Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
> The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
Because when we use a natural risk, we remove the fact that it's actual policy put forth and implemented by humans. Otherwise, the ideology will always be brought into question, while volcanos don't have an ideology that can conflict with itself.
The point of analogies isn't to claim that the two things being compared are exactly identical, it's to draw attention to the ways in which they're similar that are relevant to the point being discussed.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
Nonsense. Your presence in Iceland or not has no influence on whether a volcano there erupts, whereas a sharp drop in tourism is a market signal that may influence policy in the future (not necessarily under the same administration).
Conversely, a sharp drop in tourism to Iceland is a market signal that a something along the lines of "volcano has exploded" has happened (what with there currently being few other reasons for such a drop), and "a tourist was killed when a volcano exploded" has a non-zero chance of modifying Iceland's tourism policies.
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
I was curious about how likely deaths actually are from Volcanoes in Iceland. It looks like 15 deaths in the last 500 years with an unknown number possibly in the hundreds in the 500 years before that. But also ~9000 deaths due to famine in from farmland and livestock destruction.
