> They're not guilty of a crime on the books Then they are innocent and there should be no compulsion. > I would hardly call antivaxxers innocent 1. People w

> They're not guilty of a crime on the books Then they are innocent and there should be no compulsion. > I would hardly call antivaxxers innocent 1. People who are against compelling the innocent are not antivaxxers by dint of being against that. 2. Those who would compel innocent people probably are and should be guilty of a crime on the books. > Punishments are an incentive They're not, they are a disincentive. Incentives encourage, disincentives discourage. The carrot is an incentive, the stick is a disincentive. > Moreover, if you want to talk about the law, no one is entitled to their current job Did I mention tyranny? > and employers have been given carte blanche to set and modify employment conditions I'm not an American and even if I were, not all states have the same rules for employment. You're creating a straw man. If we were really talking about the law, and criminal law at that, where's the mens rea? > Losing ones' job for failing to meet the bare minimum workplace safety requirement of not being a vector for a highly communicable disease It's not a bare minimum requirement unless you start compelling people, you're begging the question. > is free to forfeit their job, but they are not entitled to be a victim about it. That's a personal choice. I'm pretty sure I heard this form of argument in the 80s about homosexuals and HIV, it didn't hold water then and it shouldn't now. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Edit: a tyrannical typo