Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Therefore in some cases it is not a criminal act. The problem is that a mandate does not distinguish between criminals and non criminals.

I was talking about different diseases, not different individuals.  However, people with legitimate medical reasons for not vaccinating should be exempt from a vaccine mandate.

16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

if there is a moral reason, it will inevitably be utilitarian.

Why?

16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Isn't a mandate like forced insurance?

No, it's more like forcing people not to be reckless with guns, cars, or fire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2022 at 9:04 AM, Doug Morris said:

I was talking about different diseases, not different individuals.  However, people with legitimate medical reasons for not vaccinating should be exempt from a vaccine mandate.

The problem is that most deaths caused by the vaccine are because the reaction to it is unknown. Some will die of it as they have. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine that someone who knows that the vaccine will kill them would take it, even with a mandate.

You still won't answer the question: What if the unvaccinated who will never be a threat, are forced into something that they don't want to? Isn't that a pure initiation of force?

You may ask, how would you know that they will never be a threat. It is the reverse argument of what you are making in that sense that, something that is not under your control can harm, well … something that is not under your control may make you harmless or even beneficial. But a mandate preemptively forces something punitive on them, meaning you punish them, and there is no corresponding reward if these people are beneficial. Their immunity could actually enhance the lives of others. Why shouldn't we reward them for the accidental benefit they bring to others?

The point is that any mandate is going to have a utilitarian (or statistical) based benefit as in: "most" will benefit … and a minority will be harmed.

On 9/5/2022 at 9:04 AM, Doug Morris said:

No, it's more like forcing people not to be reckless with guns, cars, or fire.

Recklessness has to be dealt with definitions of responsibility, sometimes contractually, with an agreement between the stake holders. It should and will be dealt differently in different "free" societies. Some will consider driving over 55 as being reckless, and some will have no speed limit. Some property owners will allow you to enter with loaded guns, and some will not.

Similarly, an HOA may require it's members to be vaccinated, or an business may require that.

A governmental mandate ultimately will be a utopic view imposed or forced on the population, like socialism is. It is not through contract/agreement, it is imposed. It is not voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid and the jabs can’t be included in this line of argument because the threat was never the risk the propaganda claimed and the ‘vaccines’ were known to be harmful, more hospitalizations were documented in the trials in the recipients of the mRNA shots than the control group. The long term effects of the jabs are unknown and transmission was never appreciably mitigated , it is obvious they were not safe nor effective. 

Forced quarantine during an ‘actual deadly pandemic ‘ would be an appropriate rational government response especially if a proven safe and effective vaccine were available, this was not that.

Vaccine mandates are by definition initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Covid and the jabs can’t be included in this line of argument because the threat was never the risk the propaganda claimed and the ‘vaccines’ were known to be harmful, more hospitalizations were documented in the trials in the recipients of the mRNA shots than the control group. The long term effects of the jabs are unknown and transmission was never appreciably mitigated , it is obvious they were not safe nor effective. 

In fact, it has to be relevant. Otherwise, you would be implying that if it was higher or lower risk, the policy of mandating would be justified.

The data is not as clear cut as to say the vaccine is harmful. To some it is. But not to 200 million people in the US apparently. But this is after all the jabs occurred. There could be two arguments here:

1. The vaccine is not good therefore should not be mandated

2. The vaccine may be good but should not be mandated

Either way, my argument is that mandating is not justified in any of these case. Even in the case of more virulent diseases and vaccines that work 100 percent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I take DM's line of argument to mean if in the face of a deadly pandemic with the ability to distribute provably safe and effective vaccines the government would be warranted in mandating its use.

In that case, Covid and the jabs don't qualify.

Yes, I believe that is the line of argument. And I would agree that the Covid Jabs don't qualify. But even if they did qualify, even if they were 100 percent safe and effective, the Objectivist position is that there is no place for the Government to Mandate their injection. In the face of that, I don't know how the potential initiation of force argument works (Doug's argument).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 4:54 PM, Easy Truth said:

The problem is that most deaths caused by the vaccine are because the reaction to it is unknown. Some will die of it as they have. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine that someone who knows that the vaccine will kill them would take it, even with a mandate.

You still won't answer the question: What if the unvaccinated who will never be a threat, are forced into something that they don't want to? Isn't that a pure initiation of force?

You may ask, how would you know that they will never be a threat. It is the reverse argument of what you are making in that sense that, something that is not under your control can harm, well … something that is not under your control may make you harmless or even beneficial. But a mandate preemptively forces something punitive on them, meaning you punish them, and there is no corresponding reward if these people are beneficial. Their immunity could actually enhance the lives of others. Why shouldn't we reward them for the accidental benefit they bring to others?

Anyone who can prove they will never be a threat should be exempt from the mandates.

On 9/6/2022 at 4:54 PM, Easy Truth said:

The point is that any mandate is going to have a utilitarian (or statistical) based benefit as in: "most" will benefit … and a minority will be harmed.

Even if the police behave perfectly, which currently some do not, there will be a risk of someone innocent being killed by police due to accident or misunderstanding.  "'most' will benefit … and a minority will be harmed."  Does this make it utilitarian or statistical to have police?

*************

It may be appropriate to let property owners decide what is to be mandated on their property.  Under the current system, that still gives government a lot of power.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 9:10 PM, tadmjones said:

Covid and the jabs can’t be included in this line of argument because the threat was never the risk the propaganda claimed and the ‘vaccines’ were known to be harmful, more hospitalizations were documented in the trials in the recipients of the mRNA shots than the control group. The long term effects of the jabs are unknown and transmission was never appreciably mitigated , it is obvious they were not safe nor effective. 

Forced quarantine during an ‘actual deadly pandemic ‘ would be an appropriate rational government response especially if a proven safe and effective vaccine were available, this was not that.

I've already stated that I'm talking about principles that apply to any disease that poses a great enough risk, and that Covid-19 is probably not the best example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2022 at 12:34 PM, Easy Truth said:

But even if they did qualify, even if they were 100 percent safe and effective, the Objectivist position is that there is no place for the Government to Mandate their injection. In the face of that, I don't know how the potential initiation of force argument works (Doug's argument).

The Ayn Rand statement you posted does not address the issue of people who can't vaccinate for medical reasons, and thus are put at risk.  In the part on quarantine it does uphold a potential initiation of force argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I take DM's line of argument to mean if in the face of a deadly pandemic with the ability to distribute provably safe and effective vaccines the government would be warranted in mandating its use.

In that case, Covid and the jabs don't qualify.

 

13 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I've already stated that I'm talking about principles that apply to any disease that poses a great enough risk, and that Covid-19 is probably not the best example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Even if the police behave perfectly, which currently some do not, there will be a risk of someone innocent being killed by police due to accident or misunderstanding.  "'most' will benefit … and a minority will be harmed."  Does this make it utilitarian or statistical to have police?

You see your definition of mandate will end up having no distinction between a preemptive force vs. a response or retaliation to aggression.

Socialism is an initiation, a mandate to inject is an initiation.

If you consider the police's activities being a mandate, yes, any activity has risk.

But the behavior of the police is not through a mandate. The police is a universal requirement to keep law and order and it only acts in response.

When it comes to a mandated injection, the police will end up forcing an injection with or without consent of those who cannot prove they will be harmed by it.

A Mandate is an activity that is forced on some or all of the population. In your proposal's case, for those that can't prove the  vaccine will hurt them.

And when the government is wrong, well "shit happens". there is no proper accountability. It was for the good of the public. The most have benefited.

This exact scenario has already happened in Africa with the Tetanus vaccine. Infertility and no one being held accountable since the united nations was in charge.

The requirement to quarantine is to keep away from someone else as a defensive/retaliatory measure. Each of us individually has that right. You can pull a gun on someone telling them to stay away if you are threatened. It it done in response to someone who has the disease, not someone with no symptoms. Pulling a gun on them and forcing them to take a medicine is another matter.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Easy Truth, you have not really addressed the question of what is utilitarian or statistical and what isn't.

The premise that is being challenged is:
To fail to be vaccinated is an aggression on another. Therefore, a mandate (prior restraint type forceful/punitive) rule for those people who cannot show proof of not being harmed by the vaccine, is good, since it will counter this aggression.

Considering the purpose of such a law is the key. If unvaccinated people are aggressing through negligence then it is irresponsibility that is being addressed. If it is society or Home owners association where there is a universal agreement to go by some rule, like be vaccinated, it would not be a mandate but a reaction to an agreement that is being breached.

Here we are a dealing with a non contract based enforcement. There is no agreement to be vaccinated so not contract was breached. Acting like such a social contract exists may sound civilized or proper.
There no social contract that binds you to do being vaccinated.
The argument may be made that it will benefit society as a whole. Meaning the majority will benefit.

The mandate to vaccinate is utilitarian as apposed to individualistic. 
Absent any better philosophy, utilitarianism would be fine.

But since valuing with your mind is at the core of individual rights:

In the case of the perfect vaccine, a mandate to vaccinate is to over ride the ability of the individual to "value", to want with his mind.
Ultimately the government is behaving like the population is a bunch of brain dead machines that should be managed for the purposes of some good i.e. in effect some entity/person/group. 
It is to hold that the individual's life is not an end in itself but to serve some other's interest.

In the case of a vaccine that will help most but hurt a few … it will hurt some, it is an initiation of force.
The value it pursues is that most will benefit. That is it's justification in utilitarian terms.
Some will be harmed but most will benefit. That is the statistical benefit that it being sought, percentage of the beneficiaries is higher than the harmed, it is utilitarian. It would apply to an army where the soldiers have signed an agreement to comply. Not a society where there is no such contract.

So in both cases a vaccine mandate is utilitarian.

Now you would have a good case if it was made to quarantine.
"To fail to be quarantined is an aggression on another". In this case proof of being harmed by the quarantine process does not apply because being symptomatic and transmissible is aggression. It is not based on the majority benefiting. It is a universal value. Each and every person being aggressed on requires the right to self defense to survive.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If failure to vaccinate endangers people to such an extent that it rises to the level of physical force, a vaccine mandate is individualistic, not utilitarian.  It defends the individual rights of each individual who is endangered.  (It is necessary to prove that such individuals exist, but not to give an exhaustive list of them.)

Requiring someone to vaccinate in this case is not treating them as a means to the ends of others any more than requiring people to refrain from reckless use of cars, guns, or fire is.

Easy Truth, you still have not explained why your argument about utilitarianism does not apply to having police.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Easy Truth, you still have not explained why your argument about utilitarianism does not apply to having police.

A police that does not distinguish (as a policy) between the criminal vs. the non criminal, let us say blowing up a building because it is mostly filled with criminals, is utilitarian.

Having no regard for the innocent, is not a respect of individual rights. So a police that does not respect the rights of the unvaccinated, in the name of helping most people, is utilitarian. That is because some of the unvaccinated will never harm anyone. But they fall into the statistic of being a few that can be discarded.

A police presence can be based on a utilitarian purpose or on individual rights. A fascist state is an example of utilitarian purpose, as the slogan is that it benefits the majority. The catch phrase is "for the people", i.e. for most of us. As in  People's Republic of China or  People's Republic of Korea.

But the police that you and I talk about, one that protects our rights, is not for the benefit of the majority, it is to protect rights. When based on individual rights as apposed to Utilitarian, it would protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany because it would not be based on benefiting the majority. It is for any individual, ultimately everyone, it is a universal value and the police's use is retaliatory against a specific assailant. It does not choose between the endangered vs. the non endangered, or the advantaged vs. the disadvantaged. That kind of inequality will always exist. It protect all against each other. These rights are not protection from the elements, like floods or fires. It is protection from the agression of another. A virus is an element of nature. So there is no inherent right to protection from a virus.

A rights respecting police does not initiate force in the name of benefiting the majority. Even if it does end up protecting the majority. Certainly that is better than protecting a minority. Nevertheless, protection of the majority is not it's prescriptive goal or it's justification. Otherwise, we can have comments like "there are useless lives" measuring the worth based on how many people someone benefits, like the social score proposed by China. 

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It defends the individual rights of each individual who is endangered.  (It is necessary to prove that such individuals exist, but not to give an exhaustive list of them.)

Fine, does that mean the non endangered have no individual rights? That their sacrifice, their non-voluntary act, is for the good? Who's good? So the way the mandate works is by eliminating the individual rights of "some" others.

Let us say for the sake of argument that it does defend the individual rights of the "endangered". What if some of the "endangered" don't want the vaccine? Some authority will know better, right? That in itself means no individual rights.

The argument regarding mandating can be made to support socialist medicine too. As in those who don't take care of themselves are a burden to the rest of us, therefore they are aggressing. Ultimately the mandating argument is an attack on being left alone, unmolested.

One could make a utilitarian argument for a free markets or free speech too, that it benefits the majority, which is a winning argument by the way. Not every trade is not a good trade, and for speech, somethings should be said at better times as others. So a free market has risks just as free speech and having a police force has risks too. The justification for implementation of these freedoms is not that it benefits the most of us with some falling through the cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

That is because some of the unvaccinated will never harm anyone.

Some of the people who use cars, guns, or fire recklessly will never actually harm anyone, but if they are endangering people, that can still rise to physical force.  This is the principle that justifies forbidding such recklessness, and it is the principle I am saying should apply to a sufficiently dangerous contagion.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

 It does not choose between the endangered vs. the non endangered,

I am not in any way advocating choosing between the endangered and the non endangered.  I am saying that if someone is endangered, that can rise to a violation of their rights. 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

 These rights are not protection from the elements, like floods or fires. It is protection from the agression of another. A virus is an element of nature. So there is no inherent right to protection from a virus.

Harm from floods, fires, or viruses can be caused or worsened by human action.  If a person creates or worsens danger from floods, fires, or viruses, this can rise to the level of physical force.  There is a right to protection from such endangerment.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

the majority

I am not upholding the majority over the minority.  Even if only one person is being endangered, we must still defend that person's rights.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Fine, does that mean the non endangered have no individual rights?

Of course not.  The endangerment does not violate the rights of anyone who is not endangered, but those rights still exist.

You seem to be conflating the non endangered with the endangerers.  Please clarify.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

What if some of the "endangered" don't want the vaccine? Some authority will know better, right?

I am not advocating requiring anything of anyone to protect them from themselves.  I am advocating requiring people to refrain from endangering others to an extent that rises to the level of physical force.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The argument regarding mandating can be made to support socialist medicine too. As in those who don't take care of themselves are a burden to the rest of us, therefore they are aggressing. 

It is only the socialized medicine that makes them a burden to the rest of us.  The solution is to abolish socialized medicine.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Ultimately the mandating argument is an attack on being left alone, unmolested.

People who are being endangered are not being left alone, unmolested.  I am saying their rights are important, too.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The justification for implementation of these freedoms is not that it benefits the most of us with some falling through the cracks.


Again, I am not upholding the majority over the minority.  Even if only one person is being endangered, we must still defend that person's rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Again, I am not upholding the majority over the minority.  Even if only one person is being endangered, we must still defend that person's rights.

Agreed, the right of one person is important.

A mandate is to force a population to do something. Some will see it to their benefit and some will not. Those who do not are NOT all potential transmitters. Some are being forced when they will never be harmful. But the only justification that will be given is what statistics show. Their rights are not important anymore. That one person that you talk about, they will be thrown under the bus.

Somehow you have to justify forcing this minority, meaning treating them as if they are sick and transmitters of a disease. What about defending their rights? Well, the only argument will be, there are far more of the other (harmful) guys.

Even though you don't want to uphold the majority over the minority, by defending what is supposedly the right of an oppressed, the solution is to oppress another. 

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Some of the people who use cars, guns, or fire recklessly will never actually harm anyone, but if they are endangering people, that can still rise to physical force.  This is the principle that justifies forbidding such recklessness, and it is the principle I am saying should apply to a sufficiently dangerous contagion.

"Using" a car, or gun means "using" something. What is an unvaccinated person using to endanger someone?

Why not have a mandate that no one should go near an unvaccinated person? After all, it is reckless.

Ironically, a mandate is a reckless endangerment of rights. It would require a mandate against having such mandates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But the only justification that will be given is what statistics show.

No, it is that there is a risk of their spreading contagion.  Statistics has nothing to do with it.

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

meaning treating them as if they are sick and transmitters of a disease.

No, treating them as creating a danger of transmitting a disease.

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Well, the only argument will be, there are far more of the other (harmful) guys.

No, it has nothing to do with how many there are of whom.  It has to do with whether some people are endangering some people.

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

"Using" a car, or gun means "using" something. What is an unvaccinated person using to endanger someone?

"Using" is not the key concept.  The key concept is reckless endangerment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

No, it is that there is a risk of their spreading contagion.  Statistics has nothing to do with it.

That is a false statement. "Risk" is a statistical issue. If they are sick or not sick is not a risk of them being sick. They either are or are not. The disease in them exists, or it does not. As apposed to they "might" get it.

26 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

No, it has nothing to do with how many there are of whom.  It has to do with whether some people are endangering some people.

The problem is that it becomes meaningless. Everyone, at anytime is creating a danger of transmitting a disease. There is no distinguishing factor.

27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

No, it has nothing to do with how many there are of whom.  It has to do with whether some people are endangering some people.

Using the word "some" is synonymous with "a percentage of". That is the statistical element. That is where the how many comes in. At one point we were discussing in terms of one person, an individual.

Again, I emphasize, some are endangering and some are not. A mandate will treat all the same. As if all are endangering when some are not. That is where the initiation of force would be happening toward the "some" that are being treated as if they are endangering when they are not. I ask again: what is the justification for forcing some who will not endanger to be vaccinated? If you can answer that, it will shed some light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

"Risk" is a statistical issue.

It is not necessary to do any statistics to determine that there is risk.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The problem is that it becomes meaningless. Everyone, at anytime is creating a danger of transmitting a disease. There is no distinguishing factor.

There should be distinguishing factors considered.  This becomes a technical issue.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Using the word "some" is synonymous with "a percentage of".

The percentage may be unknown, and is not needed.  In this particular case, symbolic logic may be a better guide than statistics.  A more precise statement would be:  It has to do with whether at least one person is endangering at least one other person.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I emphasize, some are endangering and some are not.

Anyone whom we can identify as not endangering anyone to a degree that rises to the level of physical force should not be subject to a mandate.  If the situation is uncertain, the uncertainty constitutes some degree of risk.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Anyone whom we can identify as not endangering anyone to a degree that rises to the level of physical force should not be subject to a mandate.  If the situation is uncertain, the uncertainty constitutes some degree of risk.  

Here it seems mandate means, that person should be forced to. Which is fine, as a retaliatory measure.

I ask again: what is the justification for forcing some who will not endanger anyone, to be vaccinated (known in hindsight)? As in they escaped the mandate, ten years ago by, and it turns out they never got Covid. Should they be compensated for the trouble they went through? Or the degree of uncertainty, the unknown, justifies forcing people to do something?

If you can answer that, it will shed some light. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That is a false statement. "Risk" is a statistical issue. If they are sick or not sick is not a risk of them being sick. They either are or are not. The disease in them exists, or it does not. As apposed to they "might" get it.

 

Yes, and risk as a statistical matter was well-known from early on in the pndemic. There are those who are/were at greater risk from Covid, those who are at minor to zero risk. Still today, not emphasized or suppressed by so-called experts.

"Risk" profiles then, must be a personal and informed self-assessment.

As soon as diktats were enforced ¬to equalize¬ the risk throughout populations, spreading the pain, so to speak, with blanket lockdowns and blanket vaccinations, the world lost freedom of action and individualism which won't be regained soon, replaced by fearful compliance and growing statism.

Others' lives count before one's own. That's not just utilitarian** as you point out, ET, "the greater good" may be argued to be an offshoot of deeper altruism-collectivism, I think. Some body/some "group", needed to be ¬sacrificed¬ for such greater good. In the case of Covid controls, conversely, it was the greater number (of young and/or healthy) who paid many a price.

The net result will be the loss of individual rights for all. Rather than the narrow enhancement of rights for some, i.e. the vulnerable individual must not be exposed or has to be protected from the disease ¬by right¬, he/she loses rights along with the rest.

On the broader topic as per Rand, wars are the result of statism; but more - "statism *needs* war", as she wrote. Except for national self-defense, constructive individualists see no use for war, and have no foreign 'enemies' - interfering, looting, destructive or nihilistic collectivists do and have.

Wider, statism needs regular CRISES. A pandemic or a war is all the same to the authoritarian Gvt's , they can self-justifiably exploit a crisis to collect and implant more controls, the cowed public submit to the next 'emergency' powers, by trained habit.

[**Utilitarianism:

“The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

[...]

But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

“Textbook of Americanism,”]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't "retaliate" against a potentiality, only an actuality.

This is why retaliation allows you to lock up a murderer, but not to lock up a "potential murderer." As long as free will exists, everybody is a "potential murderer."

No virus is necessary for someone to potentially commit murder, and there is no vaccine to prevent the possibility, either.

To use force against the "potentially guilty" is to use force against the actually innocent.

Edited by necrovore
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...