Mindblown: a blog about philosophy.

In reply to Roderick T. Long. Agreed. LikeLike

In reply to Roderick T. Long. How does one go about arguing for a particular number — whether 0.08% or something lower or something higher? The same way you decide whether someone is qualified to drive in the first place: you give them alcohol, measur…

In reply to Irfan Khawaja. A pathogen is a boundary-crossing impediment. Consider two hypothetical cases both of them generalized, deliberately stylized and unrealistic. For the sake of adopting some terms I use “risk profile” to mean the r…

I think you and this piece are technically correct about freedom, but not reading the debate correctly. I don’t think there’s any prominent voice that actually says spreading a lethal virus is not a rights violation. People generally agree on that phil…

[…] https://aaeblog.com/2020/10/17/if-i-dont-vote-you-cant-complain/ […]

In reply to Irfan Khawaja. How does one go about arguing for a particular number — whether 0.08% or something lower or something higher? This seems a case where the law of nature is too imprecise to give a definite answer. The general principle…

Saying whether or not the Scandinavian countries are more “statist” (or “socialist,” or whatever) than the u.s. is not straightforward. They tend to have higher taxes and a more expansive welfare state than the u.s. — but…

In reply to Michael Young. Forget infection. Let A be drinking and driving. I would say that a drunk driver violates the rights of everyone else on the road that he might hit (whether he hits them or not). The legal BAC of 0.08% is probably too lenient…

In reply to Irfan Khawaja. If A does something that imposes too much risk of infection on B, this does up the risk of B’s range of possible action being restricted (if B gets really sick, she cannot go to the movies, etc.). Does A’s action …