the patients she saw in the ER during the past month who had inexplicable symptoms were 'double vaxxed.'"  But there's no way to know what to make of this without knowing what percent of all the patients she had seen in the ER during the past month were 'double vaxxed.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 10:23 PM, Doug Morris said:

The side that thinks that vaccines should be required to at least some extent in at least some cases and the side that thinks they should never be required.  Some people might want to draw the line differently; perhaps it would be better to say that there are more than two sides.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of what your latest video says is relevant to my key point, although it might be relevant to exactly how we implement it.  Yet again, my key point is that refusal to mask or to vaccinate increases the risk of spreading disease, and that this may rise to physical force.

To clarify my position on some of the points raised in the video: 

I disapprove of demonizing people for not getting vaccinated.

I disapprove of anyone on any side of any issue letting their emotions do their thinking for them.

I am well aware that our society has many problems that trace back to bad philosophy leading people astray.

I am well aware that government does a lot of things it shouldn't do.

One example of egregious bad government action is the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, which contributed greatly to mistrust of both government and healthcare, especially among blacks.

Another example of egregious bad government action is restricting immigration, which is a violation of rights with many destructive consequences.  One of these consequences is forcing some people into a legal limbo which makes many things wrongfully difficult.

Perhaps not quite as egregious, but definitely a wrongful government action which makes possible many kinds of abuse, is setting up social security numbers and effectively forcing people to use them as a universal identifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM all anyone has to take from basic Objectivism, is that any deviation from individual rights, that is the free will of an individual to act in his favor (or not) has one outcome, the anti-concept, 'collective rights', where 'groups' compete to get government favor/power on their sides. The rest follows, either way. The two approaches of groupist competition anyone is familiar with: a) those 'others' are inferior or stupid people and must be shunned, condemned or worse b). those 'others' oppressed 'us' in the past and must be suppressed and shunned now for punishment and 'compensation'. There we get sacrifices forced by group on group; or "altruism-collectivism".

The vaxx fascists as I think of some like these CNN presenters, manipulate every angle. Lemon plainly indicates his feeling of superiority over 'those' people and he further believes he has the moral righteousness on his side from ancestral racial victimhood. He is an "egregious" collectivist and tribalist very pleased to foster one more group division - vaxxers from unvaxxers - so to politicize the issue. This is a preview of socialist control, brought about by pitting tribe on tribe, and why one has to insist on individual rights of choice (in this case and every case) for vaccination, not merely 'permitted' as a dispensation but actively fought for.

It's only in the absence of 'group rights' (and the subsequent controls) that that one can contemplate open immigration. That's the context you drop. In the mean time, with individual rights not what they should be in the States (assuredly worse elsewhere), the rights of the present citizens take precedence.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

DM all anyone has to take from basic Objectivism, is that any deviation from individual rights, that is the free will of an individual to act in his favor (or not) has one outcome, the anti-concept, 'collective rights', where 'groups' compete to get government favor/power on their sides. The rest follows, either way. The two approaches of groupist competition anyone is familiar with: a) those 'others' are inferior or stupid people and must be shunned, condemned or worse b). those 'others' oppressed 'us' in the past and must be suppressed and shunned now for punishment and 'compensation'. There we get sacrifices forced by group on group; or "altruism-collectivism".

The vaxx fascists as I think of some like these CNN presenters, manipulate every angle. Lemon plainly indicates his feeling of superiority over 'those' people and he further believes he has the moral righteousness on his side from ancestral racial victimhood. He is an "egregious" collectivist and tribalist very pleased to foster one more group division - vaxxers from unvaxxers - so to politicize the issue. This is a preview of socialist control, brought about by pitting tribe on tribe, and why one has to insist on individual rights of choice (in this case and every case) for vaccination, not merely 'permitted' as a dispensation but actively fought for.

There are evil people and misguided people on both sides of every issue.  They all tend to push us into some form of mysticism, altruism, collectivism, and statism.  In order to decide issues rationally we must get past them.

Again you ignore my key point, which I have repeatedly stated.

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It's only in the absence of 'group rights' (and the subsequent controls) that that one can contemplate open immigration. That's the context you drop. In the mean time, with individual rights not what they should be in the States (assuredly worse elsewhere), the rights of the present citizens take precedence.

Two wrongs do not make a right.  The existence of 'group rights' thinking (and the subsequent controls) does not justify violating people's rights to freedom of movement, production, and trade.  However, it might be appropriate to require that people pay taxes in this country for a certain period of time and/or up to a certain amount before they can benefit from such things as welfare and affirmative action.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 2:50 PM, tadmjones said:

Fair enough, consider me in the first camp. I think given proper consideration of the populations’ risk of/ from disease, requirements for inoculation would/could be a rational response. ‘Public’ safety and health would be an overriding concern , based on the idea that unnecessary risk can/should be curtailed.

Tad, you'll have to elaborate on this.

I just can't imaging a scenario where the government EVER has the right to put a gun to your head and inject something in your body without your consent.

I can imagine a person being forced to stay at home but not the injection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Tad, you'll have to elaborate on this.

I just can't imaging a scenario where the government EVER has the right to put a gun to your head and inject something in your body without your consent.

I can imagine a person being forced to stay at home but not the injection.

Re the definition of requirement in this thread.

There is no governmental right to forced injection , but in the guise of public health ,participation can be dependent on having received a specific inoculation. Eg enrollment in public/govt schools. Though I believe there would also be a concomitant rationale for exemptions and or accommodations.

In addition, I do not think the Wuflu raises to a level that warrants these measures, I’m commenting on the  discussion centered on the abstract principles of the OP.

Like Rand I think quarantining of actively infected/contagious is a rational safety response , but forced injection is the obliteration of autonomy.

Edited by tadmjones
Add clarification of topic
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...