Friday, 17 December 2021

"Forced"


NZ HERALD: A Christchurch man claims he is being forced out of his flat due to unwillingness to get the Covid-19 vaccine.

YAHOO NEWS: MAFS star Dean Wells has slammed new lockdown rules for vaccinated and unvaccinated people, saying it's 'segregated' society.

BFD: If my employer makes it clear that if I don't sleep with him I will lose my job then that is no different to a vaccine mandate. In both cases I am being forced to put something into my body that I don't want to.

I could have picked the comments above from almost anywhere -- since this brand of pigheaded unreason is everywhere.

"Force" means something specific;:it means physical coercion; it means someone with a stick, a gun, a whip; the threat or use of violence. So "forced" is a bit strong. More accurate would be: "things that are the result of my stupid choice."

And choice and force are as far from each other as can be. Making choices and acting on them is how we pursue our values --it's how we function as human qua human. Whereas force is how we deny people their choices, and it's precisely why coercion is wrong, and why it's so important that it should be so clearly defined  -- because "to the extent that you do attempt to coerce or manipulate another person, you are trying to sidestep their minds and shut down their thinking process. When you do this, whether by a criminal act or by an attempt to deceive them into acting against their best judgment, you become, in fact, the person's enemy."

Confusing choice and its consequences to force and its antecedents is like confusing a tarantula for something you should hug to your breast. But that's what these non-thinkers above are doing.

Consider: Are you being forced to take a life-saving vaccine? No, but there are consequences for you (for employment; for your living situation; for being able to visit a bar without risking the health of others; and possibly -- the primary reason to choose to be vaccinated -- for your own fucking health) if you make the stupid* choice not to. 

Is this "akin" to rape (as the fucking stupid poster at BFD went on to say)? No, it's "akin" to being asked to fuck off from politic company if you elect not to wash. Or if you've soiled yourself. Or of you're just demonstrably fucking stupid. In other words, because those who do practice basic hygiene don't, quite simply, want you around.

So are you "segregated" from society because you're unvaxxed? No, you're being excluded by business owners and others because of your own stupid fucking choice. A choice, by the way, which is still reversible. Unlike being permanently fucking stupid.

So is this "apartheid" then that we see before us? No, apartheid at root is the denial of what makes us distinctively human -- of what we make of ourselves from our own choices. What we're seeing here is the full recognition from others that you have made a choice. And that choice is fucking dumb.

* Stupid because, whatever stupid fucking website link to which you send me to tell mw how risky you reckons say it is, your risk of whatever from the Pfizer vaccine is far less that your risk of the virus. Even in NZ.

31 comments:

Unknown said...

Ah those Jews what were they complaining about. That nice Mr Mengele gave them food, a job and a sense they were contributing to the greater scientific knowledge of society.

Losing your home, income and becoming a social outcast is not coercion? Genuine question? What is the moral difference between Mengele providing home food and purpose and the NZ state vaccine mandate and what is the line on the spectrum where it becomes coercion. There are strong reasons for the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki declaration. None of them have anything to do with that nice Mr Trumps vaccine

"So are you "segregated" from society because you're unvaxxed? No, you're being excluded by business owners and others..." ROFLMAO. "others" being a government law enforced by the police with fines. I know plenty of business owners who would rather not discriminate.

When did you become an authoritarian state booster?

Peter Cresswell said...

See, you demonstrate in your very first sentence you know nothing of which you speak -- about the difference between being what you *can't* choose (your race, your genes, your upbringing etc.), and what you can (your actions, and what they make you). Because yours have clearly made you pig ignorant -- and to lack the ability even to read.

Peter Cresswell said...

(Not to mention cowardly for not putting your name to your stupidity.)

Anonymous said...

Excellent post PC!

Frankie Lee

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Using the 'F' word repeatedly seems out of character. If people are only getting vaccinated under threat of unemployment or homelessness they are having to do something against their will. I think that's a valid definition of force. Why they don't want to get vaccinated is another issue.

Tom Hunter said...

Well my previous comment has vanished into the ether so let's try again.

The limiting principle comes into play here. What point would you consider it to be forced? Inability to buy food and other medicine? I'll admit that at this point it may not be forced, but the coercion is so strong that it's getting hard to tell the difference, and are you really going to wait until a gun is placed to the heads of the unvaccinated before you're willing to say that it's "force"?

The there's the crux of the matter; what are you being forced to do? take a life-saving vaccine?. I've been watching the CFR/IFR stats since this started. Were I over 70 and/or with health issues, sure I'd take the vax. But for my age and having zero health problems my chances of even getting sick from this disease, let alone dying, are at seasonal flu levels - even more so now with the Delta and now Omicron variants - and no, I've never taken the flu vaccine either, though I have had who knows how many other types of vaccine shots. And spare me the arguments that I need to take this to save the vaccinated!

Fortunately I'm wealthy enough to ride this crap out with my family, so yay for capitalism, even though I possibly permanently fucking stupid.

One last thing re choice. It is possible to choose to become a Jew, like this guy, the son of a decorated Wermacht officer.

Had he made that choice in 1930's Germany he would have lost his friends, job, businesses, and ultimately his life. Perhaps at some point we should ask who is making the choice here, knowing the consequences.

Terry said...

I agree that someone exercising their property right not to employ or serve someone for *whatever* reason is not a use of force. I also agree some who object to taking the vaccine do so for the stupidest reason(s). But despite this, I disagree with the gist of what you have written because whether you intended it to or not, it supports the ostricism of all who choose to remain unvaccinated, regardless of their reasons for not vaccinating - reasons you and I are not privy to the details of in the vast majority of cases.

Here are some questions for you, which I ask both in the hope you will amend your position if answering them sheds a different light, and because I am open to shifting my own ideas if you happen to have answers I have not thought of:

1) Do you recognise that some businesses are being forced by the mandates not to serve or employ the unvaccinated because they would not be able to operate profitably - meaning survive - if they choose to?
2) If your answer to 1) is yes, then aren’t freedoms of both those business owners and the unvaccinated being taken away by force, with their rights violated, and should this not be condemned and protested against? If not, why not?
3) In reality, is it the unvaccinated or the infected who pose a risk to others?
4) Does an unvaccinated person who presents a negative rapid antigen test pose a greater or lesser risk to others than a vaccinated person whose infection status is not known?
5) Does the risk to a vaccinated person being around an infected person change based on that person’s vaccination status given that studies have established both vaccinated and unvaccinated carry similar viral loads when infected (see https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people)?*
6) Is the risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated large enough to justify ostracising them, and, what is that risk exactly?
7) Looking at the case numbers in tables 8 and 11 of this latest report from the UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf), where 84% of cases are vaccinated, and the rate of cases per 100,000 is higher (!) in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated in the 30+ age group, on what basis do you believe the vaccinated are at so much more at risk from the unvaccinated than the vaccinated that it justifies taking away their freedoms? (There is no debate about the effectiveness of the vaccines at reducing symptoms and mortality, but transmission is still an open question)
8) Given the vaccinated are much less likely to exhibit symptoms when infected, and given what is suggested in 7), don’t the vaccinated pose a potentially greater risk to others than the unvaccinated by virtue of the fact they will socialise whilst hiding their contagion, while the unvaccinated will more likely be at home crook and therefore not socialising?
9) Having answered 2-8 above, does not your analogy about being washed or unwashed fall flat?
10) Do you think it logical to apply the collective risk per individual to each individual as if it were that individual’s actual risk when every individual’s risk profile is different, even vastly different?
11) When Ayn Rand said that it is not rational to pass judgment on other people’s intimate relationships because of a lack of information, should not the same principle be applied to a person’s own private medical choices where one is not privy to all the facts (stupid reasons voiced excepted)?


*I recognise that viral loads seem to reduce faster in the vaccinated, but the unvaccinated are more likely to develop symptoms which would keep them at home when viral load is reducing in the unvaccinated (who would not be staying home), which should be accounted for.

Andrew B said...

It was force when the government told bar owners they must provide a smokefree environment to their staff or not open. The libertarian way would have been to allow bar owners to offer employment to those who were happy working in a smokey bar environment.

Same goes for the government telling bar owners they cannot admit or employ the unvacced. Let bar owners, their staff and customers make that choice.

By all means provide certification to allow people to prove they are vaccinated (I filmed my jabs so as to be able to prove them) and recognise bar owners, landlords and employers' rights to discriminate against the unvacced (or the vacced, or blonde/red/brown/black/bald-headed, or tall, or straight/non-straight or white/black, or for any stupid bigoted reason they may have), but don't force them to. Such an abrogation of property rights *is* force.

Andrew B said...

No, they are not. Their employer and head tenant are exercising their right to freedom of association and freedom of contract.

Andrew B said...

Regarding your point 5 and *, the vacced with break out cases are 'peak infectious' for a shorter period. And while I agree that a vacced person could be asymptomatically infectious, they are less likely to become infectious.

84% is less than the vaccination rate in the UK, which was way ahead of NZ and now racing through its boosters, last I looked.

But I agree with your gist, that the government shouldn't violate bar/cafe owners' property rights and force them to discriminate. Government promoted ostracism is monstrous.

Terry said...

The 84% figure is for the over 18s. It is the case numbers per 100,000 in the over 30s vxed vs unvxed that I find most interesting. Those who are under 30 have a minuscule risk.

NB "in the unvaccinated (who would not be staying home)" should read "in the vaccinated (who would not be staying home)"

MarkT said...

That sounds indistinguishable from the socialist position that an employer withdrawing a job, or a landlord terminating a tenancy are also enacting 'force'.

You've made intelligent contributions in the past, so I'm surprised I have to even be stating the obvious - that for a valid trade to occur both sides need to be willing, not just one.

MarkT said...

If there's a grey area in all this, it's in the boundary between private choice to exclude the vaccinated, versus state mandates to do so.

It's grey because:
1. The state is a large employer and manager of public spaces, and in that context has a legitimate reason to exclude the unvaccinated, just as a private employer or property owner does.

2. The state's employment and anti-discrimination laws would make it very difficult for the private sector to implement vaccination as a condition of entry or employment, without additional laws from the state in support. I know of business owners who were secretly relieved when the requirement to be vaccinated came into affect, because implementing the same requirement privately in the context of our employment laws would be a nightmare.

So it's a little grey, but it's not a grey area I regard as a high priority to resolve in the middle of a pandemic. The evidence seems clear that the unvaccinated increase the risk to others, and the anti-vaxers seem largely immune to this evidence.

I liken it to insisting on a Warrant of Fitness if you're to drive on public roads, because driving a poorly maintained vehicle increases the danger to others. Sure, in an ideal libertarian society, there would be some private alternative and state mandated warrants of fitness wouldn't be necessary. But given the context of the state owning all public roads, I don't have a huge problem with it either.

Terry said...

There is no grey area. Rights pertain to individuals, not to groups. The principle of innocent until proven guilty applies here no less than in a crime. Property rights are another principle that applies: every person has a right to choose the risk they are prepared to take in exchange for what freedom, and property rights implements that. The principle of being free to do what one wants unless expressly forbidden applies as well, namely liberty. The whole concept of vaccine passes turns these principles on their head, replacing a free society with a permission based society. It is shocking to me that people who should know better, and used to know better, are throwing all these principles under the bus, all in the name of reducing a health risk in respect of one specific threat from tiny to miniscule, and maybe not even that, without a pang of conscience for violation of the actual rights of others.

Terry said...

To clarify, by vaccine passes I mean the mandated passport system, which overrides property rights. And my comment re being shocked is specific to you, but includes any objectivist or libertarian who has made clear they do not oppose the mandated passport system in respect of private businesses or property (Peter has not yet made his position clear on that).

MarkT said...

Terry - Are you equally shocked and outraged by the "WOF mandate" i.e. the need to show you've taken basic precautions to maintain your vehicle adequately, before being allowed on the road? Is that not also an example of what you would call a "permission based society"? And if not, what's the difference in principle?

Terry said...

Mark - why are you comparing public roads to private property and businesses? Would not a private road owner have the final say on that? And using your flawed analogy, would not a negative rapid antigen test be the equivalent to a WOF?

Terry said...

And one more question: is not the fundamental issue not "what is best?" but "who gets to decide?" ?

MarkT said...

"Would not a private road owner have the final say on that?"

FFS Terry, the answer is yes, and that's my whole point. An ideal libertarian society would see private roads, and no WOF mandate from the state. But when the state is involved in our lives to the degree it is; not just in providing roads, but employing a large % of the population, combined with a myriad of other requirements and responsibilities for private employment - employment law, H&S legislation, etc - it's not so easy to make that clear separation between public and private responsibility.

I'm not saying they haven't gone too far by requiring private businesses to require vaccines either. They probably have, because a socialist naturally thinks more control is the answer to everything. If antigen testing can provide a similar level of safety, that should be an alternative. I'm saying it's not so straight forward in a mixed economy, and I don't care enough about the issue to spend time wading through the nuances of where state influence should begin and end exactly in our current context - just so we can establish under what circumstances you should be able to make (what seems) a stupid decision. I have other priorities, and there are bigger threats to my life and liberty.

Nigel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nigel said...

Lindsay, I agree that the language Peter is using is out of character. The entire tone of the writing appears to me to be that of disgust.

Terry said...

The state sector employs 13.8% of workers, how is that a large percentage? When 86% of workers work for privately owned businesses, what is unclear about the responsibilities and who should get to decide? Is it not simple: each business and employee decide for themselves the risk they are prepared to take? Is see no nuance here for you to wade through. What I see is you looking through a rights lens that sees people in groups, not as individuals, which is why I say I am shocked.

Terry said...

To clarify:

>>"I don't have a huge problem with it either."

It is what is implied by that statement and your analogy of mandated vaccine passes being like WOFs, and you arguing for the supposed greyness of it all, and how that justifies what is happening, or at least does not bother you, is where I arrive at you being happy to let rights be recognised based on one's group, in this case vaccination status.

Richard Wiig said...

I agree, Lindsay. If people are getting the vaccine out of fear of losing their jobs, etc, then it isn't a good reason to get vaccinated. I'd have thought all civilised people would be against this kind of coercion and segregation, regardless of what they think about the vaccine and regardless of whether not property owners have the right (and they do) to. It truly is some of the lowest of human behaviour that is on display. What do the vaxxed have to fear from the unvaxxed? Do they not trust their vaccinations?

Nigel said...

Peter, if you're crying with grief while getting the Pfizer vaccine injection (as many have), you haven't been physically forced, no: but you have been coerced into violating your own conscience.

Rick said...

Mark and Andrew seem to be forgetting that the terms of the employment and housing contracts have been changed without consent.

Our nurses, doctors, midwives, transport workers and other professionals never had an advance agreement that their roles were contingent on submitting to experimental placebos or "vaccines." You guys surely know that? The Government knows that which is why those cancelled workers (eg practicing anesthesiologists) are directly eligible for welfare without a stand-down period.

Consent is what makes the difference between something being force or not. Between rape and lovemaking, between a punch-up and a boxing contest.

Peter, on the other hand, seems to have force pinned down to sticks, guns, and whips. But force isn't just physical force. It never was!

Andrew B said...

Forced is coerced. He wasn't. He chose it, presumably for selfish reasons.

Andrew B said...

The proper response to the grey areas you raise is not to endorse mandates, but to call for the state to

1) withdraw from those areas it shouldn't be involved in; and
2) endorse the rights of business owners to discriminate as they wish, including on the basis of vaccination status.

Zach van Dorp said...

People should downgrade the word "forced" to "coerced" so as to not confuse the finer points of a definition. There, I saved you a 3 quote/8 paragraph diatribe.

Andrew B said...

Rental and employment contracts are not forever Rick.
You can walk away from your job with a notice period; likewise a periodic tenancy. Similarly your employer or head tenant can boost you with a notice period.
For a fixed term tenancy, you can walk away at the end of the term. Similarly, a head tenant can choose not to renew with you.

Monica said...

Peter, it's really sad for me to see that you have allowed yourself to become a victim of the incessant fear-mongering propaganda. The math speaks for itself, as I've pointed out multiple times on this blog. Will you not being to doubt your own discretion?

You are, in essence, saying that people like me (I have a PhD in biology and manufacture an injectable therapeutic!) who don't want to take a rushed gene therapy with dubious safety and efficacy are "fucking stupid" and deserve to be treated as sub-human. About 6 weeks from when this was written, you see now where this type of rhetoric has led.

I'm beginning to think that you would have been one of the people who were brainwashed into fearing Jews in 1930s Germany because the government decided to demonize them as spreaders of typhus.

That IS an accurate analogy from a scientific standpoint, since it's been demonstrated now that the unvaccinated do not spread SARS-CoV-2 any more than the vaccinated do.

Here is a letter to the editor in one of the foremost scientific journals in the world (the Lancet), and the links to primary sources can be followed:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these vaccines stop the spread of the disease. You haven't done that, probably because you do not understand the difference between intramuscular and intranasal vaccines, the production of IgG, IgA, and secretory IgA, and so on.

I don't see intelligence in this post at all. I see fear, disgust, and susceptibility to state and state-funded media propaganda. Just raw emotion. This has its utility, to be sure, but the danger in this is not so much that one or another person might have an unwarranted and outsized estimation of risk, but when that phenomenon is so pervasive in a stressed population that it is indicative of a mass psychosis (such as existed in late 1930s Germany).

I hope you will step away from this dangerous, dehumanizing rhetoric and listen a bit more closely to those who disagree with you. Your latest post about the protesters on the Parliament grounds is hopefully an indication that you are willing to do that in its grudging admission that there are so many of us that opposed vaccine mandates that we can no longer be ignored.