Usually when I have a dispute with someone, there is some indication for it. — Tzeentch

How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands.

If there is no indication, indeed not even communication or interaction between me and someone I supposedly have a dispute with, it seems like there isn't a dispute? — Tzeentch

Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself.

Taxation is to force individuals to part with what they believe to be theirs under threat of violence. — Tzeentch

I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false.

Using opinions to justify violence is to invite others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on the other is then a matter of who has the greatest capacity for violence leading to a situation of might makes right. — Tzeentch

As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out.

You consider his arguments and if you agree, you stop killing people. — Tzeentch

Yep. Which is the alternative. So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what?

, I guess practices vary.

Around here eligibility was/is advertised, by age way back when. You then sign up online/over phone, read/get instructions (allergies, symptoms, conditions, mask up, the usual), pick a free slot (location, 4m each). Arrive at location observing protocols (distance, the usual), show health card to get your slot (plus short questionnaire again, symptoms, whatever), stay at assigned spot until called, get called in (couple quick questions yet again), disinfectant, shot plus bandaid, told to wait in designated area for 15m (some nurses or whatever are around), leave. Go back online to where you signed up, print out receipt (registered vaccination(s)), also has known symptoms and whatever to look out for once again. Done, go on about your business.
I think that was about it for us, not really that much to it, like assembly lines. That's Atlantic Canada. Done similarly in Denmark.

Pathogens and outbreaks aren't exactly new. Life is lethal. Make the best of it, together.

One concern that's come up is back-to-school. Kids aren't eligible for vaccination.

In my view states are a necessary evil, and the nature of states seems to be that they inherently rely on force, but what you describe seems like one of the more agreeable ways to go about it. Do you know an example of such a state? — Tzeentch

If by "rely on force" you mean something like, "rely on force to impose the state on people who don't want it", I have nothing to say about such a view. If you mean "rely on force to enforce property rights", then we're talking at least about all advanced democracies.

It's the basic difference discussed in the book: if you live where there's the rule of law and property rights, the state is bigger than any bully that would take your stuff and provides recourse for you; live in a country run by warlords and gangsters and the most you can hope for is that A will defend your interests against B (provide, as they say, "protection"), but that's no guarantee whatsoever that A won't decide eventually to rip you off himself, or make a deal with B that grants B your stuff, or lose out to B in a power struggle, or just forget that he promised to protect you.

The former kind of nations succeed.

I'd wager less than a tenth of the people passionate about climate change actually understand climate change, likewise for vaccines, covid, 9/11,...whatever. — Isaac

A good point, and probably true -- even if you double the numbers, it's still not great.

It comes down, in the end, to who we do trust. Nearly everyone says they distrust government, business, the media, etc. -- for very different reasons. Yet they get their information from somewhere, and have arrived at their opinions somehow. It's almost always the influence of their social environment -- their upbringing, their location, their "culture." We see this in the predictability of rural versus urban polling.

But no matter who you talk to, they will give you their reasons -- even the crazy ones -- and these reasons usually come from something they heard or read, and can be traced to somewhere and someone. Much of the COVID misinformation, for example, was traced to under 20 people on Facebook, Twitter, etc. I forget the number, but it was a large percentage.

I'm not only targeting conservatives, either. I'm always surprised by how little people, who I would say are on the right side of an issue, know about the issue they're "right" about -- whether vaccines or COVID or climate change, as you mentioned. The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however.

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. I'm not even sure it can be taught.

Government make a decision favouring the arms manufacturers they're "so obviously in their pocket, it stinks". Government makes a decision in favour of the pharmaceutical industry they're "following the science". It's just roles in a story, evil arms trader, white-coated scientist-hero. — Isaac

But one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end.

In fact I saw this in poker a lot. Though some people wouldn't be able to give a theory or knowledgable explanation of a decision, they would consistently make the right ones -- and would be winning long-term players.

To say they're just as bad as the losing players because they're both equally ignorant of game theory is a mistake.

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix

Odd that you've only given two choices there. "the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus" vs. "a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer". Do you see those as the only two options?

one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end. — Xtrix

But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. You judge them to be right or wrong based on your adoption of exactly the same methods. You judge people who agree with you to be right and those who disagree with you to be wrong because of your choice of who to trust, it's just circular to claim that this proves someone making the same choice turned out to be right. You're judging 'right' by that choice (who to trust), not by some other more direct means. You don't have access to the right measure rule on which to judge those parameters (which would be direct empirical evidence of the raw data).

Choosing people (or ostracising/castigating them) for their choices about who to trust is a social group exercise - we want these people in the group, we don't want those people. It's about the benefits and problems they might bring/cause for society. So this is where I take issue with what you're saying. We don't want people trusting Facebook memes and celebrity Twitter posts. Those people are probably going to lead society astray (the likelihood of them making good choices, just by chance, are slim), but that second option of yours...

Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? Exclude those who take the side of the underwhelming medical and scientific dissenters? Why would we do that? What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring?

Sure if the 'scientist' concerned is payed by the oil companies and no-one else agrees with him we might have cause to doubt he's acting as a scientist at all, but without such tokens, what's the justification for requiring conformity to the consensus?

How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands. — Isaac

Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself. — Isaac

This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. Such supposed disputes are meaningless to me. If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I?

Essentially this is bureaucracy calling itself the solution for problems it causes.

I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false. — Isaac

As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out. — Isaac

Of course threats of violence are necessary.

What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? Or what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? There's a reason laws are in place that threaten violence for exactly that end - people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do.

Just like how the justice system hides its threats of violence behind a line of lesser punishments, it is no less present. The authoritarian wet dream where every citizen is monitored and controlled in such an absolute way that dissent from the government's will is impossible, this threat of violence is simply shifted to somewhere else. But I suspect in such a state taxation would be the least of one's worries. It would be de facto slavery.

It's a fantasy to believe large amounts of people can be controlled against thier will without the use or threatening of violence.

So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what? — Isaac

I've explained to you why trying to use opinions to justify violence is bad.

Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions.

This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. — Tzeentch

Of course they're connected. You benefit from their unemployment. Do you seriously know this little about economics?

If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I? — Tzeentch

What, all four thousand of them?

What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? — Tzeentch

We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out.

what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? — Tzeentch

Same. Compensatory recompense is just taken from their property. Did you not even read our previous exchange? We've been through all this.

people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do. — Tzeentch

If they avoid detection, how does a law help?

Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions. — Tzeentch

I'm not justifying violence at all. No one is. That's the problem. You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. How such an agreement is enforced is a completely separate question. It need not be by violence, as I've explained quite exhaustively now.

Do you see those as the only two options? — Isaac

Do you?

No—those are called examples. There’s gray area.

But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. — Isaac

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person, which is what we were talking about.

There is also plenty of evidence in favor of going with mainstream science and medicine.

There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters.

Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? — Isaac

Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — and these institutions should be trustworthy.

As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube.

What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring? — Isaac

I figured you’d go this route.

I’m not talking about scientific dissent— which is indeed important.

The topic was the similar ignorance of both those who agree with and disagree with scientific consensus and mainstream medicine. My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject.

As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube. — Xtrix

:100:

https://ourplnt.com/i-did-my-own-research/

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person — Xtrix

Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour...Notwithstanding, your knowledge is still second hand, it still comes from those you trust. The amount of time you've taken doesn't alter the nature of the information you gathered, which remains secondary.

There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters. — Xtrix

Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong.

Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — Xtrix

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus.

it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube. — Xtrix

Of course, but this still doesn't answer the question I asked.

My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject. — Xtrix

But you've still dodged the question. Why "most experts". What is it about the relative proportion of experts trusted which deserves this credit. If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust?

Note, this from a pre-print:

Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say (Sep 1, 2021)

You'll occasionally see someone not having their mask cover their nose, or otherwise not used quite right. I guess effectiveness depends on a few things, on some scale, not just (y) or (n).

You'll occasionally see someone not having their mask cover their nose, or otherwise not used quite right. I guess effectiveness depends on a few things, on some scale, not just (y) or (n). — jorndoe

This comment doesn't follow from the article you posted, and why does this need to be in a separate thread from the main coronavirus one?

Do we need a separate jorndoe billboard?

Sorry , moved err copied the comment over (can't remove).

It's not clear what point you are trying to make with this.

Thank you. :grin:

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person
— Xtrix

Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour. — Isaac

My statement is not subjective. I simply know more about the topic than average people.

To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself— any more than the claim that I’m taller than the average person. I take no pride in it any more than I do about chess or poker. Doesn’t make me special, just means I’ve spent more time on it. Why one is considered bad taste and the other perfectly fine is something we should grow out of.

your knowledge is still second hand, — Isaac

My knowledge of mathematics is also “second hand.”

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong. — Isaac

They are. Those who are anti-vaxxers and climate deniers are wrong. Sorry it’s a struggle for you to acknowledge the obvious.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus. — Isaac

Which I answered: yes.

If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust? — Isaac

It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman.

Why? Because the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.

Pyrrho the skeptic is supposed to have walked into paths of oncoming wagons because being true to his own philosophy of global skepticism, he doubted his own senses and thoughts.

I can't be Pyrrho Pyrrho but I can at least pay homage to his good faith and sincerity and say,

1. Don't know
2. Don't know
3. Don't know

The shocking truth is I really don't know. I seem to drift back and forth between the real world and my imaginary world, the line between them have blurred to the point of me being unable to distinguish them. Go figure!

I simply know more about the topic than average people.

To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself — Xtrix

No, none at all. The issue is that, without knowing them at all, you characterise those who disagree with you as having formed their opinions from five minutes on YouTube. The point I'm making is not one about egotistical sounding statements, it's about judgement. If it's possible to know enough about a subject to make objective factual statements about it without actually being a qualified expert, then you can't simply dismiss the objective factual statements of others on the grounds that they don't tally with yours. It's just as possible that they are as well-informed as you are (or better) and have simply arrived at a differing conclusion based on facts you aren't aware of.

It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman. — Xtrix

That's not what you claimed.

My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject. — Xtrix

You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts.

the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim. — Xtrix

And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? You're talking about social praise, reward for behaviour to be promoted (as opposed to punishment for behaviour to be restricted). Why is the highest probability of being true the deciding factor in this? You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth.

An argument for a minimum threshold of likelihood is easily made (trust experts, not snake-oil salesmen), there needs to be sufficient likelihood to outweigh the risk - standard risk assessment stuff. But you're here trying to make an argument not for thresholds, but that nothing other than the absolute highest probability of being true is enough to outweigh the risk of any action associated with it. This seems like a bizarre approach to risk. One which is inconsistent with all other judgments we make about people taking risks (all of which seems threshold based - as long as it's not too risky we'll generally consider it to be OK).

I'm intrigued if you take this approach to risk in other areas too. To you castigate people for not choosing the statistically least risky pastime possible. any who knowingly chooses a more risky one is to be reprimanded?

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs. — Xtrix

Really? You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). Your claim of homogeneity in opposition is ridiculous.

You benefit from their unemployment. — Isaac

Even if we take this to be true, I never asked for it. Is there a way for me to opt out of my supposed benefits? I think not.

Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself.

What, all four thousand of them? — Isaac

Sure. Obviously no one is going to bother, because these so-called disputes are meaningless.

If my supposed stake in this situation is so miniscule that it isn't even worth finding out who I am, then I think that is reason to assume there isn't any real dispute worth mentioning here.

We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac

Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house.

If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac

Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system.

You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. — Isaac

Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence).

This is what I pointed out. If your position is any flavor of "This is ok, because..." you are justifying violence. If your position is "This is not ok, but..." then maybe you are not.

And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything.

You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts. — Isaac

Yes, I've been saying that all along. This was my original statement in response to your emphasizing that most people, even those who are what we would call "correct" about a topic (climate change, vaccines), are themselves often just as ignorant about climatology and medicine. I agreed, with the following qualification:

The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however. — Xtrix

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix

And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac

Nothing.

You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth — Isaac

I never once made sweeping statements like this. You repeatedly seem to forget the topic, and what I have actually said. I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above.

For them, as for anyone who doesn't have a clue about a particular topic, the best move is to go with the overwhelming consensus of experts. Those who do, I argue, deserve praise only in the sense of having the good judgment to do so -- their ignorance of the topic itself notwithstanding.

I really don't think this is a controversial statement if you take a few seconds to think about it. Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? I'd argue it is. I'd argue it's better to make a bet and win than make a bet and lose. I'd argue it's better to choose surgery if 98 out of 100 surgeons say it's the right move. I'd argue it's good to put your money into the pot when you're a 3:1 favorite to win.

To you castigate people — Isaac

ore risky one is to be reprimanded? — Isaac

This entire conversation has been rather bizarre. I'm not castigating or reprimanding anyone. Listen once again to what I initially said (and have repeated since):

"Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters."

That's not high praise, and it's not castigating those who don't.

You seem to be overthinking this and reading into things way too much.

Not everything is a debate, and you don't lose points by agreeing with truisms.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.
— Xtrix

Really? — Isaac

Really? Yes, really.

You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). — Isaac

I never said "as often as you like."

You can find "experts" who make all kinds of claims. About tobacco, about fossil fuels, about sugar, about fast food, about anything you like. And that's part of my point.

The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. — Isaac

Not at all. You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them -- just as you can find climate scientists who deny climate change, who are also sincere.

So it's not fantastical at all. But even assuming it was -- that completely misses the point. Just use the examples I started with, in this very thread, regarding COVID and vaccines. Nothing "fantastical" about that either -- the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.

My advice to those who know nothing about medicine is simple: listen to the overwhelming medical consensus about this issue.

Simple. Easy. Yet seemingly very difficult for you which, again, is rather bizarre.

There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). — Isaac

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines, or that climate change is real, or that 9/11 happened. If this is what you mean, then I can see why this discussion has been difficult for you.

If that's not the case, then whatever you mean by "response" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes, there are disagreements about exactly how to tackle climate change, how best to handle COVID (although there is still a large consensus), etc. So what? That's completely irrelevant.

Maybe this will help: do you think vaccines should be taken? Do you think climate change is real and should be dealt with? Do you believe the Earth is spherical?

If you answer yes to any of those, then I'm not sure what you're arguing against -- besides straw man you've constructed about my "praising" people. My only claim was that they deserve some credit, and I used the example of instinct players in poker, which is a good example.


I can say it only so many ways:


Those lay persons who go with the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, despite knowing nothing about science or medicine, at least deserve credit for that judgment -- because it's the wiser bet.


Shouldn't be controversial, except for those who want to defend their own bad judgment.

Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself. — Tzeentch

The state didn't create the problem, it proffered a solution to it. The problem pre-exists. People compete over scarce resources. Mostly the strong win and the weak lose. States redress that (or at least they represent the opportunity to).

We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac


Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house. — Tzeentch

Then tough luck on the state.

If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac


Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system. — Tzeentch

If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method.

Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence). — Tzeentch

It's not redistribution. There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. Taxation is part of the distribution of wealth. and it needn't involve violence, as I made quite clear.

And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything. — Tzeentch

Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. If you have a better way of reaching an agreement, then I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac


Nothing. — Xtrix

Then why the praise? If they've not done something ethically praiseworthy? Are just personally pleased with them?

I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above. — Xtrix

OK. So, same question but for laymen. what's the advantage to society in have all the laymen follow the advice that it most likely to be right (as opposed to having some of them follow the second most likely, third most likely etc.)?

Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? — Xtrix

Woah. When did 'Truth' enter into it? How is it 'true' that we ought to vaccinate. It can be true that the vaccine prevent coivd-19 symptoms in the majority of people. It can be true that is causes problematic side-effects in only a very tiny fraction of those taking it. Neither of those things are a statement about what we ought to do. They are both statements of fact. To get an action out them we need an objective, and a value system to weigh it against other objectives. Do you have experts in those things?

You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them — Xtrix

Find one then.

the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves. — Xtrix

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do?

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines — Xtrix

That's just bullshit. The JCVI here in the UK have just ruled that the vaccine should not be authorised for the under 15s

the available evidence indicates that the individual health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination are small in those aged 12 to 15 years who do not have underlying health conditions which put them at risk of severe COVID-19

The potential risks from vaccination are also small, with reports of post-vaccination myocarditis being very rare, but potentially serious and still in the process of being described.

Given the rarity of these events and the limited follow-up time of children and young people with post-vaccination myocarditis, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the health risks associated with these adverse events.

Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms, but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms.

The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time.

You have a strange definition of 'encouraging vaccines' if you think advising against rolling them out constitutes encouragement.

the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves. — Xtrix

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac

Here's one way of bridging ye olde is-ought gap -- dunno if it's all that persuasive.

As I've mentioned, one of the curious features about vaccination as a "moral quandary" is that it's one everybody faces. I've leaned on this to explain why everyone feels entitled to an opinion about everyone else's decisions: at the very least it's something they've already thought through and have a ready-to-hand opinion about it. But it also means I have the option of looking to the decisions of many others to help make my own decision. That could be a matter of exemplars (this politician I trust got it, so I should get it) or of numbers (almost everyone is getting it, so I should get it).

I might be particularly interested in the decisions of people like me in many ways but more qualified to judge the science than I am. Most "moral quandaries" don't turn on how well you understand the facts of the case -- that's an epistemological problem -- and certainly don't turn on how well you understand some particular field of science it would take you many years to master. Your lack of training and knowledge could very well block you from completing an otherwise clear decision-making process that results in an ought. But there are people who are not so handicapped and I could take them as proxies for how I would decide if I didn't get stuck at the facts-and-science step of my reasoning.

Now let's add to that another fact: the doctors and scientists and public health officials who have gotten vaccinated at very high rates, are all citizens of the same country I am. Suppose we treat each citizen as an expert on citizenship in just the same sense that everyone counts as an expert in their native language. It doesn't mean we all agree on everything, but there's tremendous overlap driven by a shared goal of preserving a working solution to a cooperation problem. You are not without exception required to speak your native language exactly as everyone else does -- they're not all uniform anyway -- but their aggregate opinion, made manifest in the way they use words, does indeed count as a rule you ought to follow -- just not quite 100% ought. If we look at citizenship in a similar way, then we can reach similar conclusions, that indeed every citizen expects every other citizen to conform to some set of norms that are bound up with citizenship, and it shouldn't be hard to see that.

From this I conclude that within the subset of citizens actually qualified to make the decision at all, the norm of behavior is to get vaccinated. And therefore there is a norm that I ought to get vaccinated. QED and a bottle of rum.

the doctors and scientists and public health officials who have gotten vaccinated at very high rates, are all citizens of the same country I am. Suppose we treat each citizen as an expert on citizenship in just the same sense that everyone counts as an expert in their native language. It doesn't mean we all agree on everything, but there's tremendous overlap driven by a shared goal of preserving a working solution to a cooperation problem. You are not without exception required to speak your native language exactly as everyone else does -- they're not all uniform anyway -- but their aggregate opinion, made manifest in the way they use words, does indeed count as a rule you ought to follow — Srap Tasmaner

Briefly just wanted to say - If you've read anything I've written previously about ethics (although why would you have done), you'll see this is very much in line with the way I think about it. I've previously given the example of punching old ladies, that if someone thought punching old ladies was something we 'ought' to do they would be categorically wrong because they will simply have misunderstood what the word 'ought' means. 'Ought' is a word and so like any other word, it's meaning is found by its use within a community of language users. 'Ought' is used for things like not punching old ladies.

The problem I have with extending it to vaccines is the extent to which we can use these others as proxies. No-one ought to punch an old lady, no-one at all. There aren't exceptions for certain people, or circumstances, because punching old ladies is not a means to any good end. Everyone 'ought' to pay the grocer after he's delivered the potatoes (to paraphrase Anscombe). Children did not ought to get the vaccine, the immunosuppressed did not ought to get the vaccine, there's debate around whether young adults ought to get the vaccine. There are clearly factors determining this particular ought. That means that the factors (not the normative) are the relevant variable. The reason being that the vaccine is a means to an end (the general health of the community), not and end in itself. I've no objection to means being norms, but they usually come with caveats so that the ends are met by them. We don't want to become slaves to the means even when they're no longer working, it's the ends that really matter.

What we have from the ethical analysis you've given here is that there definitely exists a group who ought to take the vaccine and there definitely exists a group out ought not take the vaccine (and probably a group for whom it's moot). That's the reach of the ethics. Am I in one of the exception groups? That becomes a technical question, not an ethical one.

...but you can still have your rum. The derivation of an ought from an is alone deserves that!

The problem I have with extending it to vaccines is the extent to which we can use these others as proxies. — Isaac

Yes I thought of that but then deliberately didn't think about it, because that puts you -- taking "you" as whoever's making a decision here -- back in the position of judging the facts and the science, which we've stipulated you are not competent to do. If you are competent to make this decision, the argument's not for you; if you aren't but insist you are, oh well, did my best.

(Although I could try to something else to burst your bubble: suppose I could get my hands on a comprehensive cross-tabbed survey of medical and medical research professionals, and I could actually pull out very close comps: "Look, here's 19,815 experts all about your age with extremely similar risk-factor profiles and all but 11 of them have gotten vaccinated." If that wouldn't convince you I'd have to assume you're not just not interested in the social norm at all.)

Children -- look, we can ignore children. They aren't being asked to choose whether to get vaccinated. Similarly, those with serious medical conditions -- they already have a modified decision-making process that is at least cooperative and perhaps beholden to the professionals providing and managing their care.

There are clearly factors determining this particular ought. That means that the factors (not the normative) are the relevant variable. — Isaac

So that's wrong and misses the whole point of the exercise. Because you are not competent to judge these factors, you want to know what the norm is among people who are, and it will carry considerable weight for you if you care about social norms.

The state didn't create the problem... — Isaac

Of course it did. The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs.

Then tough luck on the state. — Isaac

In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment?

Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. — Isaac

That makes no difference to the point I am making.

If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method. — Isaac

You asked how threats of violence make any difference when seeking compliance and I explained it to you.

Again - the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation.

There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac

Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed?

Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. — Isaac

This is not true. Even if I were to do all those things, every single one of them would be an implicit agreement to the state's impositions, not a disagreement. And even then a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all.

suppose I could get my hands on a comprehensive cross-tabbed survey of medical and medical research professionals, and I could actually pull out very close comps: "Look, here's 19,815 experts all about your age with extremely similar risk-factor profiles and all but 11 of them have gotten vaccinated." If that wouldn't convince you I'd have to assume you're not just not interested in the social norm at all. — Srap Tasmaner

And you may be right. As I said earlier, I probably wouldn't argue from a social norm position. I'm just interested in where this leads. So with that in mind...

Yes. If you could produce a slew of experts who were like me in the key variables and show that they all got vaccinated, then I think that would create a compelling social norm case, but you'd need a few more parameters to distinguish it as a 'moral' norm (an 'ought'). I expect the vast majority of my close cohort also wear trousers. do we want to say that wearing trousers is something I ought to do? If we're being terribly modern, we'd like to say no. I did, however, ought to wear something over my nether regions. So you'd need an argument that vaccination is like clothing (the aim) and not like trousers (a very popular choice of solution). The actions of the vast majority of a cohort don't seem to give you that. Vast majorities are no less prone to cultural social norms than they are moral ones.

Children -- look, we can ignore children. They aren't being asked to choose whether to get vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner

Why not?

Because you are not competent to judge these factors, you want to know what the norm is among people who are — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I think you would. But do you see that data out there? Is there anything suggesting specifically that the same imperative that applies to urbanite, overweight smokers as applies to rural-dwelling, healthy athletes (not that I'm an athlete, I just needed a third - rule of threes). Recall the public health advice on potatoes. They're not a vegetable. They don't count toward your five-a-day. Why? Not because they're not as nutritious as other vegetables (they are), but because public health only gets one shot at one simple message, and they don't want your average Joe thinking chips count.

It goes back to the children issue. Why have they not advised children to get vaccinated? Because the benefits don't outweigh the risks sufficiently. Why? Because children are less likely to get ill from it and the evidence on transmission reduction is patchy at best (not my personal view, the view of the experts whose job it was to decide). So are we to assume that something magic happens at 15 and we suddenly become vulnerable to a disease? No. It's a rough cut off point, a public policy fudge made necessary by the millions of people the policy has to cover in one single easy to read message. Great bit of policy - tricky decision in difficult circumstances. Crazy thing to build a moral position on. It's a bureaucratic necessity for running a large country, not an ethical stone tablet.

The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs. — Tzeentch

What a stunningly naive thing to say. You share the same air, water, food sources, economy, oil reserves, enemies (sometimes), future... If Bob is unemployed the cost of labour is reduced because there's a demand for jobs. that means the manufacturer has to pay less for labour which means you get cheaper products. No state necessary, you benefit from bob's unemployment.

In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment? — Tzeentch

I don't see much by way of untaxed alternatives. Most people couldn't get by without banks, or by staying permanently in their home. I think if the government wanted to take what it believed to be it's property, it wouldn't have too hard a time doing so without violence

the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation. — Tzeentch

As I said, I've no interest in pubescent whinging. If all you want to do is say "Oh poor me" then we can end this here. Alternatives are all that matter.

There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac


Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed? — Tzeentch

How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them?

a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all. — Tzeentch

That's the situation you're in. state or not, because you live with others. again, if all you want to do is whine about how difficult life is, then we'll just stop here.