Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Covid Passports

Rate this topic


Amit
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

My OWN life wouldn't be worth living if I made all my decisions on the basis of MY OWN safety, let alone the safety of some random 96-year-old dude two states away whom I'll never even meet.

 

You do get that point, don't you?  Is THAT much clear?

Obviously it is possible to overdo concern with safety.  It would be ridiculous to equip buses with lifeboats in case they get caught in a flood.  The question is where and how to draw the line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Obviously it is possible to overdo concern with safety.  It would be ridiculous to equip buses with lifeboats in case they get caught in a flood.  The question is where and how to draw the line.

 

Yes obviously , as the acquiescence of a significant portion of the population to the covid strictures has shown.

Where to draw the line ? At the rational analysis of the datum that could inform policy.

Here is a tragic example of how irrationality can lead to the use of force and the double tragedy of its excuse.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/01/16/outrageous-but-unsurprising-canadian-judge-tosses-case-against-guards-who-killed-a-woman-for-not-wearing-a-mask-n524001

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 9:28 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Sure, that would be an egregious violation of rights, but I don't believe it's a correct analogy to COVID.

I brought it up not just to talk about COVID-19, but also to talk about my example of poisoning the water.

Whether we are talking about COVID-19 or my example of poisoning the water, slipping peanuts into an allergic person's food is a much better analogy or comparison than your silliness about banning peanut butter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 7:57 AM, tadmjones said:

Here is a tragic example of how irrationality can lead to the use of force and the double tragedy of its excuse.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/01/16/outrageous-but-unsurprising-canadian-judge-tosses-case-against-guards-who-killed-a-woman-for-not-wearing-a-mask-n524001

Does this mean we need to "defund" the package deal known as "public health", including sanitation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Does this mean we need to "defund" the package deal known as "public health", including sanitation?

Public vs. private in this context means means healthcare delivered by an entity that is subject to liability. Once it is public or universal or owned by everyone, the responsibility can be evaded more easily vs. an entity that you have a contract with.

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Does this mean we need to "defund" the package deal known as "public health", including sanitation?

 

What are you talking about ?
 

The point was that it is irrationally to kill someone for not properly wearing a mask given what all the data on the lethality of Covid reveals.

What aspect of public health or sanitation was the judge defending in that case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I brought it up not just to talk about COVID-19, but also to talk about my example of poisoning the water.

Whether we are talking about COVID-19 or my example of poisoning the water, slipping peanuts into an allergic person's food is a much better analogy or comparison than your silliness about banning peanut butter.

 

I don't believe so.

 

In this analogy COVID is the peanut butter, yes?  And it makes sense that we properly label products which contain peanut products and separate them from those which don't, because a small number of people could die from eating peanut butter - just as a small number of people could die from catching COVID.  So far this analogy makes sense to me.

Now how would keeping ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE locked under house arrest for fear of peanut butter tie into this analogy?  It's even worse than banning all peanut butter; it's the total abolition of everybody's lives for fear of peanut butter.

 

I've mentioned that I wouldn't mind a forced quarantine for ebola or rabies FOR THOSE WHO'VE BEEN PROVEN to actually be carrying these diseases.  This is not only because these diseases are much more lethal than COVID but also because I think there are serious ethical problems with applying coercion to someone for something hypothetical, which we don't even know them to have.  It's the difference between banning everyone who has peanut oils on their hands from manufacturing food and banning just everyone from manufacturing food, just in case.

 

And honestly, as long as you agree that safety is not the only value which matters at all, I see the rest of this as derivative.  I'm right about how it applies to the details of COVID (and you're wrong about them) but as long as we agree on the yardstick which should be used you will eventually come around to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Now how would keeping ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE locked under house arrest for fear of peanut butter tie into this analogy? 

I don't support keeping ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE locked under house arrest for any reason.

The point I am trying to make about peanut butter is that it is irrelevant as an example because people know it contains peanuts and can avoid it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 9:28 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The reason I haven't gotten it is because the government tried making it mandatory for everyone, until the Supreme Court struck it down. 

That's pretty self sacrificial, because you're making a decision based on something besides what is for your own good, your self-interest. If you were forced, you would have no option, but since you aren't forced, getting a vaccine could be for any reason you want. If you say that is a good idea to get a vaccine, so you get one, but also say that vaccines in this case should not be mandatory, you are being perfectly consistent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 3:34 PM, Eiuol said:

That's pretty self sacrificial, because you're making a decision based on something besides what is for your own good, your self-interest. If you were forced, you would have no option, but since you aren't forced, getting a vaccine could be for any reason you want. If you say that is a good idea to get a vaccine, so you get one, but also say that vaccines in this case should not be mandatory, you are being perfectly consistent. 

Maybe so.  There certainly is an unnecessary risk I'm taking by remaining unvaccinated; it's an extremely small risk (proportional to the danger of COVID, itself) but it does exist and I do have the power to remove it.  So it may ultimately be a selfless thing to do.

 

That's not how I frame it when I'm thinking about it, though.  The terms I consider that decision in are the same ones which went through my mind when I kept asking my employer to permit me to break the lockdowns and return to work: that no hazard can ever be worth the renunciation of our own freedom.

 

Maybe I'll change my mind if nobody dares to utter the words "vaccine mandate" for a year or two.

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...