Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
On 9/7/2021 at 3:44 PM, Easy Truth said:

Again I am using the innocent and guilty metaphor, they are treated the same.

It is definitely a metaphor, something like saying that a murderer is guilty but someone who just slugs another person in the arm is innocent.

The principle is that by forcing vaccination, one is a treating a person who is a threat and a person who is not ... the same.

The rights of the person who is not a threat are being trampled on.

"Each of us" does not pose the same threat nor is "each of us" subject to the same threat as anyone else. The statistical threat is in a sense an average. Not that it does not come in handy in a triage or emergency situation, it does not accurately describe a particular person as a threat or not.

An 18 year old person who lives at home get's deliveries and pays his bills online, never interacting with anyone is treated the same as an 80 year old person one who lives among many active cases of Covid.

Different levels of risk are being averaged out and being treated as the "same" level of threat to "all", everyone, or each.

The idea that we all have the same level of threat is a metaphor, that government is acting on. It is a metaphor that you seem to support.

It is the primary tool used by an authoritarian system to control their population. The arguments seem to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
On 9/7/2021 at 3:44 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.

I don't think that this is an area that we have a major disagreement. I was just bringing up that there seems to be a school of thought in this forum that proposes something like: we should have a disclaimer mandate imposed on all the population like "you cannot sue for damages even if you can prove how the transmission took place". 

Meaning no liability ... no responsibility ... no right to self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

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

Agreed.

Some extent also includes infinitesimal.

You would have to specify everyone is a threat beyond the cutoff point to make it actionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

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 point I am making is that many people going into ICU's and/or suffering death or serious damage proves there is high risk, and that we must not unnecessarily increase this risk.  This, too is true regardless of what system is in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The idea that we all have the same level of threat is a metaphor, that government is acting on. It is a metaphor that you seem to support.

I am not saying that we all are subject to the same degree of threat or all causing the same degree of threat.  I am saying that anyone who refuses to mask or refuses to vaccinate without a valid medical reason is unnecessarily increasing the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

I am saying that anyone who refuses to mask or refuses to vaccinate without a valid medical reason is unnecessarily increasing the threat.

Combine that with the premise that maybe being positive for CoViD-19 is enough to be considered an initiation of force (not demonstrated true) and turn the choice to wear a mask or vaccinate from a moral issue into a legal one.

Early on, Michigan government was leaning on grocery stores and restaurants to be the enforcer for an executive order based on a law that later was deemed unconstitutional by a Michigan supreme court.

Now the federal level wants to enroll businesses that have over an arbitrarily selected number of employees to make vaccination mandatory (unless a 'valid' medical reason is given) or face punitive fines.

<sigh>

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I am not saying that we all are subject to the same degree of threat or all causing the same degree of threat.  I am saying that anyone who refuses to mask or refuses to vaccinate without a valid medical reason is unnecessarily increasing the threat.

You're implying that "a degree of threat" is the same as "beyond the cutoff point threat".

You never address the issue of the person that is an infinitesimal threat or zero threat. They exist too and they are a part of society.

In the case of a "quarantinable threat", it's clear cut. This is a threat that one should and can forcibly separate someone from society. Now that is beyond vaccination as in a vaccine won't fix deal with that.

With a vaccine you end up with two designations:

  • potential threat
  • reduced potential threat

We are not even talking about an actual threat!!!

The "a degree of threat" does not go away even with a vaccine. So the phrase as used is sort of meaningless. Everyone is, was, will be "a degree of threat".

So the threat of incarceration is to reduce threat one way or the other. You like to use the idea of "not increasing it" but I don't understand the significance.

Bottom line, I am arguing that this tramples on the rights of people in that they are not free to determine their own course of action. Some even know the effectiveness of the vaccine but don't want to take it. It is tantamount to saying "we know better, do what we say or you go to jail and if you resist, we shoot you".

The just way to do it is a campaign to convince people with non physical means which include boycotting them if they don't comply. But not a governmental mandate like we have with Biden's decree yesterday. A government should not have that kind of power. Even though China, Cuba, Vietnam and others have it and exercise it regularly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"Sure, people care about that. But no one here really cares what you say about that. Is there a reason that you think anyone finds things you say to be a worthwhile contribution? Just something to consider". Eiuol

--

The above was sent me by private message. As he has done openly before on the forum. Somehow this poster knows that "no one here really cares" what _I_ say on this subject.

I ask him 2 questions out in the open: how does he know what anyone and everyone thinks? I invite them to say so themselves.

How does my "contribution" on today's most important global concern, loss of individual freedom and rights to despotic, nanny governments using a pandemic for justification, coming from specifically me, be any less worthwhile? Because it came from me?

And, what allows this poster the least authority to attack my presence here? Something to consider.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 7:18 AM, Doug Morris said:

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.

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.

A virus is an element of nature and an inherent risk of life on Earth, not a weapon that an infected person goes around assaulting people with. If you don’t have symptoms, haven’t tested positive, or knowingly been exposed to an infected person, it’s rational to assume you’re not infected and go about your business. You can’t live if you have to assume you are infected with a deadly virus. 

Each individual’s health and safety is his own responsibility. The onus to stay home and/or get vaccinated is on those who are at risk.

Every medical treatment has benefits and risks. If you fear the risks of vaccination more than you fear the virus, you have an absolute right not to get vaccinated. No one has a duty to sacrifice himself by accepting potential bodily harm for the sake of protecting others.

The ardent anti-vaxxer’s assessment of the risks might be incorrect, but it’s his judgment, and he has a right to act on it, even if others disagree.

Edited by happiness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one person in a country has any doubt, reasonable or not, about the safety and efficacy of a treatment, his *right* to act on it by refusing the jab must be respected (If individual rights are considered sacrosanct) - even if his *decision* is not - by everyone else. There are a lot of reasonable doubts, and by a lot of healthy people, involving an individual's state of health and/or high antibody count, right up to the inefficiency and the small possibility of later side-effects, of these vaccines. He and his doctor know his body best. The choice is a risk/benefit one for individuals to make, not a mass coercion by edict or business and societal, psychological pressure. Exactly, 'happiness', what I've been saying.  I am glad you brought in self-sacrifice. All the insane outrage is partially about the sacrificers stamping moral control, as much as ideological/political control. "Who are you to be concerned first for your own body and health"!?

I don't know any 'anti'-vaxxers, I believe this is a collective term levelled at anyone who 1. wants time to carefully consider his/her options 2. opposes a universal vaccine mandate. 3. has natural immunity after infection 4. worries about what future freedoms will be lost after that mandate precedent is set. 

Many might well be pro-vaxx and anti-vaxx mandate.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, happiness said:

Related question—is Dr. Amesh Adalja an Objectivist? I respect and appreciate his medical insights either way.

Dr. Amesh Adaila has been invited to speak at the recent OCON and other ARI events. His insights gave me pause to rethink my stance toward vaccinations. I consider him to be objective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Dr. Amesh Adaila has been invited to speak at the recent OCON and other ARI events. His insights gave me pause to rethink my stance toward vaccinations. I consider him to be objective. 

Agreed. I guess if I had to ask, that was my answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And, what allows this poster the least authority to attack my presence here?

The fact that you choose to remain in Africa rather than emigrate to the U.S.A.?

I was raised under the aegis "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all." If nothing else, it taught me to be circumspect when choosing to disregard that aspect of my upbringing and to speak anyway. 

It takes more effort to find common ground than not, and it would be nice if it could be found by more folk more often. In an ideology where the answers to the question need be "right" or "wrong", identifying the essential questions become more important.

As King George demonstrated years ago, an authoritarian perspective does not always easily roll over and cede the point at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Dr. Amesh Adaila has been invited to speak at the recent OCON and other ARI events. His insights gave me pause to rethink my stance toward vaccinations. I consider him to be objective. 

I watched about half of a presentation he gave at OCON and so far he is 100% political animal , waiting for the sciency guy to emerge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I watched about half of a presentation he gave at OCON and so far he is 100% political animal , waiting for the sciency guy to emerge.

My experience was with an ARI invitation. I had seen a few Facebook comments regarding the OCON appearance. Would you have a link for the OCON presentation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I ask him 2 questions out in the open: how does he know what anyone and everyone thinks? I invite them to say so themselves.

I don't think anyone cares about the answer but you, so I won't bother. If you really want to know, take it back to PMs.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

My experience was with an ARI invitation. I had seen a few Facebook comments regarding the OCON appearance. Would you have a link for the OCON presentation?

I had not heard of the good doctor until neo’s post , I found a link to the presentation on his Twitter feed. Sorry but I am on a mini notebook and lack the skill to post a link at the moment, I will get a link for you when I’m on an easier device .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Thanks @tadmjones. For someone covering over 20 months of material and packing it into a 90 minute presentation including the question period . . . I'm not sure what more sciency to expect.

 

Exactly , this was a presentation on policy and not much on ( or at least what I've seen so far) virology, treatment ect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 2:05 PM, happiness said:

If you don’t have symptoms, haven’t tested positive, or knowingly been exposed to an infected person, it’s rational to assume you’re not infected and go about your business. You can’t live if you have to assume you are infected with a deadly virus. 

There is still some risk, and it is rational to avoid unnecessarily increasing it.  The question is, to what extent does unnecessarily increasing physical risk rise to the initiation of physical force.

If a person does not correctly understand what is necessary and what is not, this does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

On 9/12/2021 at 2:05 PM, happiness said:

A virus is an element of nature and an inherent risk of life on Earth, not a weapon that an infected person goes around assaulting people with. 

Almost anything can be weaponized, definitely including viruses.  Also, initiation of physical force can be due to negligence, recklessness, or errors of omission.  An example would be a person operating a car or using a gun negligently, recklessly, or without finding out about the risks involved.

  

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...