Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Correct. Moreover, historically the definition of "good" has be variable
enough to the point where it enabled tribal murder, cannibalism, genocide,
and all other manner of alleged "survival behaviors".

I didn't say "what is good for my particular tribe." I said what is
good for the species. What various societies think is good for them
(often to the detriment of other groups) has no bearing on the matter.

The only
policy for bounding public collective action that has consistently
demonstrated its ability to both promote long-term societal survival
AND minimized offense to individuals has been the rule I cited a while
back in this thread: We act collectively only to promote/preserve
personal liberty. Everything else is a private matter.


OK Tim, you're always defending minimal government intervention so I
suppose you think of market forces as a good thing. Several news
articles in the last few days have pointed out that nobody wants to make
vaccines because the profits are too low. If that's the result of
"capitalism" you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

And I note that our current president, an economic conservative if there
ever was one (at least in public) is trying to convince manufacturers to
change their ways and produce more vaccines.