Parade of Morons

[kenberg]

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/newshour/show/a-brief-but-spectacular-take-on-going-from-crisis-to-opportunity-post-pandemic

 

Part of it;

 

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]

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]

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]

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.

[thepossum]

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

 

Yes but your fallacy is not realising that you are doing much the same with your own argument

 

Hence my reference to this thread resembling Canine Compulsive Disorder

 

What is your definition of "libertarian" which I have to argue about?

 

You appear to be labelling antisocial behaviour as libertarian - or am I wrong

 

Also, you are making another fallacy of misrepresenting what I mean to back your argument.

 

Another fallacy I believe is trying to dazzle people with a logical fallacy - that in itself is fallacious

 

Lets get back to arguing about libertarianism rather than trying to constantly try to undermine with some straw man argument

 

I believe in minimal government control over everyone's lives (as a core principle) - ideally none

I also believe ideally everyone should be able to live completely as they like provided it does not impose on others etc

 

EDIT Come to think of it I also believe in libertarian socialist principles that if you have the power or means to do so you should aim to equalise inequality. But I don't believe you are obliged to or should have to sacrifice your own well-being to do so. That is free choice

 

What else. One should be able to believe what they like and express those beliefs. Ideally without harming others of course

[kenberg]

I had said libertarianism is too theoretical. I'll elaborate.

 

Covid: I think we have to beat this back, and I think that requires widespread vaccination, mask-wearing in many settings, and general caution in large social settings. I realize some of this requires imposing rules on people but I believe it is necessary to do so.

 

Seat belts: I bought a car in 1954, seatbelts were not even an option as far as I know. Certainly not on my 47 Plymouth. My date would sit next to me, my right arm around her, steering with my left hand. It could get more extreme. My friend Neil and I went to a large gathering at a park, we left with a girl, call her Suzy. The three of us sat in the front seat, I was driving, soon Suzy was on my lap. As we were about to go through downtown I did not want a ticket so I told her she had to get off my lap. She did, and hopped onto Neil's lap. ok, you could say we could make it illegal to drive with someone sitting on your lap, no need to require seatbelts, but seatbelts make it simple. There are only two seatbelts in the front seat so there will be two people, not three or four, in the front seat, they will be a distance apart, the driver will not be distracted either by having Suzy on his lap or by having Suzy on Neil's lap a couple of feet away. Seat belts are a nice simple solution.

 

The idea is that I can favor vaccine mandates and I can favor seatbelts without having to read a fifty-page philosophical treatise. And if I did read the fifty pages, whether by Ayn Rand or Jean-Paul Sartre, after finishing them I would still favor vaccine mandates and seatbelt laws. And, to repeat myself, the vaccine requrements are far more important. I can understand objecting to seatbelt laws I disagree, but I can understand it. Vaccine requirements seem obvious.

 

I am not disrespecting philosophy, not really, but I think some things are clear on the face of it. That's what I mean when I say libertarianism is too theoretical.

 

Oh, btw. You said something about the trend being toward too much control. We might agree on that, at least partially. I certainly think we should go easy on making rules. Boys were not allowed to wear jeans at my high school. I have no idea why. Too Marlon Brandoish I suppose.

[hrothgar]

> What is your definition of "libertarian" which I have to argue about?

 

I think that Wilson's point is that there is no concept of a "true Libertarian".

The expression means too many things to too many different people.

 

And, quite honesty, all the weird little schism make almost no sense to an outside observer.

 

Tring to make sense of an intellectual tradition that has been championed by individuals as varied as

 

Murry Rothbard

Milton Friedman

Rand Paul

 

is a near hopeless endeavor.

[Winstonm]

Yes but your fallacy is not realising that you are doing much the same with your own argument

 

Hence my reference to this thread resembling Canine Compulsive Disorder

 

What is your definition of "libertarian" which I have to argue about?

 

You appear to be labelling antisocial behaviour as libertarian - or am I wrong

 

Also, you are making another fallacy of misrepresenting what I mean to back your argument.

 

Another fallacy I believe is trying to dazzle people with a logical fallacy - that in itself is fallacious

 

Lets get back to arguing about libertarianism rather than trying to constantly try to undermine with some straw man argument

 

I believe in minimal government control over everyone's lives (as a core principle) - ideally none

I also believe ideally everyone should be able to live completely as they like provided it does not impose on others etc

 

EDIT Come to think of it I also believe in libertarian socialist principles that if you have the power or means to do so you should aim to equalise inequality. But I don't believe you are obliged to or should have to sacrifice your own well-being to do so. That is free choice

 

What else. One should be able to believe what they like and express those beliefs. Ideally without harming others of course

 

You are quite correct as I am unfairly relying on what I have written before that you may not have read. To summarize, I have acknowledged in other posts that when I use the term libertarian I may be wrong because I expand that definition to basically include many juvenile ideas - Ayn Rand-type thinking, so to speak; however, to argue that my error is due to there being a "true libertarian" or that "so-and-so would never have done so-and-so" if a true libertarian is a pretty good description of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

I believe in minimal government control over everyone's lives (as a core principle) - ideally none

I also believe ideally everyone should be able to live completely as they like provided it does not impose on others etc

 

I admit your beliefs match my belief of who constitutes a libertarian. Just not a "true libertarian".

[y66]

Somebody really should write a wikipedia page on Libertarianism.

[Winstonm]

Somebody really should write a wikipedia page on Libertarianism.

 

Yes, the same person who also gets to determine what actions “impose” on others.

[Gilithin]

Somebody really should write a wikipedia page on Libertarianism.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

 

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

[thepossum]

Somebody really should write a wikipedia page on Libertarianism.

 

Maybe also write a Wikipedia page on disrespect and insinuation - who knows whether you are talking to me or Winston or someone else.

 

I believe what you did is another form of argument fallacy which has blown up in your face too

 

I know I made a mistake joining a thread called "Parade of Morons"

 

I should have steered clear of it altogether but I am also forever tarnished by getting myself again embroiled in a futile defence of something very special

 

I do get extremely irritated at people who keep trying to tie their imaginary debating opponents in knots. I seriously cannot be bothered, even assuming I was (ever) capable of making a formal argument either way

 

One thing I think many of us are guilty of is shooting ourselves in the foot by doing what we accuse our opponents of doing. Is that a fallacy (so far unnamed). Maybe I should check Wikipedia

 

Is it possible to shoot yourself in the foot while chasing your own tail? Something else to check

[thepossum]

You are quite correct as I am unfairly relying on what I have written before that you may not have read. To summarize, I have acknowledged in other posts that when I use the term libertarian I may be wrong because I expand that definition to basically include many juvenile ideas - Ayn Rand-type thinking, so to speak; however, to argue that my error is due to there being a "true libertarian" or that "so-and-so would never have done so-and-so" if a true libertarian is a pretty good description of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

 

I admit your beliefs match my belief of who constitutes a libertarian. Just not a "true libertarian".

 

:lol:

 

Sorry I'm just being juvenile

 

But I now accept that I am arguing with someone who perhaps believes in the opposite of what a true libertarian believes (or should I say what is truly libertarian) - I think the distinction is important

 

However I accepted you pointing out my fallacious use of "true" and removed it to disarm your attack

 

As for continuing our ongoing argument over libertarianism or authoritarianism, all I can say is that for me everything that is true libertarian is a fundamental principle of (almost) everything I believe in - in respect of how to live my life and allow other to live theirs - its hard to argue either way.

 

Notice I always spell libertarian with a small "l" whether they are real ones or not - but as y66 says we need to check with wikipedia. I think they spell it a big "L" which to me is rather too controlling

 

However, having checked Wikipedia I am grateful that I am not the one arguing against the principles of (true) libertarianism.

 

No need to point out any/all of the fallacies in my (not much of an) argument. Is laziness and disinterest another form of fallacy

[kenberg]

Possum, you did not respond to my comments. I am feeling neglected. But I'll add a little more.

 

IAfAIk all our family and friends are vaccinated but we do not have to go far in the six degrees of separation to find people who are not. Two examples, and then comments.

 

Example A: My wife Becky often walks with a friend, call her S. On their last walk S mentioned that some friends of hers had visited some weeks back, and S just learned that these friends of hers avoid vaccination. S did not get covid, neither did her friends as far as she knows, but S still did not like being visited by unvaccinated people who had not declared their status.

 

Example B. Another friend is T (I am also friends with both S and T) but Becky spends more time with them. T's nephew does not believe in vaccination. T is now on a ventilator, T's wife is in the hospital, T's children have covid and I am not sure who is taking care of them. T wants to slap her nephew but of course that's an emotional reaction not a plan.

 

Now the comments: A person could say that the nephew is responsible for his kids getting covid, many would agree, I would agree. But how about the friends of S? As of yet, they passed on no disease. Imo, this is simply dumb luck. In both cases the behavior is irresponsible, in one case no harm was done yet, in the other case a lot of harm, perhaps deadly, was done. If two people behave irresponsibly and one causes great harm and the other doesn't I don't say that the behavior of one is wrong but the other is right.

 

I believe there is a relevant legal principle. If three guys carrying guns go into a store to rob it and if things go wrong and one of the guys kills a clerk, I believe they can all three be charged with murder. Who fired the bullet? They were all in there with guns.

 

A final point: I think just about every virologist of any philosophical view would agree that we would most likely have this virus under greater control, not eradicated but under greater control, if more people had taken the vaccine. To me, with people dying, that justifies requiring vaccines. Yes, that requires imposing our will on others. Not something to be done lightly, but there are times that common sense says do it. Philosophy be dammed, just get people vaccinated.

[awm]

One of the problems with libertarianism is that we live in a complex and interconnected world. Most libertarians would agree that my neighbor ought not to be able to shoot me with his rifle simply because he feels like that would be a fun thing to do, and accept that preventing (or punishing) murders is among the few justified roles of government (thus distinguishing themselves from anarchists, who would say that it was my responsibility to stop my neighbor by getting my own rifle and shooting him first).

 

The problem is, if my neighbor infects me with covid (or gives me cancer by polluting my air and water with his factory) he has killed me just as thoroughly and therefore government once again needs to be involved… simply preventing people from killing each other requires a pretty elaborate bureaucracy that ends up restricting some “rights” that are likely to result in harm to others.

[Cyberyeti]

 

IAfAIk all our family and friends are vaccinated but we do not have to go far in the six degrees of separation to find people who are not. Two examples, and then comments.

 

snip

 

A final point: I think just about every virologist of any philosophical view would agree that we would most likely have this virus under greater control, not eradicated but under greater control, if more people had taken the vaccine. To me, with people dying, that justifies requiring vaccines. Yes, that requires imposing our will on others. Not something to be done lightly, but there are times that common sense says do it. Philosophy be dammed, just get people vaccinated.

 

I know one unvaccinated person. She lives alone in Moscow (I'm kinda her internet carer) goes out as infrequently as she can get away with and has a vast array of physical and mental health issues. Nobody can tell her if the vaccine is safe for her, and apparently the vaccine queues there look like they have a REALLY good chance of giving you the virus.

[kenberg]

I know one unvaccinated person. She lives alone in Moscow (I'm kinda her internet carer) goes out as infrequently as she can get away with and has a vast array of physical and mental health issues. Nobody can tell her if the vaccine is safe for her, and apparently the vaccine queues there look like they have a REALLY good chance of giving you the virus.

 

Yes, there are exceptions. And complications. My first marriage ended in 1966 or maybe 1967, she's 81, I'm 82. We are in occasional contact and she told me the doctors are not si sure she should get the vaccine since she takes a fair-sized array of medicine. She also avoids contact. Maybe she should see different doctor but I stayed out of it, she was not asking for advice.

Anyway, it's not always simple, I agree with that.

I'm planning on getting the booster soon and, since my first two shots were Pfizer, I want my third shot to be Pfizer. My general care guy wants to give me Moderna, he thinks it is better to have some of each, I don't. The place where I got the Pfizer is right now checking to see if I can get my third shot there. For some reason, the default position was that I could not. But they are checking. If I can't, then I go elsewhere. I had two Pfizers, I want a third Pfizer, it will take a little effort but what else is new.

 

 

Anyway, it's not all totally simple and we have to allow for exceptions, but I really think we need to push hard on the non-vaccinated. I suppose we could borrow from The Scarlet Letter and put a big red A(nti-vaccine) on their foreheads but that would also involve overruling their personal preference.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt's Morning Briefing:

 

With the death count rising, at least a few Republicans appear to be worried about what their party and its allies have sown.

 

In an article this month for Breitbart, the right-wing website formerly run by Steve Bannon, John Nolte argued that the partisan gap in vaccination rates was part of a liberal plot. Liberals like Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci and Howard Stern have tried so hard to persuade people to get vaccinated, because they know that Republican voters will do the opposite of whatever they say, Nolte wrote.

 

His argument is certainly bizarre, given that Democratic politicians have been imploring all Americans to get vaccinated and many Republican politicians have not. But Nolte did offer a glimpse at a creeping political fear among some Republicans. “Right now, a countless number of Trump supporters believe they are owning the left by refusing to take a lifesaving vaccine,” Nolte wrote. “In a country where elections are decided on razor-thin margins, does it not benefit one side if their opponents simply drop dead?”

[Winstonm]

:lol:

 

Sorry I'm just being juvenile

 

But I now accept that I am arguing with someone who perhaps believes in the opposite of what a true libertarian believes (or should I say what is truly libertarian) - I think the distinction is important

 

However I accepted you pointing out my fallacious use of "true" and removed it to disarm your attack

 

As for continuing our ongoing argument over libertarianism or authoritarianism, all I can say is that for me everything that is true libertarian is a fundamental principle of (almost) everything I believe in - in respect of how to live my life and allow other to live theirs - its hard to argue either way.

 

Notice I always spell libertarian with a small "l" whether they are real ones or not - but as y66 says we need to check with wikipedia. I think they spell it a big "L" which to me is rather too controlling

 

However, having checked Wikipedia I am grateful that I am not the one arguing against the principles of (true) libertarianism.

 

No need to point out any/all of the fallacies in my (not much of an) argument. Is laziness and disinterest another form of fallacy

 

Pardon me for not engaging but I've learned I cannot reduce 50 years of thought and discovery into 25 words or less. I have the same problem when someone asks me why I don't believe in a god. All you can really say is, here, live my life over and you'll know why I am as I am.

[y66]

Here's what the vaccine wars look like to a thoughtful, lifelong southerner:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/opinion/when-medical-ethics-collide-with-basic-fairness.html

 

This stopped being something I only read about in the news when it hit home for my friend Betsy Phillips, a writer and local historian who has been contending all year with a life-threatening condition that remained undiagnosed until very recently. For her, a breakthrough Covid infection could be devastating.

 

She felt a little better when she finally got a diagnosis for the mysterious condition that had been making it difficult for her to breathe: granulomatous disease, the result of a histoplasmosis infection. Surgery to remove the growth that is pressing on her windpipe wouldn’t make Tennessee less of a Covid hot spot, but at least it would let Betsy breathe freely again.

 

But earlier this month, the hospital called and canceled her operation. It didn’t have room for her because it was treating too many unvaccinated Covid patients. As Betsy put it in an essay for The Washington Post, “They wouldn’t do their civic duty, but they get access to hospitals in front of those of us who did.”

 

In one sense, this is nothing new. With communicable diseases, it has always been the case that one person’s choices can affect other people’s health. What’s new with this particular communicable disease is how quickly our scientists and medical professionals have found ways to help keep us safe. And every one of those ways has been undermined by the very people who are now making it difficult or impossible for others to get the care they need.

 

But also not new is the field of medical ethics, which requires health care workers to provide skilled and compassionate treatment even to patients who arguably bring their problems on themselves. Lung cancer patients aren’t turned away from the hospital door, even if they’re three-packs-a-day smokers, and Covid patients should not be turned away because they have refused a vaccine.

 

“We can say that the virus has re-emerged in the southern United States, primarily among unvaccinated people, but it doesn’t mean we have to blame the unvaccinated,” Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of The Associated Press. “The people we have to target are the purveyors of disinformation, and we have to recognize that the unvaccinated themselves are victims of disinformation.”

 

Betsy knows this, and I know this. It’s enraging anyway. It’s enraging to think of the dreadful job Tennessee governor Bill Lee is doing, even now, to encourage his voters to wear their masks and take their vaccines. It’s enraging to think of how the Tennessee General Assembly will not, even now, expand Medicaid to help keep rural hospitals open and prevent the overcrowding of city hospitals.

 

And it’s enraging to think of the people who won’t take an “experimental” vaccine but have no problem accepting experimental antibodies to treat an infection they might have avoided altogether. And it’s beyond enraging to know that when they get to the hospital, they will immediately jump to the front of the line.

 

I know it’s the right thing for hospitals to do. But no matter how ethical it might be, it will never feel fair.

[Winstonm]

For any libertarians who may be watching, let it be known that I thoroughly disagree with this paragraph:

 

“We can say that the virus has re-emerged in the southern United States, primarily among unvaccinated people, but it doesn’t mean we have to blame the unvaccinated,” Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of The Associated Press. “The people we have to target are the purveyors of disinformation, and we have to recognize that the unvaccinated themselves are victims of disinformation.”

Each one of us chooses sources of information. They are not victims of disinformation; they are consumers of crap.

[mycroft]

I disagree, which is one of my disagreements with libertarianism (the other major one is "how much did you get/do you get from society that you want to take away from people going forward, now that you start on third base") - the system is so biased against "people" that a certain fraction will be misinformed about each thing - and everyone will be misinformed about some thing.

 

Billions of dollars are spent misinforming people about things. Billions of dollars are spent hiding information from people. A person, in the small amount of their day that is not required to work to live, eat to work, and sleep to be able to do it tomorrow, can not beat this - even with the assistance the regulations about misinformation and information hiding the libertarians want to get rid of.

 

I do agree that many *prefer* their disinformation. They like feeling good about their current opinions even if they're dangerous or *-ist. I do not agree that they are solely, potentially even primarily, responsible for their consumption.

[Winstonm]

I disagree, which is one of my disagreements with libertarianism (the other major one is "how much did you get/do you get from society that you want to take away from people going forward, now that you start on third base") - the system is so biased against "people" that a certain fraction will be misinformed about each thing - and everyone will be misinformed about some thing.

 

Billions of dollars are spent misinforming people about things. Billions of dollars are spent hiding information from people. A person, in the small amount of their day that is not required to work to live, eat to work, and sleep to be able to do it tomorrow, can not beat this - even with the assistance the regulations about misinformation and information hiding the libertarians want to get rid of.

 

I do agree that many *prefer* their disinformation. They like feeling good about their current opinions even if they're dangerous or *-ist. I do not agree that they are solely, potentially even primarily, responsible for their consumption.

 

Valid points. Perhaps I should rephrase that people are responsible for the degree of misinformation they consume.

[kenberg]

I see it differently again.

Simply require that basically, a person can't do anything w/o being vaccinated. Maybe allow the frequent test dodge if needed for some legal purpose. Restaurant? Have to be vaccinated. Shopping? Have to be vaccinated.

Then who cares who gets the blame for having to legally force people to do something that anyone with any sense does willingly.