Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
On 9/10/2022 at 1:14 PM, Easy Truth said:

Or the degree of uncertainty, the unknown, justifies forcing people to do something?

It may.

So bottom line, when there is enough doubt in the eyes of the powers that be, it is okay for the government to harm an innocent citizen. That the degree of doubt is the justification. So if an innocent is killed due to government policy, there is liability protection. It is the cost of doing business.

Ironically, uncertainty, becomes the license to be reckless when it comes to destruction of individual rights.

We are not even considering "doubt by whom" which in itself shows the subjective nature of this tyranny.

Shooting in the dark may be necessary. But the argument here goes further, saying it is okay, meaning that you should not be prosecuted for it if you kill an innocent. Hey, shit happens! It was dark which causes uncertainty. Ultimately it would mean that when there is enough doubt, a government has the right to kill innocent citizens.

In the vaccination mandate case, it would mean that if you force someone to be vaccinated and they die, there should be liability protection, because there was enough uncertainty. After all, you saved all these other people because of what you intended. Sacrificing some for others and justifying it on the grounds that there are more saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

With a virus, we aren't dealing just with a potential, we're dealing with endangerment.  If someone leaves a gun, which as far as they know may be loaded, lying around where a child or mental patient can get it, they are endangering people and government action may be appropriate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
17 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

So bottom line, when there is enough doubt in the eyes of the powers that be, it is okay for the government to harm an innocent citizen. That the degree of doubt is the justification. So if an innocent is killed due to government policy, there is liability protection. It is the cost of doing business.

Ironically, uncertainty, becomes the license to be reckless when it comes to destruction of individual rights.

We are not even considering "doubt by whom" which in itself shows the subjective nature of this tyranny.


Doubt by someone is not sufficient to establish that there is any uncertainty at all.

We need to carefully define how the degree of uncertainty is to be determined and how much uncertainty about what justifies what action.

It could be the case that it is justifiable to require someone to vaccinate, but there is still liability if they are harmed.

This covers the rest of your post too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

With a virus, we aren't dealing just with a potential, we're dealing with endangerment.  If someone leaves a gun, which as far as they know may be loaded, lying around where a child or mental patient can get it, they are endangering people and government action may be appropriate.

The word "can" denotes a potential. Actually the word "danger" has to do with a potential.

There is such a thing as recklessly endangering others, but in order to be reckless you have to do something. It is not enough that you exist and could conceivably contract a contagious virus which others could then catch.

The risk if someone leaves a gun lying around is man-made.

The risk of a virus is metaphysically given.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

It could be the case that it is justifiable to require someone to vaccinate, but there is still liability if they are harmed.

You have to keep in mind, we are talking about a Mandate.

Liability for whom? Who is this "government" to be held accountable? Who is the person designated to take the fall? You think the government would be saying you have to get the vaccine but if it harms you, you will be compensated? In fact what is the compensation for death?

As an aside, is PGE open to liability for the fires it caused? For all that destruction? Or is it protected?

A mandate is not a recommendation to do something. It is a command to do something with punitive consequences if you don't. It is given with the power and obfuscation of cause within a monopoly on force … it is to be a monopoly because it is protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

do something

Going around without taking proper precautions may count as doing something.

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

The risk of a virus is metaphysically given.

The risk of a virus and the risk of fire are metaphysically given, but human actions can increase such risks, and such increases of risk may rise to the level of physical force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

In fact what is the compensation for death?

 

It is impossible to fully compensate for death, but it is possible to partially compensate the victim's estate.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

As an aside, is PGE open to liability for the fires it caused?

It should be.  PG&E is so heavily regulated it is practically a government agency.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

it is to be a monopoly because it is protected.

A government will protect itself from any attempt to break its monopoly on force.  But a properly functioning government will allow its citizens recourse and due process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

such increases of risk may rise to the level of physical force.

So for example if the risk of killing someone is 7%, that's okay, but if it rises to 8% then it counts as initiating force?

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what the actual percentages are, either. An increase of risk cannot "rise" to the level of physical force.

The distinction is not a matter of how much risk it is, but of whether it's a matter of deliberate choice or not.

The initiation of force can only be done by deliberate choice. Failure to get vaccinated is not an initiation of force. Forcing someone to get vaccinated, is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, necrovore said:

So for example if the risk of killing someone is 7%, that's okay, but if it rises to 8% then it counts as initiating force?

It may not be possible to calculate numerical percentages, and emphasizing them may be simplistic,

15 hours ago, necrovore said:

The initiation of force can only be done by deliberate choice. Failure to get vaccinated is not an initiation of force.

Failure to vaccinate can be a deliberate choice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tadmjones said:

“forcing someone to get vaccinated “ by what means ? Freezing assists or forcible injection ?

Perhaps we should start by asking what means were used for the mandates that were actually enacted.  Then we can discuss whether other means would be better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Perhaps we should start by asking what means were used for the mandates that were actually enacted.  Then we can discuss whether other means would be better.

 

I am under the impression that you are trying to derive a principle to demonstrate the correctness of vaccine mandates, and that you statements are not related to Covid.

Perhaps you can provide an example in history of a specific mandate and how it was enacted and enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Perhaps we should start by asking what means were used for the mandates that were actually enacted.  Then we can discuss whether other means would be better.

The only pure examples I could think of is regarding government employees and military. But socialized medicine also forced the whole hospital system to comply or else. So the water is muddied for examining the principles involved.

It's like arguing for a free society, or an Objectivist type system, where someone will ask "has such a thing ever existed".

But one can image some hospitals catering to people who are unvaccinated and some not. The military is different in that it is in fact run on utilitarian rules (although based on contract). As in a few are sacrificed for a larger force.

The fundamental question here is "is it ever right for a monopoly on force to ever initiate force on it's population?". In the name of what is good of course. Or is the ultimate good, the respect of individual rights?

It is good to have a dam built so you have to pay taxes because you will benefit. It is good to defend our country so you should be drafted and push the "potential" enemy far away from our shores. It is good to have an educated population so money will be taken away from you to pay for public schools. It is good to have food on the table so we will forcibly take from those who have more than a certain amount to pay for that. etc.

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

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I am under the impression that you are trying to derive a principle to demonstrate the correctness of vaccine mandates, and that you statements are not related to Covid.

Perhaps you can provide an example in history of a specific mandate and how it was enacted and enforced.

I am trying to get at basic principles relating to vaccine mandates, not the details of enforcement mechanisms.

 

On 9/12/2022 at 7:24 PM, tadmjones said:

Freezing assists or forcible injection ?

Offhand, these both sound unnecessarily and inappropriately drastic.  I was thinking of something more along the lines of a fine, or perhaps denying some government benefits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

"is it ever right for a monopoly on force to ever initiate force on it's population?".

No, never.  The question has always been what, exactly, amounts to force.

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It is good to have a dam built so you have to pay taxes because you will benefit.

Never.

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It is good to defend our country so you should be drafted and push the "potential" enemy far away from our shores.

Never.

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It is good to have an educated population so money will be taken away from you to pay for public schools.

Never.

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It is good to have food on the table so we will forcibly take from those who have more than a certain amount to pay for that

Never.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Failure to vaccinate can be a deliberate choice.

Yes, but that doesn't make it an initiation of force.

An initiation of force has to be a deliberate choice, but lots of other things are also deliberate choices, and that doesn't make them initiations of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

Yes, but that doesn't make it an initiation of force.

An initiation of force has to be a deliberate choice, but lots of other things are also deliberate choices, and that doesn't make them initiations of force.

You seemed to be implying that failure to vaccinate would not be a deliberate choice, so I thought I should clarify that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The question has always been what, exactly, amounts to force.

So you are including accidents that one is responsible for. Like car accidents or even someone falling when they are on your property. And there we get insurance to handle it. Or the owner has to pay up compensation.

But in this case the compensation is for actual injury. An inspector cannot detect all risks. And those risks that should have been dealt with are considered negligence and the person is liable.

So it seems that a carrier of Covid should have known about a vaccine that is perfect, and did not inject is liable.

1. In the case of Covid, the vaccine is not perfect so it does not apply.

2. In the case of a vaccine that is perfect, the person who is infected is at fault, because they did not get the vaccine, they were negligent.

Again, a mandate treats it as if everyone is a Carrier. Like everyone is a criminal (or potential criminal).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

A mandate treats it as if everyone mandated is a possible Carrier.

Exactly, and this is when ALL are not carriers. The "SOME who are not carriers" are being forced to do something they don't want to do, when they will not do the "wrong" that they are being accused of "possibly" doing.

Now why is it justified to treat those people like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Exactly, and this is when ALL are not carriers. The "SOME who are not carriers" are being forced to do something they don't want to do, when they will not do the "wrong" that they are being accused of "possibly" doing.

If it can be proven that someone is not a carrier and will not soon become a carrier, they should not be required to mask or to vaccinate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

If it can be proven that someone is not a carrier and will not soon become a carrier, they should not be required to mask or to vaccinate.

And that is the crux of the issue. It can't be proven. And it can't be known if the vaccine will kill someone or not.

Now in that situation, I think you would agree that there is no justification to force a vaccination.

Unless … there is a utilitarian reason … as in we'll loose some people, by the vast majority will be better off.

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...