Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

A threat of incarceration isn't an invitation to a social club.

 

Defining specific initiations of physical force and providing fines (probably sufficient in this case) or incarceration for violations does not constitute giving the government unlimited power.

34 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

If a (2 percent) statistical likelihood description of "each" of us can be used to describe a specific person, anything can happen.

All I'm saying is that failure to mask or to vaccinate increases the risk of spread of the disease, and that this can rise to the level of an initiation of physical force.

36 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Doug, if Covid had a .0001 percent likelihood of causing death, would you still advocate forced vaccination.

No.

37 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Also, is there any place for voluntary behavior?

Voluntary behavior is helpful and desirable, but we should not always rely on it exclusively.

It is a very good thing that most people voluntarily refrain from murder, rape, robbery, and arson.  If the reverse were true, very few people would survive.  But we should not rely exclusively on voluntary behavior to avoid murder, rape, robbery, and arson. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Some humans commit crimes.

Not all.

Each (and all) humans will wear ankle bracelets to counter the risk.

Not wearing an ankle bracelet does not in any way endanger anyone.  There is no justification for requiring everyone to wear one.  The only legitimate use for an ankle bracelet is to enforce a legitimate court order for a particular person to limit their movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
53 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Doug, if Covid had a .0001 percent likelihood of causing death, would you still advocate forced vaccination.

No.

Alright, then there is a percentage that is the cutoff point. Hopefully an objective one. Do you know what that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

All I'm saying is that failure to mask or to vaccinate increases the risk of spread of the disease, and that this can rise to the level of an initiation of physical force.

Yes, but your argument hinges on the "spread" of something undesired by "some" i.e. those who are actually under threat.

The unknown issue is the problem. Like pollution. No one knows if they are actually under threat. But the mandate imposes protection on those who don't need it too. Similar to Obama care that make men pay for pregnancy too. 

That is why I press for individual liability.

  • It is not a one size fits all.
  • It respects property.
  • It respects the right to self defense.
  • And it is not unlimited power given to the government. 

When the risk is high, costs go up in particular regions for particular reasons. You may counter that by saying Covid does not respect geography. If so, that gives the US to invade Mexico because of that Lax Covid policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I haven't pinned down the exact cutoff point.  But if ICU's are overflowing, we must have exceeded it.

Then you are arguing for the best poison amongst what we have. You would have to indicate that your arguments are based on the current corrupt system we have. Not on what ultimately should be. Because then, you may be right.

I say this because in an Objectivist society, the market takes care of overflow of patients. Demand goes up, prices go up and more are built and some will become rich over it. Government should not be managing this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

undesired by "some" i.e. those who are actually under threat.

Everyone is under threat to some extent.

Even if only one person were under threat, it would be initiation of physical force to unnecessarily endanger that person.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The unknown issue is the problem. Like pollution. No one knows if they are actually under threat. But the mandate imposes protection on those who don't need it too. Similar to Obama care that make men pay for pregnancy too. 

I'm not sure how well you understand the situation.  You need to explain this more fully.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

individual liability

It is not workable to apply individual liability to COVID-19 because we don't know which person(s) infected which.  Also, I am trying to forbid the initiation of physical force rather than address it after it takes place.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

that gives the US to invade Mexico because of that Lax Covid policy.

Invading Mexico would be a gross overreaction unless we were dealing with a zombie apocalypse and so many Mexicans had become zombies that the government had collapsed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

in an Objectivist society, the market takes care of overflow of patients. Demand goes up, prices go up and more are built and some will become rich over it.

That takes time.

Far less time and money than without.

If it was a "free market culture" from day one, labs in California would have done tests. CDC would NOT have prevented it.

Masks prices would have gone up and production would have ramped up immediately without a Nanny state medical system. Medicine and services would be far cheaper and far more available than they are right now. For instance testing kits from South Korea could have been used without obstacles. Doctors would be plentiful moving from place to place or remotely servicing with licensing issues.

Hospital Beds would have increased in response. In fact small places to keep patients separate would have sprung up because there would be no roadblocks to doing so.

Old people homes would not be forced to take in infected people.

People who wanted to use the vaccine before it was fully tested would have done so.

All of this much sooner than a government that was actively preventing all this.

(And other items I will have missed)

Bureaucracy slows down all this stuff. A free market combats this type of thing far faster than central planning. Especially where everything is politicized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

that gives the US to invade Mexico because of that Lax Covid policy.

Invading Mexico would be a gross overreaction unless we were dealing with a zombie apocalypse and so many Mexicans had become zombies that the government had collapsed. 

If as a government, you have a right to force people to vaccinate to "decrease risk", shouldn't it also force populations outside our borders to do so assuming it is cheap and easy to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The unknown issue is the problem. Like pollution. No one knows if they are actually under threat. But the mandate imposes protection on those who don't need it too. Similar to Obama care that make men pay for pregnancy too. 

I'm not sure how well you understand the situation.  You need to explain this more fully.

It goes back to the issue of treating the guilty and the innocent the same.

As in charging a mass of people for a service, even when some need the service while some do not.

The right to mandate the way you speak of it is similar to the right to tax people.

I'm assuming you will argue that a government has a right to fund it self by forcing everyone to pay something regardless of if they think they need it or not.

Some people are paying for something they do not need or use.

Isn't it a similar principle that you are using for Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

I am trying to forbid the initiation of physical force rather than address it after it takes place.

I would argue that this is an attempt to forbid the initiation of force by initiating force.

You are not advocating self defense of the individual. The right to incarcerate someone who is in fact sick with Covid and is sneezing on supermarket food stuffs and refuses to stay home is different than arresting someone who is not vaccinated and is tested and does not have Covid. You are advocating to treat them the same because of "lack of vaccination". Again I am using the innocent and guilty metaphor, they are treated the same.

As far a liability goes, the supermarket that does not do anything about it should be sued by someone who contracted it and that can be proven to be (like a dna test). Maybe it is after the fact and maybe it is rare, but the right to do so immediately causes a chain reaction in the entire society.

I don't think you are arguing the supermarket should NOT have the right to do so, but some on this forum do seem to advocate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify is this discussion centered on when  in principle it is legitimate for government to take action against the spread of infectious disease as abstraction ? Or discussing the Covid epidemic specifically and whether or not current government action aligns with principles of good governance ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

To clarify is this discussion centered on when  in principle it is legitimate for government to take action against the spread of infectious disease as abstraction ? Or discussing the Covid epidemic specifically and whether or not current government action aligns with principles of good governance ?

I try to stay away from talking about the current government because there is a corrupt crony medical system entrenched, politicised research and implementation, and a population that is not used to be responsible for themselves which could justify anything. In that situation it could be an emergency and it's pick your poison.

From what I have seen discussed throughout this forum, there are three fundamental positions:

1. Forced Vaccination  by Government

2. Non forced vaccination but allow liability

3. Non forced vaccination and disallow liability 

I would argue for number 2 in principle.

I see some merit to "increasing risk is initiation of force" but only if it is active and intentional because simply "being" increases risk. The amount of risk is going to be relevant in declaring an emergency situation.

Also, I would emphasize that to treat a person who is "not a threat" the same way as a person who "is a threat" is unjust. Once injustice permeates a society there are many ways to rationally navigate it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 5:19 PM, 2046 said:

"I better not leave my house because some stranger unknown to me may not know if I'm a risk" is literally what they think and how they expect you to live your life. They are often enraged when encountering someone who doesn't. The proper response is telling them "I simply no longer care if I or anyone else gets covid."

Or I could tell them "I would rather catch COVID-19 than be ruled by you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 4:12 PM, Easy Truth said:

I say this because in an Objectivist society, the market takes care of overflow of patients. Demand goes up, prices go up and more are built and some will become rich over it.

Even if we can quickly expand ICU capacity as needed, needing to do so indicates that we have exceeded the cutoff point.  ICU's are not magic.  Some of the people in ICU's will die.  Others will have serious long-term damage to their bodies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 6:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

If as a government, you have a right to force people to vaccinate to "decrease risk", shouldn't it also force populations outside our borders to do so assuming it is cheap and easy to do so?

The point is not just decreasing risk, but stopping them from unnecessarily increasing risk.

Invading another country is a very drastic step with a  high cost both economically and in lives, including collateral damage.  It is only justified if very drastic reasons make it necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 6:27 PM, Easy Truth said:

I'm assuming you will argue that a government has a right to fund it self by forcing everyone to pay something regardless of if they think they need it or not.

Absolutely not.  Government has no such right.  The way in which government is financed must be drastically reformed.  But as Ayn Rand has said, this "is the last reform to advocate, not the first."

On 9/7/2021 at 6:27 PM, Easy Truth said:

Some people are paying for something they do not need or use.

Isn't it a similar principle that you are using for Covid.

My point is that anyone who refuses to mask or refuses to vaccinate, without a legitimate medical reason, is unnecessarily increasing the risk of spread of the disease, and that this can rise to the level of initiating physical force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 6:44 PM, Easy Truth said:

As far a liability goes, the supermarket that does not do anything about it should be sued by someone who contracted it and that can be proven to be (like a dna test).

Even with DNA, it is very difficult to prove that a particular person caught the disease from a particular source.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Absolutely not.  Government has no such right.  The way in which government is financed must be drastically reformed.  But as Ayn Rand has said, this "is the last reform to advocate, not the first."

My point is that anyone who refuses to mask or refuses to vaccinate, without a legitimate medical reason, is unnecessarily increasing the risk of spread of the disease, and that this can rise to the level of initiating physical force.

 

IF masking and vaccines are proving to be effective , which increasingly doesn't seem to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 7:35 AM, tadmjones said:

To clarify is this discussion centered on when  in principle it is legitimate for government to take action against the spread of infectious disease as abstraction ? Or discussing the Covid epidemic specifically and whether or not current government action aligns with principles of good governance ?

I am talking about the abstraction.  I am not trying to provide a complete set of rules, but to clarify the basic principles involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I see some merit to "increasing risk is initiation of force" but only if it is active and intentional because simply "being" increases risk. The amount of risk is going to be relevant in declaring an emergency situation.

 

Unnecessarily increasing physical risk is initiation of force.  Refusal to mask or to vaccinate is intentional.  It is possible to initiate force unintentionally, through negligence or recklessness.

22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Also, I would emphasize that to treat a person who is "not a threat" the same way as a person who "is a threat" is unjust.

Everyone is a threat to some extent, since they may have become infected and contagious since their last test.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
On 9/7/2021 at 1:12 PM, Easy Truth said:

I say this because in an Objectivist society, the market takes care of overflow of patients. Demand goes up, prices go up and more are built and some will become rich over it.

Even if we can quickly expand ICU capacity as needed, needing to do so indicates that we have exceeded the cutoff point.  ICU's are not magic.  Some of the people in ICU's will die.  Others will have serious long-term damage to their bodies. 

The point being made here was only that governmental management of this disease is not necessarily the fastest way to deliver needed goods and services to deal with it. Laisses faire Capitalism does a far better job.

Exceeding cutoff points or people dying in ICUs or ICU's being magical is irrelevant. The problems exist with any system.

The comment "it takes time" implied that the market is too slow to respond and I made the point that our governmental response was very slow to back up the point.

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...