[Cyberyeti]

Chas_P, on 2021-September-14, 19:29, said:

Both my wife and I have had three doses. We aren't opposed to the vaccine. One question asked of us was "have you ever had myocarditis?" We could truthfully answer "no". But our younger son was born with viral myocarditis and therefore has refused the vaccine up to this point. Do you think he needs to "do what clearly has to be done"? I will grant that there's probably a very small percentage of the unvaccinated who have had myocarditis. But I don't know that. Nor do you. But, whatever the reason, I think we should all be allowed to do whatever we deem to be in our own best interest. You know... the old "my body, my choice" argument. And that's not intended as a condemnation of the pro-choice crowd. I agree with them. If a woman wants to abort her baby, that's her business. The government has no right to interfere. If my son doesn't want the Covid-19 vaccine, that's his business. The government has no right to interfere. Just my opinion.

Your son has every right to refuse it with his medical history, and should not be penalised for doing so.

I wrestled with whether I should get the vaccine (I have post viral ME and my immune system processes viruses in a very odd way about 1/3 of the time which would have been a disaster with a Covid infection or vaccine), tried to get the science and got the answer "nobody knows". I eventually decided to get it which worked fine.

The point about vaccines which make them different to seatbelts is that while both protect you, the vaccine helps protect society in general (yes a seatbelt in the rear of a car may protect the person in front, but an unvaccinated person who works in the wrong setting could infect a lot of people). Other people getting vaccinated protects your son, and that is why a state mandate is reasonable.

[johnu]

Florida GOP Bookkeeper Who Railed Against ‘Faucism’ Dies Of COVID-19

Quote

A Florida Republican who ranted against coronavirus safety mandates on social media died “suddenly” of COVID-19 before he could teach anyone else how to manage his local party chapter’s accounting software ― leaving his former colleagues scrambling.

Quote

For more than a year, the Hillsborough GOP relied on software developed by Gregg Prentice, 61, who ran its “election integrity” committee, according its website.

“Gregg’s software converted data from our Quickbooks software to supply the information needed by the FEC,” read the filing.

Quote

“End Faucism,” read one of Prentice’s posts, attacking the nation’s leading expert on infectious disease, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has become a right-wing boogeyman during the pandemic.

Another post said: “We need more socialist distancing than we do social distancing.”

It is unconfirmed that a Hillsborough QOP spokesman said "Covid doesn't kill people, Quickbooks kills people.

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2021-September-16, 18:22, said:

Well yes I do. The first car I owned was a 1954 Chevrolet 210 coupe. I had seatbelts installed (they weren't mandatory back in the olden times). But that was my choice; even at age 16 I had sense enough to know that seatbelts were a desirable feature. I didn't need "the government" to tell me that. There are road signs all over Georgia saying, "Click it, or ticket." I resent that. I never hit the road without my seatbelt fastened, but that's my personal choice. I don't need Big Brother telling me he's gonna fine me if I don't.

The libertarian philosophy is that you can do as you please as long as it doesn't impact other people.

But in our highly connected society, it's very hard not to impact others. If there are lots of people not wearing seatbelts, it increases everyone's medical costs, because it's not feasible to make your insurance premiums dependent on whether you wear a seatbelt (we'd need continuous monitoring -- another Big Brother intrusion).

And if you don't get a COVID-19 vaccination, you're not just endangering yourself. If you get COVID, you can infect others (even some who were vaccinated).

Maybe we should bring back leper colonies, but this time for COVID anti-vaxxers.

[Chas_P]

barmar, on 2021-September-18, 22:10, said:

The libertarian philosophy is that you can do as you please as long as it doesn't impact other people.

But in our highly connected society, it's very hard not to impact others. If there are lots of people not wearing seatbelts, it increases everyone's medical costs, because it's not feasible to make your insurance premiums dependent on whether you wear a seatbelt (we'd need continuous monitoring -- another Big Brother intrusion).

Well if I ever decide to drive to Massachusetts you will be fully protected. I'll have my seatbelt fastened (just as I have for the last 67 years).

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2021-September-18, 22:10, said:

The libertarian philosophy is that you can do as you please as long as it doesn't impact other people.

But in our highly connected society, it's very hard not to impact others. If there are lots of people not wearing seatbelts, it increases everyone's medical costs, because it's not feasible to make your insurance premiums dependent on whether you wear a seatbelt (we'd need continuous monitoring -- another Big Brother intrusion).

And if you don't get a COVID-19 vaccination, you're not just endangering yourself. If you get COVID, you can infect others (even some who were vaccinated).

Maybe we should bring back leper colonies, but this time for COVID anti-vaxxers.

The problem I have with the libertarian philosophy is that it is theoretical.
I have little interest in telling others what to do and I don't like others telling me what to do, this requires no theory. And it allows for exceptions. Vaccines are an obvious exception. Seatbelts are a reasonable exception. We regulate a lot of things about driving and adding in a seatbelt requirement is ok by me. In this hyper technology age we could probably solve the insurance problem. My car knows whether I have it on, my phone knows where I am and probably what I am doing, we could solve the insurance problem but why bother, just tell people to wear seat belts. It won't hurt them.

It brings to mind Groundhog Day with Bill Murray contesting the law against driving a car on railroad tracks. "That's one I agree with", his passenger says.

Once we accept the obvious, that people vary greatly in their needs, desires, and values, then it seems clear we should go easy on telling people what to do. Libertarian philosophy makes a complication out of this simple approach.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-September-21, 07:12, said:

The problem I have with the libertarian philosophy is that it is theoretical juvenile.
I have little interest in telling others what to do and I don't like others telling me what to do, this requires no theory. And it allows for exceptions. Vaccines are an obvious exception. Seatbelts are a reasonable exception. We regulate a lot of things about driving and adding in a seatbelt requirement is ok by me. In this hyper technology age we could probably solve the insurance problem. My car knows whether I have it on, my phone knows where I am and probably what I am doing, we could solve the insurance problem but why bother, just tell people to wear seat belts. It won't hurt them.

It brings to mind Groundhog Day with Bill Murray contesting the law against driving a car on railroad tracks. "That's one I agree with", his passenger says.

Once we accept the obvious, that people vary greatly in their needs, desires, and values, then it seems clear we should go easy on telling people what to do. Libertarian philosophy makes a complication out of this simple approach.

FYP

[pilowsky]

An infected essential worker in Australia has caused another area-wide lockdown.
The essential work was to assist in the production of "I'm a celebrity get me out of here"

She's been fined.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2021-September-21, 07:12, said:

The problem I have with the libertarian philosophy is that it is theoretical.
I have little interest in telling others what to do and I don't like others telling me what to do, this requires no theory. And it allows for exceptions. Vaccines are an obvious exception. Seatbelts are a reasonable exception. We regulate a lot of things about driving and adding in a seatbelt requirement is ok by me. In this hyper technology age we could probably solve the insurance problem. My car knows whether I have it on, my phone knows where I am and probably what I am doing, we could solve the insurance problem but why bother, just tell people to wear seat belts. It won't hurt them.

It brings to mind Groundhog Day with Bill Murray contesting the law against driving a car on railroad tracks. "That's one I agree with", his passenger says.

Once we accept the obvious, that people vary greatly in their needs, desires, and values, then it seems clear we should go easy on telling people what to do. Libertarian philosophy makes a complication out of this simple approach.

This month's Scientific American has a letter to the editors from someone explaining the Republican stance about mask mandates (it was in response to an article titled "Do Republicans Mistrust Science?".

He said that they don't object to them because they're unreasonable scientifically, they just object to the government intrusion on individual liberties. He thinks that the government should present the information openly, and then trust people to do the right thing based on it. "Trust is a two-way street" -- if the government won't trust the people to do the right thing with the science, the people shouldn't trust the government to make rules based on it.

Unfortunately, when all of this becomes highly politicized, and social media amplifies partisan mis- and dis-information, that attutude is hard to jusetify, in my opinion. No matter what the government says, opponents will view it as a conspiracy theory.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2021-September-24, 14:17, said:

He said that they don't object to them because they're unreasonable scientifically, they just object to the government intrusion on individual liberties. He thinks that the government should present the information openly, and then trust people to do the right thing based on it. "Trust is a two-way street" -- if the government won't trust the people to do the right thing with the science, the people shouldn't trust the government to make rules based on it.

This sounds exactly like a 16-year-old arguing with his dad about why he should be able to stay out until 2 a.m.

[mycroft]

Wow. Trusting the masses to do the right thing. I mean, each individual, not "the masses" as a whole.

He's either straight up BSing, or he don't understand people. I know which way I'm betting (do I hear "¿porque no los dos?")

I can think of a famous quote attributed to President Lincoln and another attributed to P. T. Barnum, and just the fact that I don't have to state them because everybody else knows them too should be sufficient riposte to this idea.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2021-September-24, 14:17, said:

This month's Scientific American has a letter to the editors from someone explaining the Republican stance about mask mandates (it was in response to an article titled "Do Republicans Mistrust Science?".

He said that they don't object to them because they're unreasonable scientifically, they just object to the government intrusion on individual liberties. He thinks that the government should present the information openly, and then trust people to do the right thing based on it. "Trust is a two-way street" -- if the government won't trust the people to do the right thing with the science, the people shouldn't trust the government to make rules based on it.

Unfortunately, when all of this becomes highly politicized, and social media amplifies partisan mis- and dis-information, that attitude is hard to justify, in my opinion. No matter what the government says, opponents will view it as a conspiracy theory.

I think the right response to this is:

Yes. You are right. We are interfering with individual liberties. We do not do this lightly. We do it because it is necessary.

I think the analogy with seatbelts is wrong. I once had a motorcycle, I was racing around a track with a friend, I took a spill, and it was after that I decided to get a helmet. Yes, i should wear a helmet and, while we are at it, I should not have been racing around that track. There are quite a few other stupid things I did when I was young, and some when I was not so young. vaccines and masks are different. Covid is killing many, it is seriously disrupting economies, it has mutated to delta and might well mutate again, we are in a life and death struggle and for that reason, we put aside any civil liberty to be a moron. Other issues are sometimes a balancing act. How much stupidity do we want to allow, and who decides? With covid, we must act. End of argument.

[sharon j]

I was thinking about the seatbelt analogy. If I understand it, some think seatbelts should not be a law and be voluntary. In most states in the US, 16 year old children are driving. Should we really expect 16 year old children and perhaps their passengers, who are most likely children too, be expected to make good and safe choices regarding seatbelts? I think the seatbelt laws helps save the lives of those individuals unlikely to make good choices.

[kenberg]

sharon j, on 2021-September-24, 17:55, said:

I was thinking about the seatbelt analogy. If I understand it, some think seatbelts should not be a law and be voluntary. In most states in the US, 16 year old children are driving. Should we really expect 16 year old children and perhaps their passengers, who are most likely children too, be expected to make good and safe choices regarding seatbelts? I think the seatbelt laws helps save the lives of those individuals unlikely to make good choices.

I am fine with laws that require seatbelts, and I am fine with requiring seatbelt use for those who are fully adult And, incidentally, I bought my first car at age 15, I earned the money to pay for it, I did not consider myself a child. Not an adult, but not a child either. The law at teh time kept me from getting most construction jobs, the argument was that that law was to protect me, I had no wish for that protection. I was making decisions about my future, my choice. Not yet an adult, definitely not a child.

But I see all of these things, seatbelt laws for young drivers, seatbelt laws for fully adult drivers, laws that were said to protect me from my own decisions, as fundamentally different from the situation with covid. As I say, I am ok with seatbelt laws. If it were put to a vote I would vote for seatbelt laws. I would not think that the country had totally lost its mind if the majority voted against it. I would be surprised, and I would think it a mistake, but not crazy.

Covid is different. It has to be beaten back, beating it back requires a set of actions, the consequences to all of us of not beating it back are severe, so I favor imposing rules regarding vaccines and masks that I might not favor if the stakes were not so high.

[mycroft]

it's not the seatbelt/helmet analogy, it's the drunk driver analogy.

Seatbelts stop people from killing themselves. Alcohol limits stop drunk drivers from killing other people. It *also* helps stop people from killing themselves, but that's not necessarily sufficient to "restrict liberties".

Now, in non-US countries, seatbelts reduce health care costs - which are paid for by socialised medicine. So in fact it does affect "everybody". But that's a more minor argument.

[pilowsky]

The real difference is in the health care system.
Normal first world countries happily put up with seatbelt and helmet laws because we community rate stupidity.
We don't want to pay for your right to have a head injury when you come off your motorbike - whatever your age.


We also have bicycle helmet laws - although unfortunately, they are still free to wear lycra.

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2021-September-24, 21:29, said:

it's not the seatbelt/helmet analogy, it's the drunk driver analogy.

Seatbelts stop people from killing themselves. Alcohol limits stop drunk drivers from killing other people. It *also* helps stop people from killing themselves, but that's not necessarily sufficient to "restrict liberties".

Now, in non-US countries, seatbelts reduce health care costs - which are paid for by socialised medicine. So in fact it does affect "everybody". But that's a more minor argument.

Thanks. I am glad to see I am not a hermit on an island. The drunken driver occurred to me and I might have mentioned it (no, I am not filing a theft complaint)..

Analogues often don't work out well. We end up arguing about how well the analogy fits.I think the best is to say "Yes, we are imposing our choices on your actions. We don't do this lightly, but sometimes it is necessary".

to the limited extent that I watch tv news, it is mostly the PBS Newshour. There was a piece by Scott galloway
https://www.pbs.org/...y-post-pandemic

Part of it;

Quote

I worry that today's youth doesn't have the connective tissue that some of our leaders had in the past. They were Americans first before they were red or blue. And a way to get that back might be some sort of mandatory national service. It might be building housing or a corona corps that helps people, where kids get a chance to meet other kids from different backgrounds and feel like they have a shared experience, such that maybe there's more cooperation as they get into positions of power.

I understand about the mandatory national service but I disagree. I finished high school in 1956, a time when every boy expected to spend a period in the military. (Scholastic deferment and then family deferment and them at age 27, too old meant I never did). I wasn't sure just how I would afford college so I was thinking Navy first, then college, but I got a scholarship so college first and navy never happened. At the risk of self-praise, this is how we want the young to be thinking: What do I want for a career? How can I bring it about? If the country needs to break into my life because it needs a strong military, ok, I understand and accept that. But let's not tell me I have to do mandatory national service because it will be good for me.

So yes, if we impose rules such as "must have had the vaccine to sit in a restaurant" then we are imposing our will. We are not doing this because we like to boss others around, we are doing it because it is essential for combatting a deadly virus.

As mentioned, I am fine with seatbelt laws. Good grief, what's the problem? Not even QAnon claims that using seatbelts will make you magnetic. But I do think vaccines and mask laws are of a different sort.

[thepossum]

I disagree with Ken and Winston about the libertarian philosophy (the real one) being theoretical or juvenile. I believe it places limits on a real libertarians behaviour (as Barry said I think)

My concern is with the opposite tendency who don't seem to have any limits in their philosophy of controlling others

Come to think of it that does make being a full-blown true libertarian impossible since you have to stop the opposite tendency (or maybe be kind and allocate them some space to oppress each other as much as they like)

[Winstonm]

thepossum, on 2021-September-25, 20:11, said:

I disagree with Ken and Winston about the libertarian philosophy (the real one) being theoretical or juvenile. I believe it places limits on a real libertarians behaviour (as Barry said I think)

My concern is with the opposite tendency who don't seem to have any limits in their philosophy of controlling others

Come to think of it that does make being a full-blown true libertarian impossible since you have to stop the opposite tendency (or maybe be kind and allocate them some space to oppress each other as much as they like)

Your argument is an informal fallacy (no true Scotsman)

[thepossum]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-25, 20:19, said:

Your argument is an informal fallacy (no true Scotsman)

I believe it follows logically. If you believe everyone should be able to live completely free that implies that you have to limit your behaviour
- which in turn leads to a contradiction or something (what I am saying is that a "true" libertarian would be squashed.

But of course you can be a full libertarian (at least in your head) without having to risk your existence too much. Therefore we do exist

The alternative is terrible fascism - which I fear is where the world is heading and has many phony arguments to back them up (and the power and the media and everything to back them up)

But I don't think I am up to a full argument or debate. I'm not thinking clearly enough to debate or argue formally

EDIT Although I just looked up the fallacy to which you refer and attempted to undermine my point. I stick to my definition

But I get it - its like the none of those regimes were really communist argument. But, just because someone calls themselves something or is labelled as something by others doesn't make them anything in particular

Whats that thing about going round in circles forever, chasing your own tail round and round in circles

EDIT Again. Sign of total insanity in the world. Chasing your own tail has led to canines being pathologised for it

[Winstonm]

thepossum, on 2021-September-25, 20:29, said:

I believe it follows logically. If you believe everyone should be able to live completely free that implies that you have to limit your behaviour
- which in turn leads to a contradiction or something (what I am saying is that a "true" libertarian would be squashed.

But of course you can be a full libertarian (at least in your head) without having to risk your existence too much. Therefore we do exist

The alternative is terrible fascism - which I fear is where the world is heading and has many phony arguments to back them up (and the power and the media and everything to back them up)

But I don't think I am up to a full argument or debate. I'm not thinking clearly enough to debate or argue formally

EDIT Although I just looked up the fallacy to which you refer and attempted to undermine my point. I stick to my definition

But I get it - its like the none of those regimes were really communist argument. But, just because someone calls themselves something or is labelled as something by others doesn't make them anything in particular

Whats that thing about going round in circles forever, chasing your own tail round and round in circles

EDIT Again. Sign of total insanity in the world. Chasing your own tail has led to canines being pathologised for it

Your fallacy is declaring there is such a thing as “a true libertarian” as a justification for your viewpoint.