6 ms·

So we should mandate everything that saves lives, no matter the cost to freedom or infringing of rights? This is the issue with technocratic government: zero u

So we should mandate everything that saves lives, no matter the cost to freedom or infringing of rights? This is the issue with technocratic government: zero understanding of anything deeper than “if it works, do it!”

tomrod 5y ago
It's been a year this approach has been claimed. Time to roll up sleeves for your civic duty.
- anblp 5y ago
  Amerika, erwache! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmlied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmlied
boplicity 5y ago
I am open to hearing a coherent description of the specific "cost to freedom" of taking one of the widely available COVID vaccines.
- disneygibson 5y ago
  I don’t think most people have an issue with voluntary vaccination. The problem is when nefarious actors use the situation to create a surveillance state, social credit system, and then exclude people from doing simple human things like eating at a restaurant. Australia is the future of the Western world.
  - boplicity 5y ago
    > Surveillance state If that exists, it existed before COVID, and vaccinations against COVID certainly haven't changed that. > Social credit system Are you referring to mandates? These have been a thing, in the U.S., for many decades > exclude people from doing simple human things Vaccine mandates have excluded people from things far more important than restaurants, such as education, for many decades. This is not new to COVID. You seem to be arguing against a system that has existed for many, many years.
    - disneygibson 5y ago
      Most of the new things didn’t exist before. This is…basic information. Even if they did, it’s pretty obvious that they have been dramatically increased in the last 18 months. You seem extremely uninformed.
      - boplicity 5y ago
        For example, requiring almost everyone to get a vaccine? That's not new. That's been happening for decades. The only difference is there's a new vaccine that needs to be rolled out to everyone, as quickly as possible. Most people get their mandatory vaccines as children, in a staggered way. Because of the current situation, it's happening all at once, and the restrictions that enforce the vaccine are also being changed, based on the age of the people required to get the vaccine. What am I missing here?
        disneygibson 5y ago
        When was it common to prevent people from entering a restaurant unless they were vaccinated with a vaccine that itself had only been developed 15 months prior?
        boplicity 5y ago
        You're comparing denying education to children to denying non-essential services, such as restaurants, to adults. One is an essential right, the other is not. If anything the restrictions people are putting in place to enforce the vaccine mandate have been less extreme. As workplace mandates get rolled out, this will become more even, as the right to work is comparable to the right to an education. As I tried to communicate before, curtailing basic rights in order to enforce vaccinations for everyone is not new. The only difference is that these usually happen based on age, instead of happening to everyone, all at once.
        boplicity 5y ago
        Apparently, in the past, the Supreme Court even allowed knocking down people's doors in order to force vaccinations. "That was a relatively easy no for the court. In a 7-2 ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, it decided that jurisdictions do have the right to require people to get vaccinated. Back then, the government was much more forceful about it, knocking down people’s doors to get them vaccinated, the New York Times says." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/republican-governors-challenges-vaccine-mandates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/republica... Denying access to restaurants seems....timid? At least, in comparison.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  There's no cost to freedom to taking it. There's a cost to freedom to be coerced into taking it.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
As in most such trade-offs, the "cost to freedom" and "infringing of rights", to the extent they actually exist, factor into the cost/benefit decision of whether or not to ultimately go through with the mandate since everybody has their own opinion on where that balance is, there will always be individuals unhappy with what decision makers decide
- disneygibson 5y ago
  No, that isn’t how rights work. They are guarantees that cannot be violated, no matter how democratically popular they are.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    aside from the trade-off discussion above, it looks like you also have opinions about the constitutionality of this move it is, of course, totally okay to have an opinion on that, but an opinion does not necessarily grant decision power, or even veto power, so ultimately you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a right, and you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a violation or an infringement of a right I'm not trying to slam you here, because I am also not the one who gets to decide that -- I'm just one of hundreds of millions of Americans, the majority of which do not have a problem with this move now, of course, if someone/you believes this move is an unconstitutional violation of rights, they/you can bring it to SCOTUS, who will let them/you know if they/you are right and if SCOTUS does ultimately say that this specific mandate is unconstitutional, then of course I agree with you that such a decision should be respected unless and until We The People change the constitution, which would be okay, too
    - disneygibson 5y ago
      No I’m simply rejecting your framing of the discussion. Rights are not a question of votes. It is not up for deciding democratically. To frame the question this way is to fundamentally misunderstand how rights work.

tomrod 5y ago

It's been a year this approach has been claimed. Time to roll up sleeves for your civic duty.

anblp 5y ago
Amerika, erwache! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmlied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmlied

boplicity 5y ago

I am open to hearing a coherent description of the specific "cost to freedom" of taking one of the widely available COVID vaccines.

disneygibson 5y ago
I don’t think most people have an issue with voluntary vaccination. The problem is when nefarious actors use the situation to create a surveillance state, social credit system, and then exclude people from doing simple human things like eating at a restaurant. Australia is the future of the Western world.
- boplicity 5y ago
  > Surveillance state If that exists, it existed before COVID, and vaccinations against COVID certainly haven't changed that. > Social credit system Are you referring to mandates? These have been a thing, in the U.S., for many decades > exclude people from doing simple human things Vaccine mandates have excluded people from things far more important than restaurants, such as education, for many decades. This is not new to COVID. You seem to be arguing against a system that has existed for many, many years.
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    Most of the new things didn’t exist before. This is…basic information. Even if they did, it’s pretty obvious that they have been dramatically increased in the last 18 months. You seem extremely uninformed.
    - boplicity 5y ago
      For example, requiring almost everyone to get a vaccine? That's not new. That's been happening for decades. The only difference is there's a new vaccine that needs to be rolled out to everyone, as quickly as possible. Most people get their mandatory vaccines as children, in a staggered way. Because of the current situation, it's happening all at once, and the restrictions that enforce the vaccine are also being changed, based on the age of the people required to get the vaccine. What am I missing here?
      - disneygibson 5y ago
        When was it common to prevent people from entering a restaurant unless they were vaccinated with a vaccine that itself had only been developed 15 months prior?
        boplicity 5y ago
        You're comparing denying education to children to denying non-essential services, such as restaurants, to adults. One is an essential right, the other is not. If anything the restrictions people are putting in place to enforce the vaccine mandate have been less extreme. As workplace mandates get rolled out, this will become more even, as the right to work is comparable to the right to an education. As I tried to communicate before, curtailing basic rights in order to enforce vaccinations for everyone is not new. The only difference is that these usually happen based on age, instead of happening to everyone, all at once.
        boplicity 5y ago
        Apparently, in the past, the Supreme Court even allowed knocking down people's doors in order to force vaccinations. "That was a relatively easy no for the court. In a 7-2 ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, it decided that jurisdictions do have the right to require people to get vaccinated. Back then, the government was much more forceful about it, knocking down people’s doors to get them vaccinated, the New York Times says." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/republican-governors-challenges-vaccine-mandates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/republica... Denying access to restaurants seems....timid? At least, in comparison.
betwixthewires 5y ago
There's no cost to freedom to taking it. There's a cost to freedom to be coerced into taking it.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

As in most such trade-offs, the "cost to freedom" and "infringing of rights", to the extent they actually exist, factor into the cost/benefit decision of whether or not to ultimately go through with the mandate since everybody has their own opinion on where that balance is, there will always be individuals unhappy with what decision makers decide

disneygibson 5y ago
No, that isn’t how rights work. They are guarantees that cannot be violated, no matter how democratically popular they are.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  aside from the trade-off discussion above, it looks like you also have opinions about the constitutionality of this move it is, of course, totally okay to have an opinion on that, but an opinion does not necessarily grant decision power, or even veto power, so ultimately you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a right, and you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a violation or an infringement of a right I'm not trying to slam you here, because I am also not the one who gets to decide that -- I'm just one of hundreds of millions of Americans, the majority of which do not have a problem with this move now, of course, if someone/you believes this move is an unconstitutional violation of rights, they/you can bring it to SCOTUS, who will let them/you know if they/you are right and if SCOTUS does ultimately say that this specific mandate is unconstitutional, then of course I agree with you that such a decision should be respected unless and until We The People change the constitution, which would be okay, too
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    No I’m simply rejecting your framing of the discussion. Rights are not a question of votes. It is not up for deciding democratically. To frame the question this way is to fundamentally misunderstand how rights work.