Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

That can easily be a problem. 

Easy Truth, why did you react so negatively to my post of which this was the second sentence?  I was agreeing with you that the government has too much power to claim immunity.  How much of my post did you read?  How carefully did you read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible for individual police to be guilty of recklessness or excessive zeal in enforcing laws against burglary, shoplifting, counterfeiting, other forms of theft, driving under the influence, obstructing traffic, creating a disturbance, or other crimes.  It is possible for this to cause harm, even death, to innocent people.  If the police have too much immunity in such cases, it is not valid to use this as an argument for defunding the police or for repealing laws against burglary, shoplifting, counterfeiting, other forms of theft, driving under the influence, obstructing traffic, creating a disturbance, or other crimes.  It just means we need to address the problem of excessive immunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the current slate of covid vaccines “leaky”? Do they offer a significant brake on transmission with a demonstrated safety for all potential recipients?

Do we not need to answer these questions before applying moral arguments for mandating policy for their use ?

Their use seems at this point to demonstrate a therapeutic effect against disease severity among recipients but they do not seem to provide a blanket brake on transmission, if that were the case , is an argument for mandated use appropriate in regards to initiation of force principles ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

I am arguing for vaccine requirements but not for immunity.

I am arguing that you can't do that, it's impractical. Meaning if you as Government "require", then you require without acceptance of a limitation to require.

To require is to require without giving a right to opposition.

When you are required not to murder, it's not limited. You can't murder once every ten years.

If you are required to get a vaccination, then you have to get the vaccination even if it kills you.

Usually the argument you get is a utilitarian argument, do it because the benefits are more. 1 out of a thousand will die of the vaccine.

But once you have required it, it means "you must" or else. And if you resist, it means a gun to your head, and if you resist that, it mean you die.

If there is no immunity as you advocate, if the government can be stopped, then the "requirement" turns into an "advisement".

Maybe you are arguing for vaccine advisement or encouragement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 5:13 PM, Doug Morris said:

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

The "other people" placed in "physical danger" are whom ... exactly?

Limited only to all the other unvaccinated people, surely? Those who, for irrational -and/or considered, and rational (taking as much information and their personal risks into account) - beliefs and reasons are equally "in physical danger" as they are.

Conversely, a vaccinated person has no cause to fear and be outraged at them: he/she's life and health is safe, largely.

Why the outrage?

The spread continues by the vaccinated as well, it's been shown. At some point, when the vaccinated AND the unvaccinated (by catching and mostly recovering from Covid, if they have not done so already) have reached partial herd immunity, one could predict the spread would start contracting.

So the outrage against the unvaxxed refuseniks is driven by morality - everyone's sacrificial duty to all others.  "Screw your freedoms!"  Arnie S.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Do they offer a significant brake on transmission with a demonstrated safety for all potential recipients?

 

Vaccines significantly reduce the danger of infection, and therefore significantly reduce the danger of transmission.  The reduction does not have to be "blanket".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

When you are required not to murder, it's not limited. You can't murder once every ten years.

If the police mistakenly jump to the conclusion that someone is committing a murder and gun him down, they should be held accountable.

If a murderer is surrendering without resistance and the police gun him down, they should be held accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If you are required to get a vaccination, then you have to get the vaccination even if it kills you.

 

I support medical exceptions.

If the government requires someone to get vaccinated and they die from it, I support making heavy restitution to their estate.

If the death is due to the malice or negligence of a doctor, nurse, national guardsman, bureaucrat, or other person working for the government, that guilty person should be held accountable.

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But once you have required it, it means "you must" or else. And if you resist, it means a gun to your head, and if you resist that, it mean you die.

People who resist vaccination should be fined or incarcerated, not killed.

The only way they would be killed would be if they pull a gun, knife, or bomb or assault someone, and maybe not even then.

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If there is no immunity as you advocate, if the government can be stopped,

No immunity means the government and its officials, employees, and representatives can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.  It does not mean they can not use force.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

If the police mistakenly jump to the conclusion that someone is committing a murder and gun him down, they should be held accountable.

If a murderer is surrendering without resistance and the police gun him down, they should be held accountable.

Now you are talking mistakes or trickery or incompetence. As in if the vaccine is known not to work but is administered or done incorrectly.

I'm talking about a vaccine that potentially can harm, even kill a small percentage of people.

The only way I have seen people justify the "requirement", with the threat of incarceration etc, is the efficacy based on some statistic. That the benefits outweigh the negatives. And therefore it can be mandated.

But when should you stop?

  • A mandate to stop smoking
  • A mandate not to eat ice cream or soda
  • A mandate to have proper shoes on
  • A mandate to love thy neighbor
  • A mandate to pay into social security
  • A mandate to exercise
  • etc.

Ultimately another question comes up: if you are required to be vaccinated, and the vaccine kills you. How is the CDC et. al. held accountable?

It seems the argument is going toward the ethics of prior restraint type regulation.

Now keep in mind, a business should be able to require employees to be vaccinated, or to wear shoes or not talk politics. I am talking about the one size fits all governmental solution vs. governments role as the protector or rights.

The only argument I can see you making should be "it benefits most people". It might for now. But that power you are giving the government can easily be used to enslave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The "other people" placed in "physical danger" are whom ... exactly?

Anyone whose risk of infection is increased, whether directly or indirectly.  Everybody or almost everybody, to varying degrees.

37 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Limited only to all the other unvaccinated people, surely? Those who, for irrational -and/or considered, and rational (taking as much information and their personal risks into account) - motives, are equally "in physical danger" as they are.

A vaccinated person has no cause to fear and be outraged at them: he/she is safe, largely.

Why the outrage?

(Emphasis added.)

There is some risk even for vaccinated people.

If a person shares responsibility for their danger, it is still physical force to put them in even greater danger.

It is not a question of outrage.  It is a question of identifying physical force and restraining it.

44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The spread continues by the vaccinated as well, it's been shown. At some point, when the vaccinated AND the unvaccinated (by catching and mostly recovering from Covid, if they have not done so already) have reached herd immunity, one would think the spread would start contracting.

Refusal to vaccinate increases the amount of sickness and death that happens before the spread contracts.  
Thus it increases the danger to each individual.

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

So the outrage is driven by moral causes - one's sacrificial duty to 'others'.  "Screw your freedoms!" 

Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Thus it increases the danger to each individual.

That seems to be at the core of the argument, right?

But why shouldn't a voluntary reaction be "required" to be respected?

Then the argument may be that most people are not rational, they should be forced.

The "we are flawed" argument therefore government should force us to do "what is good".

Is that sort of what you are advocating?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

I'm talking about a vaccine that potentially can harm, even kill a small percentage of people.

If the police use tear gas, and one person is highly allergic to it and dies, the rarity of that should not give the police or the government immunity.

10 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The only way I have seen people justify the "requirement", with the threat of incarceration etc, is the efficacy based on some statistic. That the benefits outweigh the negatives. And therefore it can be mandated.

 

19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The only argument I can see you making should be "it benefits most people". It might for now. But that power you are giving the government can easily be used to enslave.

In my argument, the issue of physical force is crucial, as I have already explained.

13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But when should you stop?

  • A mandate to stop smoking
  • A mandate not to eat ice cream or soda
  • A mandate to have proper shoes on
  • A mandate to love thy neighbor
  • A mandate to pay into social security
  • A mandate to exercise
  • etc.

No to all of these, because failure to do any or all of these things does not constitute physical force.

15 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Ultimately another question comes up: if you are required to be vaccinated, and the vaccine kills you. How is the CDC et. al. held accountable?

 

34 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

If the government requires someone to get vaccinated and they die from it, I support making heavy restitution to their estate.

If the death is due to the malice or negligence of a doctor, nurse, national guardsman, bureaucrat, or other person working for the government, that guilty person should be held accountable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
22 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Thus it increases the danger to each individual.

That seems to be at the core of the argument, right?

No, the core of the argument is that increasing the risk of the spread of disease is physical force.

16 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But why shouldn't a voluntary reaction be "required" to be respected?

Then the argument may be that most people are not rational, they should be forced.

The "we are flawed" argument therefore government should force us to do "what is good".

Is that sort of what you are advocating?

Anyone who initiates physical force of any kind is at the very least mistaken or misguided.  In many cases, they are irrational.  Arguing for the restraint of such actions does not constitute saying that all or most people are irrational or flawed.  Carrying your argument out consistently would imply that we shouldn't define any crimes at all, not even murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

So I disagree with John Stossel on this.  So what? 

You support a tyrannical government? Under the irrational pretext of 'initiation of force' by those unmasked,  unvaxxed?

It looks like you are set against individual rights, not for them. People are ether entitled to think and choose for themselves, or are denied that right and lose their liberty.

One can't pick and choose, *when* for freedom and *for whom* the freedom, if one is to hold libertarian convictions.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

It is not a pretext, as I have explained elsewhere.  You are becoming tiresome.

You have not given an explanation, you have rationalized and endlessly repeated an irrational position.

i.e. Someone catching an infection has to involve "initiation of force". By and from - 'someone'. Who? Doesn't matter - someone aimed it at me.

That is plain antiscience and non-objective. Same old - same old, mistaking the metaphysical (a virus infecting the human host) for the man-made (one host's ¬deliberate¬ transmission to another, then to another etc. ).

You haven't stopped to think that with all the so-called safeguards rigorously and harshly regimented around the world, corona has gone on rampaging. Something like a quarter of a billion infected. So which person is to blame?

The pretext for "somebody must pay" is to get the government involved to punish miscreants.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Anyone whose risk of infection is increased, whether directly or indirectly.  Everybody or almost everybody, to varying degrees.

(Emphasis added.)

There is some risk even for vaccinated people.

If a person shares responsibility for their danger, it is still physical force to put them in even greater danger.

It is not a question of outrage.  It is a question of identifying physical force and restraining it.

Refusal to vaccinate increases the amount of sickness and death that happens before the spread contracts.  
Thus it increases the danger to each individual.

Nonsense.

Please open your eyes and think. The depth of outrage displayed is from those who want moral control over and punishment enacted upon any dissenters. It's not disease and sickness that most concerns them, it's anyone's independent mind to choose for himself (wrongly or rightly).

Do you uphold freedom, from people and the force of government?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

No, the core of the argument is that increasing the risk of the spread of disease is physical force.

Ok good we can go with that.

I suppose depends on the percentage of risk which will differ for recipients.

If you know that someone has it and is not taking measures you have some leverage to quarantine them. That is much higher risk but it is a risk I suppose. But it is an individual identifiable  risk.

But now we are talking about people who don't know if they are carriers.

This would probably apply to environmental issues too.

Like burning something on a hot day in a forest with dry brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You have not given an explanation, you have rationalized and endlessly repeated an irrational position.

You should learn by now that nobody cares what you think. Seriously. No one cares, people are more often annoyed by you than anything. 

Please split the thread from page 4, DW. This is all messy and off-topic (people can talk about it of course I just want things organized).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You should learn by now that nobody cares what you think. Seriously. No one cares, people are more often annoyed by you than anything. 

 

Not even individual rights and freedom slipping away - being meekly surrendered? On a libertarian/objectivist platform? Few care, it seems you are right.

I have not seen one logical and principled answer to why one should not equally defend the right to choose what they put in their bodies, of even/especially those one disagrees with. Basic stuff, for libertarians.

(as for initiating physical force with an infection...)

Don't think Eiuol, that I've been unaware of your efforts to discourage anyone from discussion with me.

A pity, and I thought independent Objectivist minds was a given. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
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


×
×
  • Create New...