5 ms·

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coerciv

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coercive power to actually provide social benefit. Capricious misuse of power is not aligned with the social contract. So, for example, it would be unethical to coerce vaccination when vaccination does not stop the spread. It also would be unethical to coerce vaccination against a rapidly evolving pathogen when the vaccine is at least 2 variants behind and shows little if any efficacy against current variants. It also would be unethical to have lockdowns for a respiratory virus when there are no RCTs that demonstrate lockdowns stop the spread of such a virus. It would also be unethical to enforce cloth masking when the RCTs demonstrate negative effectiveness of cloth masking for respiratory viruses (more people get sick). All of these are massive violations of the social contract specifically because they would never have been effective. And even if you excuse the first few months under the guise of "We didn't know" the data rolled in very quickly on all those items but the policies remained. So yes, the social contract might mean I have to be quarantined under certain conditions. But you don't get to toss whatever bullshit you want under the social contract.

verisimi 4y ago
I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I agree with you, but the social contract argument fails here even if you imagine a fantasy world where it would exist. I try to meet people where they are. Leftists arguments against leftists. Right-wing arguments against the right wing. And social contract arguments against social contractors.
- harimau777 4y ago
  Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.
    - harimau777 4y ago
      Isn't the alternative might makes right; where the strong can force the weak to give 100% of their income?
      - Consultant32452 4y ago
        The system you have today is might makes right. If your government was overthrown by a foreign country and replaced, the only difference would be you would temporarily think the new government lacked legitimacy. But pretty soon you'd accept it as the new legitimate authority. This is your cognitive dissonance helping you cope with your submission to this illegitimate authority. In most cases it is better for the powerful to not take everything from the weak. You want to incentivize them to create more for your to control/take, but never let them keep enough to challenge you. An actual "social contract" would imply consent and the option to opt-out. But I will literally be thrown in a cage with rapists and murderers if I opt-out. That is the opposite of consent. What you call the social contract is nothing but top-down violent coercion.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination. We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.
    - harimau777 4y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. Without a social contract, on what philosophical/moral grounds should I care about anyone else's individual freedom? If there's no philosophical/moral ground, then why does it matter whether or not something is a fantasy?
harimau777 4y ago
I don't disagree. However, the article doesn't mention any of those circumstances it just says no coercion. You fail to take into account unvaccinated people using up hospital space resulting in too little space for responsible members of society.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  By the time the vaccine was widely available we were in full Omicron territory and there was already no risk to hospitals overflowing. For background, if it matters to you, I believe the vaccine saved many thousands of lives of elderly people. It probably did not save the lives of any meaningful number of young healthy people because those people were statistically not at risk of covid. So I believe the vaccine was safe enough and effective enough to use, particularly for the elderly and people with certain co-morbidities. Lack of risk stratification is ANOTHER violation of the social contract. The criminally sinister thing about vaccine mandates is that the people at risk of severe covid were already lined up out the door to get a vaccine. You didn't have to mandate it for anyone, much less the people who were at practically no risk of covid since it would not stop the spread.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    That wasn't the case here. The vaccine was available to everyone and the hospitals were overflowing with people who refused to get it.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      I saw news articles like that too. There was particular concern about ICU beds. Then I checked the NYT live feed of ICU occupancy and it showed that ICU occupancy was barely higher than the historic average. We converted a stadium into a field hospital in NY that was never used. We sent the Navy medical ship, the Mercy to NY. It was never used. Also, hospitals were full of people who got covid, had mild or no symptoms, and went to the hospital anyways because the news terrified them. None of these comments deny the fact that a terribly unfortunate number of people died from Covid. The very first vaccines came out in July 2021, but were not widely available. Omicron was here by November.

verisimi 4y ago

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

Consultant32452 4y ago
I agree with you, but the social contract argument fails here even if you imagine a fantasy world where it would exist. I try to meet people where they are. Leftists arguments against leftists. Right-wing arguments against the right wing. And social contract arguments against social contractors.
harimau777 4y ago
Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    Isn't the alternative might makes right; where the strong can force the weak to give 100% of their income?
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      The system you have today is might makes right. If your government was overthrown by a foreign country and replaced, the only difference would be you would temporarily think the new government lacked legitimacy. But pretty soon you'd accept it as the new legitimate authority. This is your cognitive dissonance helping you cope with your submission to this illegitimate authority. In most cases it is better for the powerful to not take everything from the weak. You want to incentivize them to create more for your to control/take, but never let them keep enough to challenge you. An actual "social contract" would imply consent and the option to opt-out. But I will literally be thrown in a cage with rapists and murderers if I opt-out. That is the opposite of consent. What you call the social contract is nothing but top-down violent coercion.
- verisimi 4y ago
  All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination. We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Without a social contract, on what philosophical/moral grounds should I care about anyone else's individual freedom? If there's no philosophical/moral ground, then why does it matter whether or not something is a fantasy?

harimau777 4y ago

I don't disagree. However, the article doesn't mention any of those circumstances it just says no coercion. You fail to take into account unvaccinated people using up hospital space resulting in too little space for responsible members of society.

Consultant32452 4y ago
By the time the vaccine was widely available we were in full Omicron territory and there was already no risk to hospitals overflowing. For background, if it matters to you, I believe the vaccine saved many thousands of lives of elderly people. It probably did not save the lives of any meaningful number of young healthy people because those people were statistically not at risk of covid. So I believe the vaccine was safe enough and effective enough to use, particularly for the elderly and people with certain co-morbidities. Lack of risk stratification is ANOTHER violation of the social contract. The criminally sinister thing about vaccine mandates is that the people at risk of severe covid were already lined up out the door to get a vaccine. You didn't have to mandate it for anyone, much less the people who were at practically no risk of covid since it would not stop the spread.
- harimau777 4y ago
  That wasn't the case here. The vaccine was available to everyone and the hospitals were overflowing with people who refused to get it.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    I saw news articles like that too. There was particular concern about ICU beds. Then I checked the NYT live feed of ICU occupancy and it showed that ICU occupancy was barely higher than the historic average. We converted a stadium into a field hospital in NY that was never used. We sent the Navy medical ship, the Mercy to NY. It was never used. Also, hospitals were full of people who got covid, had mild or no symptoms, and went to the hospital anyways because the news terrified them. None of these comments deny the fact that a terribly unfortunate number of people died from Covid. The very first vaccines came out in July 2021, but were not widely available. Omicron was here by November.