Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 8/24/2021 at 5:12 PM, Doug Morris said:

What is your justification for this statement?

I don't follow. You have to know that most people's lives are not at threat. Say, because +/- 8 billion of us are still alive despite this pandemic? And because viruses have been around and mutating for eons and we humans have survived them due to having a powerful immune system? (when it's healthy).

Or that the first thing made clear (in Northern Italy) about this pandemic, is this virus, like most, will hit hardest at the elderly (etc.etc.) leaving almost everyone else who gets infected unharmed, relatively or totally. Around 98-99%, I seem to recall, recover. It was always known by our scientists that many would die of (/with) the virus.

(Therefore, logically obvious you'd think, that all efforts should have been zeroed in by citizens, families, countries and their National Health authorities - exclusively - on them, those known and identified to be at highest risk. With them self-isolated, human functionality would have continued. Likely, too, a lower death toll. But there wasn't any logic, only a blanket policy forced on whole populations, then, prolonging the pandemic by attempting to slow the transmission rate via lockdowns and masking. (Possibly creating new strains of corona; definitely suppressing the effectiveness of people's immune systems).

Exactly, I'd add, moving forward to the present, as with vaccines. They are of highest value and most needed by that same vulnerable segment, the elderly etc.. Which is not preventing anyone else who feels they need it and wants to be vaccinated as a civic responsibility - their free choice.

And those who don't choose, cannot legally or morally be forced and intimidated to vaccinate. Their free choice.

But again, the new 'logic' dictates a blanket policy for all, irrespective of one's good health and pre-immunity. Get those jabs or else!

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

If you test positive for a Covid infection, only then should the question of quarantine legitimacy arise. In the absence of a legitimate quarantine policy, common courtesy should keep those interested in such decorum to refrain from putting others who potentially could be infected by it at risk.

It seems one basic argument is similar to

1. You are innocent until proven guilty

vs.

2. You are guilty until proven innocent

But the element of market solution is not prominent in the discussion. The analysis seems to be solely in terms of governmental fixing of the problem.

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I maintain that spreading air without knowing whether it contains COVID-19 virus is analogous to firing a gun without knowing whether it is loaded with blanks or live rounds.

And regarding Doug's example:

If someone is firing a gun in the air, and some people saw it, then there are some "self defense measures" that can and should be taken by others. The assumption being that the gun did not go off by itself.

I wonder if Doug may mean that If that person was never witnessed and the bullet hit no one, he still initiated force which should be dealt with. Now if risk goes up in society, from a market standpoint, insurance rates go up too. Question being, is governmental fixing mimicking that response?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I don't follow. You have to know that most people's lives are not at threat.

 

Most people are not immune and invulnerable. It is simply false. In other words, the truth is that there is some risk for everyone. 

Why do most people get vaccines for so many diseases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

 

Most people are not immune and invulnerable. It is simply false. In other words, the truth is that there is some risk for everyone. 

Why do most people get vaccines for so many diseases?

I am looking at the known consequences in the mass of people, you are looking from the personal.

You have seen the statistics of this pandemic. Age-related, comorbidities etc.

If not a single intervention had been made, the virus ignored, there would have - still - been the huge majority who didn't die of it.

One gets innoculated to protect oneself from a possible disease, and/or the worst effects of it. For ONESELF.

If one wanted to quibble, there is "risk for everyone" taking  a shower.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

No action against the shooter?

If , as in the example, the shooter can not be sure if they are firing blanks or bullets , how do we accurately assign any blame?

China absolutely knew there were live rounds. That's the shooter that needs to be aimed 'at'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

But the element of market solution is not prominent in the discussion. The analysis seems to be solely in terms of governmental fixing of the problem.

One market contribution were the vaccines that came forth. It was not without its share of governmental meddling as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What I'm trying to get clear is if the core argument is:

A Covid infection is never an initiation of force, therefore it is always the responsibility of the "catcher" of the virus.

Based on that, no one should be culpable i.e. you live in society, and these are the risks.

I am asking if that is Tony and Greg's position? Tad seemed to go that direction and then backed off.

This is all to do with common decency and ethics, not individual rights and culpability. The responsibility goes as far as one has 1. a self-awareness of feeling unwell, therefore, 2. an other-awareness, so to remove oneself from the company of people til one feels better.

If you are not and don't know you are a carrier, as with asymptomatic cases, you haven't a moral responsibility to others. Rather, those who are at risk, should selfishly avoid you and anyone else as potential infection risks.

My core argument. That virus infection has passed through - many - anonymous bodies to enter one's own, there have been unheeded, accidental airborne and surface contacts along the way. It's likely one transmits it further in that infectious chain. Say someone or other - eventually- dies by contracting it. Who in the chain supposedly "initiated force"? The very first guy who got off a ship with Covid? The multitudes in between? Oneself? Or the last one in line, who infected the deceased?

Did everyone incur upon everyone's individual rights? Impossible. Rationally, the infection can't be personalized and shouldn't be weaponized.

It's not all bad. That 'chain reaction' is the way every virus becomes neutralized (not eradicated entirely): strong immune systems tackle it and most become immune to it, so it simply runs out of fresh hosts to invade.

That's the absolute necessity for the vulnerable staying away from healthy and able people - herd immunity is still modern mankind's first line of defense, and most effective many virologists argue, against any new viruses - to be eventually supplemented by the appropriate vaccines when they are later developed.

This is quite unknown territory as I gather reading some experts, never have so many people globally been (and going to be) vaccinated (most without first gaining -¬some¬ herd immunity). A worry voiced by scientists is that in future the human immune system will weaken or fail as a result. And, that viruses will adapt and mutate quicker to combat vaccines.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I am looking at the known consequences in the mass of people, you are looking from the personal.

What does this even mean? I simply said that it is false that most people are immune and invulnerable, which logically entails that there is some risk for everyone. You said you didn't understand. Basically, you said you're lying, because you definitely do understand the reason for the question Doug asked, and are making the discussion worse for everyone. 

edit: and the fact that you think that natural herd immunity is generally most effective but vaccines are supplemental, is enough evidence that you don't understand how the risks of disease work in the first place.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I suppose I was responding to tone . I was provoked to retreat to a more concrete filter. 

So I’ll grant that an employer can ‘require’ that a condition of employment would be vaccination And that requirement would apply to any potential employee. 

Of course you will grant it, because you tried to claim that you said this but I didn't. You aren't granting it, because you already believed it. I don't think you were provoked, I think you were just trolling, and aren't saying anything you believe. So yeah, if you could try to engage a bit more honestly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

What does this even mean? I simply said that it is false that most people are immune and invulnerable, which logically entails that there is some risk for everyone. You said you didn't understand. Basically, you said you're lying, because you definitely do understand, and are making the discussion worse for everyone. 

edit: and the fact that you think that natural herd immunity is generally most effective but vaccines are supplemental, is enough evidence that you don't understand how the risks of disease work in the first place.

 

What are you talking about? It's a fact. Look at the stats published of this pandemic over one year ago and still accurate. Fact: Most people weren't going to and won't die of it. That's my meaning of immune and invulnerable.

And what comes first, the virus, the wide infections and some herd immunity -where not suppressed - OR - the (later) vaccine development?

We get BOTH, you see?

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Of course you will grant it, because you tried to claim that you said this but I didn't. You aren't granting it, because you already believed it. I don't think you were provoked, I think you were just trolling, and aren't saying anything you believe. So yeah, if you could try to engage a bit more honestly...

Honestly I was responding to your phrasing, it 'felt' like you saying that businesses have a right to control their employees actions.

By being 'concrete' I was trying to show how the principle of freedom of association would 'look' in the 'real world'. As an individual I alone would make the decision to be vaccinated or not, an employer can/has the right to set employment criteria that I may consider.

As I said it was tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still on responsibility and 'the right to not get infected'...

Of course, the "infection chain" is not only occurring in a linear direction. Infections branch out exponentially (making "test and track" an exercise in futility, one could surmise, except for small and closed environments - e.g. a ship, a remote village).

The Delta variant has much higher "R naught" (average transmission rate):

https://health-desk.org/articles/how-contagious-is-the-delta-variant-compared-to-other-infectious-diseases

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A blow for vaccine pro-choicers that rather neutralizes vaccine mandates.

 Even if one assumes that the studies cited are perfectly valid and that the conclusions stated are fully proven, the logical conclusion would be that people who have been infected should not have to be vaccinated and should be entitled to the vaccine passports.  It would still be appropriate to require people who have not been infected to be vaccinated.

The article ignores the point that vaccination reduces the risk of infection, and therefore reduces the risk of becoming contagious.

A few quotes from the article, with my comments:

"There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner." 

There is plenty of historical parallel for governments requiring people to be vaccinated against disease.

"Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk."

The article ignores the point that refusing to vaccinate contributes greatly to spread and thus puts other people in physical danger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The article ignores the point that refusing to vaccinate contributes greatly to spread and thus puts other people in physical danger. 

If you are the government, and you force someone to take a vaccine: If that vaccine harms, maybe kills a person, is the government automatically absolved of that damage (due to the mandate)?

This seems like the Trolley problem. If you do something, you are responsible. If you don't, someone get's killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It shouldn't be.

By it's nature, "the government", as in a business that goes bankrupt, will not be destroyed. Just some people will be replaced.

The "entity/person" that is the government can only be held responsible in the sense of voting it out.

One could say that "monopoly on force" includes a certain "immunity".

Is that the level of responsibility that they should be held to?

Would you agree that in effect, the government has immunity (and that is a problem).

In the case of Cuomo forcing old people homes to accept infected people, he most likely will say it was the best advice he got from many sources, maybe some outside of the country.

In the case of Newsom in California, he may be voted out based on the general dissatisfaction around Covid. Most likely not.

In the case of deaths due to poverty or lack of services, should a mandate exist to prevent "prevention of transmission" because a weak economy translates into some deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has whatever degree of immunity it chooses.  That can easily be a problem.  Voters may be able to have some say.  A constitutional amendment may help.

The most important thing is to get more people to understand what government is and what it should and shouldn't do.  This will lead to better election results, a better chance for good constitutional amendments, and better workings of the system.

On 9/1/2021 at 11:35 PM, Easy Truth said:

In the case of deaths due to poverty or lack of services, should a mandate exist to prevent "prevention of transmission" because a weak economy translates into some deaths?

No.  Poverty for some people does not translate into an obligation for anyone else.

The point I have been making is, first, that spreading disease is physical force.  Further, if one acts in a way that unnecessarily increases the risk that one will spread disease, one is initiating physical force.

The simple fact that someone is poor or dying or lacks services does not constitute evidence that they have been subjected to physical force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The government has whatever degree of immunity it chooses.

No Doug, a government mandate is a use of it's immunity to prosecution.

The fact that "it has whatever degree of immunity it chooses" and it can mandate something proves the point.

You can't mandate and limit your ability to mandate at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Easy Truth needs to give us a clear definition of the word "mandate".

to officially require (something) : make (something) mandatory : order a law mandating recycling also : to direct or require (someone) to do something a commission mandated to investigate corruption.

I was under the impression that you are arguing for official requirements for everyone to get the vaccine coming from the government. Or that the government should have such a function.

If not, can you say what you are arguing for?

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...