The key game to the Unelightenment is to claim that if you can’t prove you are being damaged by thus and so, then you have no right to isolate yourself from it even though that would be the one way of proving whether it was damaging you or not.
Its the basic way in which the West has fallen short of the Enlightenment—the achilles heel of the West.
No one else is required to justify their beliefs and territorial control with empirical evidence because the Enlightenment wasn’t their idea. Only we are so required, but then we are prohibited from doing what it takes to get that empirical evidence in the social sciences: exclude and expel.
To put the game in stark terms: It is more acceptable to impose treatments on people without their consent when they can’t prove harm, than it is to relocate people when some others think they are harming them but can’t prove it.
I’ve never seen that tradeoff even explicated in public discourse.
When (not if) the Laboratory of the States campaigns take off that explication in public discourse will ensue.
