Question for the "anarchists" in the crowd.

[bb113]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

[1714052124]

1714052124

[1714052124]

1714052124

[myrkul]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

Anti-social behavior should lead to ostracization.

[bb113]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

Anti-social behavior should lead to ostracization.

Once again agreed, but if the default response to being infected is to ostracize the person, then the expected result is antisocial behaviour. I am talking about what happens due to the initial diagnosis.

[myrkul]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

Anti-social behavior should lead to ostracization.

Once again agreed, but if the default response to being infected is to ostracize the person, then the expected result is antisocial behaviour. I am talking about what happens due to the initial diagnosis.

Ah, definitely, but as has been pointed out, there are places for those who are infected with contagious diseases and thereby ostracized from society. Those places are called hospitals.

[bb113]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

Anti-social behavior should lead to ostracization.

Once again agreed, but if the default response to being infected is to ostracize the person, then the expected result is antisocial behaviour. I am talking about what happens due to the initial diagnosis.

Ah, definitely, but as has been pointed out, there are places for those who are infected with contagious diseases and thereby ostracized from society. Those places are called hospitals.

Yea, and they are mostly unpleasant places. For that reason, most people will put up resistance against being put in a hospital unless undeniably ill. Make hospitals like McDonalds for adults and people will willingly go. Casinos, etc.

[myrkul]

Yea, and they are mostly unpleasant places. For that reason, most people will put up resistance against being put in a hospital unless undeniably ill. Make hospitals like McDonalds for adults and people will willingly go. Casinos, etc.

You need to talk to a bank about this. Draw up a business plan. I'm serious.

[bb113]

Yea, and they are mostly unpleasant places. For that reason, most people will put up resistance against being put in a hospital unless undeniably ill. Make hospitals like McDonalds for adults and people will willingly go. Casinos, etc.

You need to talk to a bank about this. Draw up a business plan. I'm serious.

Haha, I think it would take a bit more than a business plan to make work and personally get something out of it. But yea, it's an "out-there" concept.

[caveden]

I feel that I agree that a disease in you body is your own property since it is an invader. A guy trespassing in my house might kill a guest there, but I don't think that I'm responsible.

A trespasser is an "ethical subject", somebody capable of taking rational actions, thus somebody with rights, and by extension, somebody that must respect other people's rights and should be deemed responsible if s/he doesn't. A disease is not a responsible, rational being.

Let's put it in another way: imagine you have a restaurant, and without noticing it you serve rotten food to a client. The client gets sick. I consider you to be responsible. You can't blame it on the bacteria that "invaded" the food.

I just don't feel that the presence of the sick should in any way be taken as an immediate violation of the NAP.

Not that "immediately", of course. Even if something is considered to be a violation of the NAP, there are several justice principles, like proportional punishment, presumption of innocence etc. These principles would render such scenario quite rare. For less dangerous diseases, nobody would bother searching a "guilty" transmitter, because even if you do find it, any applicable punishment would likely not pay for the trouble. And even for serious diseases, you'd need to prove that it was person X specifically that passed it to you.
That's why I don't think that, in a free society, people would manage dangerous transmittable diseases this way. It would likely be something closer to what Robert Murphy describes in the article I linked above: people using their discrimination rights to block sick people from their properties.

[Fjordbit]

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

myrkul, you have a horribly infectious disease that will kill all the people around you.

Now I'm guessing that since you've been told, you will not take any action on this. This is because you don't believe me. So now do we need to create a standard for belief? This is what the statist system does: it creates the AMA and the people within it have authority to decide if someone has a serious enough disease that force can be used against them.

However, in a voluntary society, each individual sets the standard by which they go. So when the employer interviews her, they say "Has an insured doctor ever examined you for disease? Did they conclude you were disease free? What is that doctor's name?" There's even more complex things like there could be cooks' insurance companies that will bond a cook for not having infectious disease, and the employer could just ask if they are bonded for it. And then when she is not bonded, they don't hire her. This put it on the employer, not on Mary.

And if an employer wants to take a chance and use her anyway, then they should be allowed, even if it would probably result in their certain death. This is the point of voluntaryism.

But I agree that the end result for her will be that she would be ostracized at some level and she would then only have the option to self sustain as a hermit or voluntarily check herself into a charitable quarantine.

[myrkul]

However, in a voluntary society, each individual sets the standard by which they go. So when the employer interviews her, they say "Has an insured doctor ever examined you for disease? Did they conclude you were disease free? What is that doctor's name?" There's even more complex things like there could be cooks' insurance companies that will bond a cook for not having infectious disease, and the employer could just ask if they are bonded for it. And then when she is not bonded, they don't hire her. This put it on the employer, not on Mary.

And if an employer wants to take a chance and use her anyway, then they should be allowed, even if it would probably result in their certain death. This is the point of voluntaryism.

You make an excellent point. And in a voluntary society that had those options available, and the knowledge we have now, you'd be absolutely right. But the assumption at the time was that if you weren't sick, you were healthy and fine. She was not, even though she was outwardly healthy.

The reason I don't trust you when you tell me I have a horribly infectious disease is not (necessarily) that you're not a doctor. It's because you haven't done a single test to establish that I am infectious. They performed a test, and combined with the fact that she had been leaving a trail of sick and dead employers, is sufficient evidence that she actually was infectious.

Let's update the case. We have a man, let's call him "Typhoid Marv." Here's the thing: He doesn't have typhoid. He has HIV. He doesn't know it, though, so he has a string of girlfriends who all come down with HIV or AIDS. They tell him to get tested, and he does. It (not surprisingly) comes back positive. Of course, he doesn't believe it, (he read on the internet that sometimes these tests give false positives) so he keeps having unprotected sex.

Is it the women's fault for not asking, or his for not telling?

[MoonShadow]

As a libertarian at heart, I respect the concept that governments cannot actually improve society (http://youtu.be/BNIgztvyU2U).  However, I have issues with the idea that a society without a traditional government (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on the use of force) can effectively manage the very small percentage of people who both have the ability to cause great & widespread harm and also refuse to refrain from doing so.

You are obviously not one of them. It's people like you that need society, and will go to any extent to get one. People like you have
no fucking clue what freedom and this reality is about. You're abomination. Afraid, weak, stupid = the ones that should not procreate.

I understand freedom very well, young man.  And insulting me does not constitute an argument.  Normally I'd just delete your bs for violating civility, but instead I'm going to leave it here so everyone can see your stupidity.

[myrkul]

As a libertarian at heart, I respect the concept that governments cannot actually improve society (http://youtu.be/BNIgztvyU2U).  However, I have issues with the idea that a society without a traditional government (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on the use of force) can effectively manage the very small percentage of people who both have the ability to cause great & widespread harm and also refuse to refrain from doing so.

You are obviously not one of them. It's people like you that need society, and will go to any extent to get one. People like you have
no fucking clue what freedom and this reality is about. You're abomination. Afraid, weak, stupid = the ones that should not procreate.

I understand freedom very well, young man.  And insulting me does not constitute an argument.  Normally I'd just delete your bs for violating civility, but instead I'm going to leave it here so everyone can see your stupidity.

I'd also point out that society ≠ government. You can most certainly have society without government, and often a government barely qualifies as "society."

[myrkul]

I'd also point out that society ≠ government. You can most certainly have society without government.

Even remote tribes in Amazon have some sort of government. What you're saying is nothing but fantasy.

O RLY?

That sure looks like a society sans government. Maybe we've evolved past the way remote tribes in the Amazon do things. Certainly we've stopped eating other people or painting our faces with mud.

[myrkul]

Human mind is powerful instrument. It allows it's owner to delude himself to extreme, as it can be seen just about everywhere this days.

Yes, thank you for demonstrating that. You can go now.

[myrkul]

Human mind is powerful instrument. It allows it's owner to delude himself to extreme, as it can be seen just about everywhere this days.

Yes, thank you for demonstrating that. You can go now.

How about you go to shire socity for a while? Stay there for let's say 1 year than come back and tell us about it 1st hand.
People like you should definitely do it, since right now you're at stage where you are unaware of so many important issues but still posting and debating.

The Shire Society is not a place, it is a society. However, over 1100 people have moved to "the Shire," though it's not clear how many have officially joined the Shire Society, all of them (plus almost another 12000) have joined The Free State Project, another society which is not a government.

You should probably stop digging while your head is above ground.

BTW, what's a "socity"?

[firefop]

The Shire Society is not a place, it is a society. However, over 1100 people have moved to "the Shire," though it's not clear how many have officially joined the Shire Society, all of them (plus almost another 12000) have joined The Free State Project, another society which is not a government.

You should probably stop digging while your head is above ground.

BTW, what's a "socity"?

It isn't a society. It has no historical culture to make it one. It's a (imo cute) contrivance that utterly fails at it's goals by one simply fact. You cannot annex land in the USA and simply declare sovereignty. It doesn't matter if you own that land or not. This is illegal, immoral in the extreme and while well intentioned it just doesn't work.

Now maybe if you stayed strictly in your shire... you might legitimize the idea that law enforcement and government agents coming into the shire were violating your (illegal) sovereignty, but the simple fact that the participants are traveling in and out constantly makes the entire thing seem stupid. Every sovereign nation on the planet has paperwork, laws and enforcement - can't remove yourself from them by simply stating that you're not participating. You can only remove yourself by... actually removing yourself from that nation, not by annexing and occupying it illegally.

[myrkul]

The Shire Society is not a place, it is a society. However, over 1100 people have moved to "the Shire," though it's not clear how many have officially joined the Shire Society, all of them (plus almost another 12000) have joined The Free State Project, another society which is not a government.

You should probably stop digging while your head is above ground.

BTW, what's a "socity"?

It isn't a society. It has no historical culture to make it one. It's a (imo cute) contrivance that utterly fails at it's goals by one simply fact. You cannot annex land in the USA and simply declare sovereignty. It doesn't matter if you own that land or not. This is illegal, immoral in the extreme and while well intentioned it just doesn't work.

Sigh... Does nobody understand English anymore?

so·ci·e·ty [suh-sahy-i-tee] plural so·ci·e·ties
noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

(FYI, "the Shire" is a nickname for New Hampshire, not to be confused with The Shire Society, a group of peaceful people who have all agreed to adhere to the principles set forth in their declaration.)

can't remove yourself from them by simply stating that you're not participating.

I'd like to point out this line from the Declaration of Independence:

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Withdraw consent, and you withdraw their "just powers."

[bb113]

The Shire Society is not a place, it is a society. However, over 1100 people have moved to "the Shire," though it's not clear how many have officially joined the Shire Society, all of them (plus almost another 12000) have joined The Free State Project, another society which is not a government.

You should probably stop digging while your head is above ground.

BTW, what's a "socity"?

It isn't a society. It has no historical culture to make it one. It's a (imo cute) contrivance that utterly fails at it's goals by one simply fact. You cannot annex land in the USA and simply declare sovereignty. It doesn't matter if you own that land or not. This is illegal, immoral in the extreme and while well intentioned it just doesn't work.

Now maybe if you stayed strictly in your shire... you might legitimize the idea that law enforcement and government agents coming into the shire were violating your (illegal) sovereignty, but the simple fact that the participants are traveling in and out constantly makes the entire thing seem stupid. Every sovereign nation on the planet has paperwork, laws and enforcement - can't remove yourself from them by simply stating that you're not participating. You can only remove yourself by... actually removing yourself from that nation, not by annexing and occupying it illegally.

Please stop equating legality with morality. Even if we accept the US/[insert your fav country] is a democracy/republic and actually uses what an informed majority thinks is right or wrong as a heuristic in making good laws, it is still based on argument from consensus fallacy. So at best it is a practical solution to a hard problem, in other words it is not necessarily ideal.

Telling people to not work towards an ideal society is what?

[Fjordbit]

Is it the women's fault for not asking, or his for not telling?

To be frank, this really does depend on the norms of the society, and that also applies in the case of Mary. That's because the norms of society are what people are going to apply when the information about the case comes out.

If we are using a model like presented in Molyneux's Practical Anarchy, then the social norm could be that people would be expected to carry some kind of certification of health from a trusted authority. When Marv gets tested for HIV and it comes back positive, that authority would take away his certification, or at least update it to be HIV+ (after all, HIV+ people do date, but they may not jump in bed with someone else who also has hepititus, etc). A person might say that it would be up to the woman to inquire about this certification and it would be up to Marv to be truthful about that inquiry. Thus a person could have the view that if a man or woman is too interested in sex to inquire about the health certification.

One thing that is important, though, is that in a voluntary society, the people around you define the response. So if the people in Marv's town agree that the women should have been more cautious, then they would continue to trade with him. If, however, they do feel he should have been more forthcoming with the information, they may just decide to not trade with him, making it so that he would have to self sustain or move to an area that does accept what he did. Almost certainly, people who know and are friends with this woman would be unlikely to trade with Marv and may also decide to not trade with people known to associate with Marv, which could be limiting to his life.

I bring this up because it seems like people have this impression of creating a black and white test for NAP violation, and then applying that to determine a person's status in the society, but because everything is voluntary, there is no exact answer to these questions.

[myrkul]

If we are using a model like presented in Molyneux's Practical Anarchy, then the social norm could be that people would be expected to carry some kind of certification of health from a trusted authority. When Marv gets tested for HIV and it comes back positive, that authority would take away his certification, or at least update it to be HIV+ (after all, HIV+ people do date, but they may not jump in bed with someone else who also has hepititus, etc). A person might say that it would be up to the woman to inquire about this certification and it would be up to Marv to be truthful about that inquiry. Thus a person could have the view that if a man or woman is too interested in sex to inquire about the health certification.

I can't really argue with anything, here. Personal responsibility goes both ways. Of course, the cultural assumptions in Typhoid Mary's case were quite different from today's.