It strikes me that successful politicians, at least nowadays, are very high in “dark triad” traits. It seems obviously true of Clinton (both of them), Obama, Trump, and Biden (does Biden feel an ounce of remorse over Hunter Biden’s graft, the misguided drone strike in Afghanistan, or anything else?).
This is in reaction to an interview on Quillette with evolutionary psychologist David Buss. The essay also highlights recent output from various FITs stars, including Robert Wright, Glenn Loury, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein, and Wesley Yang.
I think it would be easier to decrease the power the elite have over us then to make sure the “correct” elites get picked.
I’ve been frustrated with the pro-mandate position of the quillette -o-sphere. If you can mandate a vaccine you can mandate a lockdown or masking two year olds or crt struggle sessions.
Maybe The problem isn’t that you should replace the elites, but that elites shouldn’t have so much power.
That’s very libertarian of you.
Can a society with high individual liberty maintain a long-term stable equilibrium?
Our system was founded on limiting elite power, and having balances to prevent abuse of the power that was deemed necessary for government to have, and look where we are today. If you described the United States today to the Founding Fathers, they’d probably assume it was from a future in which the rebellion either failed or never happened.
And is there a way to change the government aside from choosing a new set of elites?
As for mandates, I’m more in favor of soft mandates, and ideally ones crafted as carrots rather than sticks.
Based on existing data, you can probably calculate a rough average dollar cost of going unvaccinated, based on the probability of having severe disease and the costs of said disease.
To keep the math simple as a stylized example, let’s say that we projected the risk of hospitalization over the next year for the unvaccinated to be 0.3% vs. 0.1% for the vaccinated, and the cost of hospitalization averages $250,000. The expected cost of going around unvaccinated vs. vaccinated therefore is $500.
Thus the mandate could be a fine of $500.
Conversely, that could be implemented via a $500 refundable tax credit for the vaccinated to achieve a similar effect. This would be ideal, for it doesn’t actively take away money or freedom from people who don’t want to be vaccinated for any reason, and therefore is more conducive to societal harmony. While people may be grumpy that they don’t get the $500, it’s more painful to have what you have taken away than to not receive a bonus.
It would also be a good signal to elites: if people are refusing the $500, they are placing a high value on the choice not to be vaccinated.
“The expected cost of going around unvaccinated vs. vaccinated therefore is $500.”
Please stop treating the virus as equal opportunity. It’s such an extremely tired argument at this point.
E.g. we have no plans to have 7 yo vaccinated even after the recent announcements this week for the 5-11 cohort.
I agree that the virus isn’t equal opportunity, I was just illustrating a way to covert the mandate from an onerous requirement to something less painful. My concern is primarily for the social order, to try to balance the competing concerns of the right and left in a way that minimizes societal tensions. Hard mandates and issues like hospitals potentially refusing care to the unvaccinated further inflame societal tensions.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m not particularly bothered if people who want to be vaccinated have access to it, and those who do not want to be vaccinated white knuckle it. The vast majority of those who choose not to be vaccinated will survive the pandemic.
Conversely, that could be implemented via a $500 refundable tax credit for the vaccinated to achieve a similar effect. This would be ideal, for it doesn’t actively take away money or freedom from people who don’t want to be vaccinated for any reason
But of course it has to be taken away from someone. The fact that there is a seen $500 gift and an unseen $500 take doesn’t make the take any less real. (Of course, it may make it less felt.)
You’re right that it’s the same thing (although not necessarily the same for an individual taxpayer, as the $500 might not come from your pocket), but most people won’t think of it that way.
In any case, suppose you really don’t want to take the vaccine.
Which would you prefer?
A mandate to take it, else you lose your employment? Or giving up a $500 tax credit?
“look where we are today…. they’d probably assume it was from a future in which the rebellion either failed”, or was sabotaged after a quite decent run, until new media technologies etc. spurred more concentration of power.
Once a J. Edgar could so easily intimidate Hollywood & radio/ TV etc. brass, he could build an untouchable empire.
Once the amount of power to be gained from Elite status kept growing, the temptation to spare no effort to get that power drew in more of the worst elements.
Theres all kinds of vaccine mandates. You only seem “cincerned” about one of them.
I’m looking forward to abortion mandates, particularly among the lower SES folks.
My body my choice!
My guess is your 7 year old got her vaccinations for school.
Are you referring to the flu vaccine for our 7 yo?
Nope. Not required.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx
Did you really miss the exemptions section near the bottom? I mean seriously, how did anti-vax become a phenomenon in the first place. Well, here’s how it happened…my body my choice.
***
Exemptions
Texas law allows (a) physicians to write medical exemption statements which clearly state a medical reason exists and the person cannot receive specific vaccines, and (b) parents/guardians to choose an exemption from immunization requirements for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief.
“Maybe The problem isn’t that you should replace the elites, but that elites shouldn’t have so much power.” Agree.
And this is why I read libertarian blogs. Though “libertarian” doesnt really have a meaning outside of think tanks.
To quote something at Chaos Manor:
“My view is like Larry Niven’s: Libertarianism is a vector, not a destination, and for the moment it’s the right vector for the lot of us: we have far too much interference with freedom in the name of bureaucracy.”
— [ Jerry Pournelle? ]
charles w abbott adds the following:
I think that’s Jerry Pournelle writing, but it’s hard to puzzle out who is saying what on the page.
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail417.html#Iron
–“We will find out if “reimagining safety” in practice means tent cities, squalor in the streets, spiking crime, and another cycle of political reaction, or if the caring professions have indeed evolved to the point where they can have transformative effects on societal macro-phenomena at an unprecedented new scale.”–
As far as I’m concerned, we’ve already run that experiment, with the expected results. Target isn’t closing at 6PM in San Francisco because no one wants to shop at 6:30.