[ExI] UN worried about police brutality against protestors

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:25 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 14:55, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 6:08 AM John Klos via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> People who ignore science and ignore precautions in a pandemic don't
>>> just
>>> put themselves in peril. They are a potential risk to anyone around
>>> them.
>>> They are unilaterally making decisions for others.
>>>
>>
>> ### Really? Did you think it over before committing this to the keyboard?
>>
>> Let me upack the logic here for you. Let's assume that a population of
>> well-informed individuals who are at risk of a deadly infection if they
>> leave their homes but are safe if they stay in (but can still starve to
>> death, suffer a heart attack, get restless and unhappy and prone to
>> drinking themselves to death, etc.). Let's assume they are free to choose
>> whether to stay at home or venture out.
>>
>> Obviously, every single individual who ventures out knowingly assumes the
>> risk of infection, therefore every single individual they meet is also an
>> individual who knowingly assumed the risk of being infected. Not a single
>> person who chooses to avoid infection can be infected by them, since the
>> avoidants are all, every single one of them, staying at home. This means
>> that every single person infected is somebody who knowingly accepted the
>> risk of infection before leaving home. In every single dyadic interaction
>> that results in a new infection, the infecter and the infectee both made
>> the decision for themselves, and are paying the consequences, in a
>> bilateral decision. Since we posit well-informed individuals, their
>> decisions weigh the individual costs and benefits of staying vs. venturing,
>> and are therefore individually and collectively efficient, and therefore
>> morally superior to enforced lockdowns, which discard individual opinions
>> in favor of political grandstanding and witless moralizing.
>>
>> Obviously, this situation is not analogous to environmental pollution,
>> where the polluter affects the lives of non-polluters. A more apt analogy
>> is that of driving on a public road, which involves some risk of killing
>> another driver, or being killed by another driver (we try to reduce that
>> risk by various means but it remains non-zero). All drivers assume a
>> certain risk of dying when they get on the road, a risk they can entirely
>> avoid by staying at home. Yet, we normal people don't accuse all drivers of
>> "tremendous amount of selfishness and a criminal lack of self reflection".
>>
>
> The correct driving analogy is that anyone who wants to can flout the road
> rules with impunity. An equilibrium may be reached with fewer people
> driving, but then everyone loses because either the risk of accidents
> increases or the utility of the road system or fewer people are willing to
> drive and the utility of the road system decreases.
>
>> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

### You are not even wrong. Completely off the subject.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20211223/99b60dab/attachment.htm>