3 ms·

No need to be black and white about this. It's not just a battle between the rabid authoritarians and hysterical Chicken Littles on one side, and the crackpot Q

No need to be black and white about this. It's not just a battle between the rabid authoritarians and hysterical Chicken Littles on one side, and the crackpot QAnons and categorical anti-vaxxers on the other. There's a range of reasonable positions in between. So let's stop framing things in the distorted and divisive way that the media has profited enormously from. I, for one, do not think the COVID vaccine specifically should be mandatory, nor do I think coercive tactics should be used. I think freedom of conscience is important generally and people should not be compelled against their consciences to do things they do not think they should be doing. We should also avoid fixating on COVID as if it was the be-all and end-all of human existence. It is one consideration and also one that does not justifiably admit imposing a blanket burden on everyone. Perhaps this is the result of the law of instrument: some epidemiology-informed considerations could be so hyperfocused on COVID, everything else if forgotten. A treatment of this topic is also available here which touches on these considerations: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/10/covid-19-vaccination-should-not-be.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/10/covid-19-vaccinatio...

zwieback 5y ago
Yes and no. Vaccination is absolutely a black and white issue, you either got vaccinated or you didn't. What comes after that is not black and white: the antibody count is variable, from zero to some large number. What I'm proposing is not black and white but instead two things that give people a range of choices.
lgbfjb 5y ago
They'll lock you up in Australia for these types of views. Australia already has sent 38 people to a concentration camp merely because they tested positive. If you don't think this is coming to America - think again. The fascists here are drunk on power.
Godel_unicode 5y ago
Vaccine mandates make sense for the same reason drunk driving bans make sense: externalities. The role of government is to cover for market failings, and spillover costs are a prime example of an area where markets are essentially guaranteed to fail.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > Vaccine mandates make sense for the same reason drunk driving bans make sense: externalities. These are not the same thing. One is an inaction, the other is an action. It's like saying that forcing someone to have an abortion is the same thing as banning abortions.
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    First, I very clearly didn't say that they're the same thing so I'm not sure why that would be relevant. Second, that analogy makes no sense other than as a dog-whistle. Lastly, even all of that aside, there's no rule that says the government can only mandate actions or prohibit actions. There are plenty of examples of both things in the US legal code.
- eru 5y ago
  The logic of externalities can be used to justify taxes (and subsidies), but not bans or mandates.

zwieback 5y ago

Yes and no. Vaccination is absolutely a black and white issue, you either got vaccinated or you didn't. What comes after that is not black and white: the antibody count is variable, from zero to some large number. What I'm proposing is not black and white but instead two things that give people a range of choices.

lgbfjb 5y ago

They'll lock you up in Australia for these types of views. Australia already has sent 38 people to a concentration camp merely because they tested positive. If you don't think this is coming to America - think again. The fascists here are drunk on power.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

Vaccine mandates make sense for the same reason drunk driving bans make sense: externalities. The role of government is to cover for market failings, and spillover costs are a prime example of an area where markets are essentially guaranteed to fail.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
> Vaccine mandates make sense for the same reason drunk driving bans make sense: externalities. These are not the same thing. One is an inaction, the other is an action. It's like saying that forcing someone to have an abortion is the same thing as banning abortions.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  First, I very clearly didn't say that they're the same thing so I'm not sure why that would be relevant. Second, that analogy makes no sense other than as a dog-whistle. Lastly, even all of that aside, there's no rule that says the government can only mandate actions or prohibit actions. There are plenty of examples of both things in the US legal code.
eru 5y ago
The logic of externalities can be used to justify taxes (and subsidies), but not bans or mandates.