You ask me how one can forcefully redistribute wealth according to their liking and make people part with what they believe to be theirs without having to resort to violence and my answer is simple: one shouldn't want to. — Tzeentch

I didn't ask you that. I asked you how we reach an agreement about what belongs to whom. You said you weren't opposed to agreement, but you don't consider the democratic process to be a suitable means of achieving that. I asked what means you do consider suitable.

I asked you how we reach an agreement about what belongs to whom. — Isaac

I don't know about any we, but when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement.

But it's good to hear we've resolved the whole 'tax' issue. Since you believe that one...

one shouldn't want to. — Tzeentch

make people part with what they believe to be theirs — Tzeentch

You won't be wanting to take home that portion of your pay that the government believes to be theirs will you?

I don't know about any we, but when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement. — Tzeentch

How do you propose the government talks to each and every person to reach individually tailored agreements as to what belongs to whom?

when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement. — Tzeentch

And what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay?

How do you propose the government talks to each and every person to reach individually tailored agreements as to what belongs to whom? — Isaac

They likely can't, it probably comes as no surprise that I view governments as inherently problematic and taxation is only a part of that.

You won't be wanting to take home that portion of your pay that the government believes to be theirs will you? — Isaac

And what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

Governments aren't people.

But I don't have an intention to forcefully take from individuals what they believe to be theirs, no. I reach an agreement with them.

I view governments as inherently problematic — Tzeentch

It'd be even harder for every person to come to an agreement with every other. This is just fantasist nonsense.

Governments aren't people. — Tzeentch

So?

I don't have an intention to forcefully take from individuals what they believe to be theirs, no. I reach an agreement with them. — Tzeentch

So

what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

It'd be even harder for every person to come to an agreement with every other. This is just fantasist nonsense. — Isaac

I don't have to. Only with those people I have a dispute with, which aren't very many at all.

Governments aren't people. — Tzeentch

So? — Isaac

A government isn't a thinking being with an opinion about what it believes to be theirs.

what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

I didn't have any talks, as they would obviously be fruitless. Ask your questions frankly, and don't play games.

Only with those people I have a dispute with, which aren't very many at all. — Tzeentch

Everyone who is a beneficiary of taxes then is in dispute with you about who owns the taxed portion of you pay, they all think it's them.

A government isn't a thinking being with an opinion about what it believes to be theirs. — Tzeentch

No, but people can have an opinion about what belongs to the government.

I didn't have any talks, as they would obviously be fruitless. — Tzeentch

Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? You said that the matter of ownership is resolved by agreement, yet you've engaged in no such agreement with the government. So no agreement has been reached as to who owns what. So on what ground to you claim "theft!"?

Everyone who is a beneficiary of taxes then is in dispute with you about who owns the taxed portion of you pay, they all think it's them. — Isaac

No, but people can have an opinion about what belongs to the government. — Isaac

These are just abstractions. Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them.

Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? — Isaac

I never declared that.

You said that the matter of ownership is resolved by agreement, yet you've engaged in no such agreement with the government. So no agreement has been reached as to who owns what. — Isaac

Indeed, it has simply been imposed upon me without my say. A regrettable state of affairs as far as I am concerned.

Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them. — Tzeentch

Ridiculous, there are millions of people in your country alone, all of whom have a claim. This idea of managing an entire country by individual agreement is absurd.

Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? — Isaac


I never declared that. — Tzeentch

Not in so many words perhaps, but the taking of property one is not entitled to is theft, so to disown the claim you'd have to either relinquish the property claim or agree the government is within its rights.

it has simply been imposed upon me without my say. — Tzeentch

Why would they ask you, they don't believe it's your property, you've never put any such claim to them, so why on earth would they ask you first?

You said...

Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them. — Tzeentch

If I say that people claim a portion of you pay, you ask me to list their names. So why would you expect any more from the government. They simply believe that portion of you pay to be theirs and have not been given any such 'list of names' who make a conflicting claim.

Ridiculous, there are millions of people in your country alone, all of whom have a claim. This idea of managing an entire country by individual agreement is absurd. — Isaac

No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things.

Maybe it is countries that are absurd if they are unable to act in ways that are good.

Not in so many words perhaps, but the taking of property one is not entitled to is theft, so to disown the claim you'd have to either relinquish the property claim or agree the government is within its rights. — Isaac

We haven't spoken about entitlements. We have spoken about perceptions, and if those perceptions conflict, the way I solve it is by individual agreement. Theft is not a part of this idea.

Why would they ask you, they don't believe it's your property, you've never put any such claim to them, so why on earth would they ask you first? — Isaac

Why would this change the fact that it has been imposed on me without my say?

If your conclusion is, states are incapable of listening to the individual requests of the people it holds power over, I'd simply chalk that up as another flaw of states.

No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things. — Tzeentch

Well then describe the mechanism. The 14 thousand unemployed in your country claim a little of your pay to support them in their unemployment. What do they do? All turn up at your house? Write you a note? His does this system of yours work?

Maybe it is countries that are absurd if they are unable to act in ways that are good. — Tzeentch

'Good' hasn't even been raised yet.

We haven't spoken about entitlements. We have spoken about perceptions, and if those perceptions conflict — Tzeentch

The perceptions are of who owns what. Theft is the taking of something owned by another, so if you perceive something to be owned by you it follows that you perceive it's removal to be theft, unless you simply don't know what theft means.

Why would this change the fact that it has been imposed on me without my say? — Tzeentch

It wouldn't. It changes why you'd be at all surprised about that.

The 14 thousand unemployed in your country claim a little of your pay to support them in their unemployment. — Isaac

I don't have a dispute with those people, as far as I am aware.

Theft is the taking of something owned by another, so if you perceive something to be owned by you it follows that you perceive it's removal to be theft, unless you simply don't know what theft means. — Isaac

Theft concerns a subjective dimension about what rightfully belongs to whom, and that is not relevant to the point I have been making.

It changes why you'd be at all surprised about that. — Isaac

My surprise does not change the nature of things.

I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about me: what my solutions are, why I am surprised, etc. Those things aren't relevant at all to the point I am making.

And no consideration is given as to why a person didn't get vaccinated
— baker

Maybe, maybe not? What do you think? It's usually easy enough to identify people that require special medical attention. (Maybe ridiculous conspiracy theories are special conditions.) Actually, I think trying to round up medical conditions is standard procedure; maybe frank or someone knows.

somehow, covid vaccines are a stellar exemption
— baker

Keep up. — jorndoe

You keep up. The official popular "Get vaccinated, or else!" narrative allows for no consideration as to why a person didn't get vaccinated. Such is also the practice: One is supposed to go to a vaccination site, roll up one's sleeve, and allow oneself to be pricked with a needle. There is no medical exam prior to that, not even people's temperature is measured prior to vaccination.


Back in January, when they first begun vaccinating people, at least in the EU, the standard medical protocol for vaccination was followed: The prospective vaccinee was examined by a doctor, a medical history taken, a covid test done, and only then, after the test came back negative and at the discretion of the doctor, was a person vaccinated. Now, they don't do any of that. They are mass vaccinating people of an unknown medical status, including those who are already infected with covid, but don't know it.

This probably also accounts for many of those vaccinated people who end up needing hospital care for covid. And their numbers are growing.

But, saying "hey, it works, which can't be right" doesn't work. — jorndoe

*sigh*

I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.

But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.

And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals.

No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things. — Tzeentch

Have you read Why Nations Fail?

Some states take on the role of ensuring the property rights of their citizens and mediating the inevitable property disputes.

States that don't do that tend to end up with the strongest just taking whatever the fuck they want, and eventually that's everything, including the state apparatus.

If your view is that this is more or less the only sort of state in the world -- the bully that takes whatever it wants and has guns -- I get that, but Acemoglu and Robinson lay out an empirical case that you can actually see the difference, that it's real, and that it explains why some countries thrive and some don't.

It's not a debate about the virtues of capitalism or socialism but a debate between privatised and universal healthcare. Under the first, you're definitely screwed if you have a rare disease. At least universal healthcare is subject to public debate, instead of board room decisions. Moreover, due to the fact universal healthcare includes more people, the risk mutualisation is spread over a greater number of people. In theory it should be more affordable to also cover rarer diseases. In practice this is proved time and again by the fact both coverage is greater and costs are lower in countries with universal healthcare as opposed to the US, while quality of care is, on average, better too. — Benkei

In some EU countries, we have a mixture of privatised and universal healthcare. Here, the bottomline is that health insurance only gets you at the end of the waiting line, which is usually quite long. So you have to pay out of your own pocket to get medical treatment in a timely manner, and of better quality (which makes for a bizzare experience: same clinic, same doctor, but different standards of care, depending on whether you pay out of your own pocket or whether insurance pays).

What this means now in the covid situation is that if you get side effects after vaccination, this gets treated the same way as if those symptoms would have arisen for some unrelated reason and you are expected to wait for months on end to get any tests done at all (unless you pay). Also, on principle, since the covid vaccines are legally still just experimental medication, health insurance does not cover the treatment of side effects.

I think pre-vaccination and post-vaccination medical and insurance programs would help a lot and that more people would decide to get vaccinated if they knew there is a safety net waiting for them post-vaccination, and if they would be better prepared for vaccination (such as by improving their health with doses of vitamin D and B12, and by being tested prior to vaccination and vaccinated only if negative).

It's only relevant if other triage considerations have already been exhausted (such as, acuteness of the care needed, beneficence and maleficence) and if the information is available whether such a person has contributed to the hospitalisation themselves, then I would use that information and I think it would be ethical to do so.

But would you include the consideration as to why the person didn't get vaccinated?

How about treating a 90-year old woman with heart surgery to provide her a new heart valve? She takes up resources too. Do it or not do it? — Benkei

In Slovenia, there has for a long time been an unspoken culture of how to proceed in such cases, and people in general were expected to "make the right decision" on their own. Ie. to not be a burden to others.

So, for example, terminal cancer patients have been sent home (if that is an option) with a large dose of opiate analgetics and told that if they took too many of those, they'd die. It's an indirect instruction for suicide and the means for it provided by a doctor. Mind you, euthanasia isn't legal here.

The pandemic has disrupted this culture now, as people are being hospitalized and treated possibly against their will (but which they cannot express due to being unconscious).

But there is certainly no culture of "going to heroic lengths to save everyone" the way one can see it in American films.

Despite your cherry-picked press clippings, the group you describe are not one homogeneous legion. Attempts to lump everyone who disagrees with the party line in with the tinfoil hat brigade are just political. There's a convenient bunch of loonies who can be called on to besmirch any view you don't like by association. Should we do the same with climate change? Environmental issues? I could definitely rustle up some seriously dodgy hippies who are all in for those sorts of causes. Shall we make the serious climate scientists look like fools by associating them with a few tree-hugging children of Gaia?

Is this the direction you really want public debate to head? — Isaac

There seems to be a limit to how much critical thinking and goodwill people are willing and able to engage in in a time of crisis, and that manifesting more than that and expecting others to reciprocate is, at best, seen as a perverse indulgence, and worse, it can backfire, causing people to be even more narrow-minded.

"Now is not the time to think, now is the time to act!" is the motto many people follow in a time of crisis. Which is feasible enough in the type of immediate crisis situations like when a house is on fire. But not in others, such as a drawn-out pandemic.

I think there is a real risk that people like you and I are doing more harm than good, because it seems that simply if we reply with anything other than "I agree, you have changed my mind, I will now think and do as you want", the others see every post of ours as more opposition to their stance (regardless of what we actually say) and they dig their heels in even more.

Governments aren't people. — Tzeentch

Then what are they?

That paper seems to be saying that the risk is greater after vaccination and a positive test for covid than it is with vaccination alone. In other words it seems the subjects were all vaccinated individuals. — Janus

It's not news that vaccinating people who are already infected with the pathogen they are being vaccinated against can lead to complications, similar if the infection occurs too soon after vaccination.

That's why, if you intend to go to some tropical country and need to get vaccinated for the diseases there, you have to do it early enough, so that your immune system has the time to create the required antibodies.


The model of vaccination that many people seem to be implicitly operating with is that the covid vaccines are like direct doses of antibodies (so it makes sense to administer them to everyone). As opposed to thinking of the vaccines as substances that trigger and stress the body and make it work hard to produce antibodies, and that this is a process that takes time.

You think that's a minority group? — Isaac

When it comes to climate change, vaccines, COVID, etc — yes. But overall, the general feeling is that government is bought by special interests.

Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the damn pandemic.

The simple part is that more or less everyone wants the damn pandemic to be gone — jorndoe

Craving for a solution can get in the way of finding one.

The pandemic occured because people are not cautious and are exploitative toward nature and toward other living beings, humans and animals. And now so many want the pandemic to go away -- so that they can go back to their old non-cautious and exploitative ways ...

There is a lesson here, but it seems it won't be learned.

I don't have a dispute with those people, as far as I am aware. — Tzeentch

How would they make you aware?

Theft concerns a subjective dimension about what rightfully belongs to whom, and that is not relevant to the point I have been making. — Tzeentch

Then just reiterate your point for me, if you will. It's possible I've got lost.

I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about me: what my solutions are, why I am surprised, etc. Those things aren't relevant at all to the point I am making. — Tzeentch

Well they seemed so. You appeared to be making a point that governments (particularly their taking of taxes) are bad. For that to make sense there needs to be a viable alternative. Badness is not an objective, absolute scale we can measure things up against. There's no 'badness' rule in Paris setting the standard. Badness is measured against the alternatives. Anything less is just meaningless.

So do you have an alternative? I'm not just going to be a foil for a load of adolescent whinging.

Possibly, but I'm under no illusions that any of this changes people's minds one way or another. It's an exercise in finding out what (and how) people believe, not an exercise in changing it.

It's an exercise in finding out what (and how) people believe — Isaac

Sure. But do you want to know what (and how) people believe just out of curiosity, or do you have a more urgent and useful reason for it?

(Such as tailoring how you speak to people, in order to avoid getting trouble from them.)

When it comes to climate change, vaccines, COVID, etc — yes. But overall, the general feeling is that government is bought by special interests. — Xtrix

I was referring to "...distrustful of everything except their favored media". Do you really think the majority of people trust a variety of sources outside of the favoured media? 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. People pin their flag to the mast of whatever social group seems to fit their identity best and yell the sanctioned scripts from the parapets. Rightness and wrongness are on a separate scale entirely. That the "government is bought by special interests" is no different. 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.

Sure. But do you want to know what (and how) people believe just out of curiosity, or do you have a more urgent and useful reason for it? — baker

Well, it's my job. But yeah, mostly just out of curiosity.

Some states take on the role of ensuring the property rights of their citizens and mediating the inevitable property disputes. — Srap Tasmaner

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?

How would they make you aware? — Isaac

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

Then just reiterate your point for me, if you will. — Isaac

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

What belongs to who is a matter of perception - it's an opinion.

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.

In fact, I view all use of force against individuals as flawed, and I see states as deeply flawed institutions that are a necessary evil at best. That to me is the essential starting point from which to consider what powers we grant to states.

So do you have an alternative? — Isaac

As I said earlier, I contemplate the nature of things, and whether I have an alternative or not does not change that nature.

If a philosopher tells you that killing is bad, you don't ask him "Well how can I cause death if I cannot kill?" or "How will I continue running my assassination enterprise without killing people?"

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