Michael Perkins > Status Update

Oh the fabled harm principle ^^

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...


As to what Kant has to say about it... ;)

'Juridical (and hence) external freedom cannot be defined, as is usual, by the privilege of doing anything one wills so long as he does not injure another. For what is a privilege? It is the possibility of an action so far as one does not injure anyone by it. Then the definition would read: Freedom is the possibility of those actions by which one does no one an injury. One does another no injury (he may do as he pleases) only if he does another no injury--an empty tautology. Rather, my external (juridical) freedom is to be defined as follows: It is the privilege to lend obedience to no external laws except those to which I could have given consent.

- I. Kant, Perpetual peace

What do you make out of it, Michael? I'm curious :)

EDIT:
By the way, It always seemed tough to me to decide whether the harm principle applies whenether harm has been done to somebody, especially in cases when the harm is widespread, elusive, and happening on legal bases/quotas - take pollution, for instance...

Théories économiques en 30 secondes
This book offers some alternatives for the most satisfying resolution of such issues: inspired by the works of Garett Hardin and Elinor Ostrom :)

I read the Mill classic some time ago.

Not to split hairs, but a vaccine mandate is far more difficult to justify than a mask mandate. We know vaccines have side effects and some have suffered significant damage. So a mandate is not risk-free.

Whereas, given the violence on air flights over masks, it seems to me requiring those is fully justified because there is a clear threat to the health of others in such a closed environment.

Exactly, Michael. I share your point of view: in the end, the range of application for this principle can be stretched almost infinitly, so as to accomodate any agenda. I know this is a case of some gravity, but what action is not harming or potentially harming somebody in one way or another? Security politics can only go so far.

On a different level, for an example of libertarianism run amok that's destroying people, violence and death, try reading the current WSJ series expose of Facebook.