5 ms·

>Very strange to see this being mandated by the government in this day and age. How exactly is this strange? Government mandated vaccines have been around fore

>Very strange to see this being mandated by the government in this day and age. How exactly is this strange? Government mandated vaccines have been around forever. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, that it was within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination, and ruled again that schools could require vaccination in1922. All 50 states already require vaccinations to attend public school and have for decades. Employers have been able to mandate vaccines for decades. The government mandates every aspect of vehicle transportation, from road design, to vehicle design, driver insurance, seat belt compliance, and driver impairment, for something that kills 35k people a year. Right or wrong, for a virus that is killing over 400k people a year, I really just don’t understand how this could be seen as surprising in any way.

verisimi 5y ago
In fact its not strange that the government mandates things - you are right. What I should have said, is how is it right? Why should people who are excluded by the government respect or honour those rules? Should they continue to pay tax? On what basis is it acceptable to segregate people from simple rights of existence? To exclude them so that they can't shop or work or travel? I'm not talking about people who have been found guilty of criminal behaviour. Are you ok with the governance structure being able to exercise such total control? Especially when we know how corporate-paid lobbyists exercise such control over governments. Again, isn't it handy that the pharmaceutical companies (which arguably have the biggest budgets of all privately held industries) are the ones that are doing fantastic business, on account of the virus?
- 542354234235 5y ago
  > Why should people who are excluded by the government respect or honour those rules? Should they continue to pay tax? I mean, you don’t have to respect them, but you have to abide them. That’s kind of the point of laws. Not being able to do anything you want is not being excluded by the government. People under 21 are excluded from bars. People without drivers licenses are excluded from driving. People without pants are excluded from eateries. > On what basis is it acceptable to segregate people from simple rights of existence? To exclude them so that they can't shop or work or travel? Well, they aren’t “segregating”, they are restricting access based on the choices people have made. Should I be prevented from driving because I am drunk? I have not actively hurt anyone so why should I be restricted from basic transportation because of a hypothetical possibility that I could cause an accident in the future? This is the constant balance between individual rights and the “common good” or societal safety. Should I be allowed to burn leaves in my yard during wildfire season? There is no universal right answer or magical definite line. Someone else may say that a drunk has the right to drive and the government should not interfere, and deal only with people that have caused real accidents, regardless of intoxication. In terms of societal harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of deaths, I absolutely fall on the side of this being justified. > Are you ok with the governance structure being able to exercise such total control? Churchill comes to mind when he said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” We live in a society and societies have rules. Do I like everything about government regulations and restrictions on cars? No, but I like it a lot better than how it was in the 60s, when car manufactures said they didn’t need to put safety systems in vehicles because cars were designed to be driven, not designed to be crashed. > Again, isn't it handy that the pharmaceutical companies (which arguably have the biggest budgets of all privately held industries) are the ones that are doing fantastic business, on account of the virus? This one I don’t even understand. Is this some sort of allusion that there is some sort of conspiracy going on? That a virus that is both deadly and contagious would eventually come around and cause a global pandemic, which scientists have been warning about for 30 years, is some sort of plan? Or is it about drug companies making money when they make and distribute a drug? I really don’t get it. I certainly think the rules and regulations around healthcare and drug companies should be changed and improved, but I don’t really see the relevance.

verisimi 5y ago

In fact its not strange that the government mandates things - you are right. What I should have said, is how is it right? Why should people who are excluded by the government respect or honour those rules? Should they continue to pay tax? On what basis is it acceptable to segregate people from simple rights of existence? To exclude them so that they can't shop or work or travel? I'm not talking about people who have been found guilty of criminal behaviour. Are you ok with the governance structure being able to exercise such total control? Especially when we know how corporate-paid lobbyists exercise such control over governments. Again, isn't it handy that the pharmaceutical companies (which arguably have the biggest budgets of all privately held industries) are the ones that are doing fantastic business, on account of the virus?

542354234235 5y ago
> Why should people who are excluded by the government respect or honour those rules? Should they continue to pay tax? I mean, you don’t have to respect them, but you have to abide them. That’s kind of the point of laws. Not being able to do anything you want is not being excluded by the government. People under 21 are excluded from bars. People without drivers licenses are excluded from driving. People without pants are excluded from eateries. > On what basis is it acceptable to segregate people from simple rights of existence? To exclude them so that they can't shop or work or travel? Well, they aren’t “segregating”, they are restricting access based on the choices people have made. Should I be prevented from driving because I am drunk? I have not actively hurt anyone so why should I be restricted from basic transportation because of a hypothetical possibility that I could cause an accident in the future? This is the constant balance between individual rights and the “common good” or societal safety. Should I be allowed to burn leaves in my yard during wildfire season? There is no universal right answer or magical definite line. Someone else may say that a drunk has the right to drive and the government should not interfere, and deal only with people that have caused real accidents, regardless of intoxication. In terms of societal harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of deaths, I absolutely fall on the side of this being justified. > Are you ok with the governance structure being able to exercise such total control? Churchill comes to mind when he said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” We live in a society and societies have rules. Do I like everything about government regulations and restrictions on cars? No, but I like it a lot better than how it was in the 60s, when car manufactures said they didn’t need to put safety systems in vehicles because cars were designed to be driven, not designed to be crashed. > Again, isn't it handy that the pharmaceutical companies (which arguably have the biggest budgets of all privately held industries) are the ones that are doing fantastic business, on account of the virus? This one I don’t even understand. Is this some sort of allusion that there is some sort of conspiracy going on? That a virus that is both deadly and contagious would eventually come around and cause a global pandemic, which scientists have been warning about for 30 years, is some sort of plan? Or is it about drug companies making money when they make and distribute a drug? I really don’t get it. I certainly think the rules and regulations around healthcare and drug companies should be changed and improved, but I don’t really see the relevance.