6 ms·

Pointing out a slippery slope doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering the consequences. My position is indeed speculative, however it’s not without evidence. W

Pointing out a slippery slope doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering the consequences. My position is indeed speculative, however it’s not without evidence. We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are taken so I think it’s valid to be concerned about the same thing happening here.

tantalor 5y ago
> not without evidence Please give examples
- tracedddd 5y ago
  Patriot Act.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    Didn't the Patriot Act fail to get reauthorization on its last expiration? Granted, ~20 years is a pretty good run.
- adventured 5y ago
  Letting the US Government, at the behest of the President, wage war nearly anytime it feels like it, without prior authorization of Congress. Slippery slope meet the forever war machine. Trade & tariff conflicts of the 1930s, which spiraled from a smaller economic conflict into a larger economic conflict and into the great depression. All because the government was given too much leash to run with. Letting the government (and Fed) bail out Wall Street repeatedly and institutionalize too big to fail as an economic policy. The US Government specializes in lubricating slopes and speeding down them.
- timr 5y ago
  Six months ago, I was routinely told that my fears of vaccine passports were "conspiracy theory", and the same arguments about the slippery slope were invoked. At some point, you just have to look down and notice that the slope of the ground is negative, and everything is greasy.
  - reidjs 5y ago
    What’s bad about a vaccine passport? Do you think unvaccinated people should be allowed to travel internationally? Isn’t that really dangerous?
    - timr 5y ago
      > What’s bad about a vaccine passport? Other people have covered that in many comments throughout this thread. I personally don't want to live in a world where I am asked to show my papers -- whatever those papers may be -- to participate in daily life. > Do you think unvaccinated people should be allowed to travel internationally? I think so, but it's certainly within the rights of any nation to choose the rules by which foreigners may enter their country. I care less about this than I do about having to show a "passport" to get food. > Isn’t that really dangerous? In a highly vaccinated population? No. That's the point of vaccines. Once the threat of (involuntary) serious and illness and death has been abrogated, SARS-CoV2 takes its place amongst the pantheon of other respiratory viruses that we have lived with for centuries.
      - pmarreck 5y ago
        > I personally don't want to live in a world where I am asked to show my papers -- whatever those papers may be -- to participate in daily life. Has that participation ever involved travel to another country? Standard passports exist for very good reasons... otherwise, there wouldn't be 100% of nations who depend on them (are there even any nations that don't ask for one?)
      - _ph_ 5y ago
        I also don't want to live in a world where I have to show my papers to participate in daily life. You know what I even want less? To live in a world where daily life is implicitly restricted because there is a constant danger for me and others to get severely sick. And most western countries are still far to far from being highly vaccinated. If they were, we wouldn't need to ask for their vaccination status. Yes, long term we either manage to actually erradicate SARS-Cov-2 or at least reduce it to the group of all the other dangerous viruses we can deal with. If the vaccination rate is high enough. Think measels. They didn't ever go away, but for many years, they were not a problem. They are back due to too many people who think they can skip the vaccinations. And if you ever tried to go onto international, especially intercontinental travel, many countries require proof of vaccination against a variety of diseases.
- claytongulick 5y ago
  "Interpreting" the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate controlled substances? At this point, there is no power conceivable that the Federal government could not claim under the umbrella of "it might affect commerce somewhere". Most of the powers the Federal government has seized from the states have been rationalized under the ICC. Like making it illegal for a farmer to grow wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - guntars 5y ago
    That's a fun one: > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.
pmarreck 5y ago
> We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are taken so I think it’s valid to be concerned about the same thing happening here. The doctors who gained, then lost, police powers to enforce quarantine during the "Spanish Flu" would like to have a word
pensatoio 5y ago
I don't know, at some point, you have to look at every example of "slippery slope" over the past decades and realize that they've all been true. Emphasis on the last year and half, too.

tantalor 5y ago

> not without evidence Please give examples

tracedddd 5y ago
Patriot Act.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Didn't the Patriot Act fail to get reauthorization on its last expiration? Granted, ~20 years is a pretty good run.
adventured 5y ago
Letting the US Government, at the behest of the President, wage war nearly anytime it feels like it, without prior authorization of Congress. Slippery slope meet the forever war machine. Trade & tariff conflicts of the 1930s, which spiraled from a smaller economic conflict into a larger economic conflict and into the great depression. All because the government was given too much leash to run with. Letting the government (and Fed) bail out Wall Street repeatedly and institutionalize too big to fail as an economic policy. The US Government specializes in lubricating slopes and speeding down them.
timr 5y ago
Six months ago, I was routinely told that my fears of vaccine passports were "conspiracy theory", and the same arguments about the slippery slope were invoked. At some point, you just have to look down and notice that the slope of the ground is negative, and everything is greasy.
- reidjs 5y ago
  What’s bad about a vaccine passport? Do you think unvaccinated people should be allowed to travel internationally? Isn’t that really dangerous?
  - timr 5y ago
    > What’s bad about a vaccine passport? Other people have covered that in many comments throughout this thread. I personally don't want to live in a world where I am asked to show my papers -- whatever those papers may be -- to participate in daily life. > Do you think unvaccinated people should be allowed to travel internationally? I think so, but it's certainly within the rights of any nation to choose the rules by which foreigners may enter their country. I care less about this than I do about having to show a "passport" to get food. > Isn’t that really dangerous? In a highly vaccinated population? No. That's the point of vaccines. Once the threat of (involuntary) serious and illness and death has been abrogated, SARS-CoV2 takes its place amongst the pantheon of other respiratory viruses that we have lived with for centuries.
    - pmarreck 5y ago
      > I personally don't want to live in a world where I am asked to show my papers -- whatever those papers may be -- to participate in daily life. Has that participation ever involved travel to another country? Standard passports exist for very good reasons... otherwise, there wouldn't be 100% of nations who depend on them (are there even any nations that don't ask for one?)
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      I also don't want to live in a world where I have to show my papers to participate in daily life. You know what I even want less? To live in a world where daily life is implicitly restricted because there is a constant danger for me and others to get severely sick. And most western countries are still far to far from being highly vaccinated. If they were, we wouldn't need to ask for their vaccination status. Yes, long term we either manage to actually erradicate SARS-Cov-2 or at least reduce it to the group of all the other dangerous viruses we can deal with. If the vaccination rate is high enough. Think measels. They didn't ever go away, but for many years, they were not a problem. They are back due to too many people who think they can skip the vaccinations. And if you ever tried to go onto international, especially intercontinental travel, many countries require proof of vaccination against a variety of diseases.
claytongulick 5y ago
"Interpreting" the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate controlled substances? At this point, there is no power conceivable that the Federal government could not claim under the umbrella of "it might affect commerce somewhere". Most of the powers the Federal government has seized from the states have been rationalized under the ICC. Like making it illegal for a farmer to grow wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- guntars 5y ago
  That's a fun one: > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.

pmarreck 5y ago

> We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are taken so I think it’s valid to be concerned about the same thing happening here. The doctors who gained, then lost, police powers to enforce quarantine during the "Spanish Flu" would like to have a word

pensatoio 5y ago

I don't know, at some point, you have to look at every example of "slippery slope" over the past decades and realize that they've all been true. Emphasis on the last year and half, too.