4 ms·

That is pretty absurd anti-authoritarian double talk also. Comparing being fired with being executed. The government isn’t punishing you because you broke a la

by ukj 5y ago

That is pretty absurd anti-authoritarian double talk also. Comparing being fired with being executed. The government isn’t punishing you because you broke a law - your employer (who happens to be the government) fired you for failing to adhere to conditions of employment. There is literally nothing the government (in any of its capacities) can do to you which would toggle your vaccination status without your consent. Your employer will (dis)incentivise you accordingly towards exercising their freedom of association, but they can’t stick a needle in your arm. Irrespective of how we define “medical freedom” (because I don’t particularly care about definitional combat) the government NOT handcuffing me and sticking a needle in my arm against my will is precisely how I expect my medical autonomy to work in practice.

seneca 5y ago
Honest question: do you believe that a contract someone signs with a gun to their head is legitimate? If not, why not? At what point does compelled consent become illegitimate? I think most people agree a person with a gun to their head is under duress. After that it's just a matter of figuring out where the line is. I personally believe the government threatening peoples' livelihood in order to compell them to be vaccinated is placing those people under duress, and can not be considered legitimate consent. For what it's worth, I also think most healthy people ought to vaccinate themselves just as a matter of being good member of society.
- ukj 5y ago
  Honest question: do you think any of the relationships and contracts in Canada were signed with actual guns to anyone’s head? Because your metaphor is emotionally loaded and screams “libertarian bias”. Do you see all interactions/negotiations with government as having a gun to your head? From where I am looking it seems wee bit exaggerated and lacking nuance to equate mandates/economic sanctions and contract law to actual violence. It is precisely because you don’t have to (nor want to) sign the contract which requires you to be vaccinated is why you don’t have to work there any longer. You get what you want (remain unvaccinated). Employer get what they want (no unvaccinated employees). It seems like a win-win negotiation between consenting parties to me?

by ukj 5y ago

seneca 5y ago

Honest question: do you believe that a contract someone signs with a gun to their head is legitimate? If not, why not? At what point does compelled consent become illegitimate? I think most people agree a person with a gun to their head is under duress. After that it's just a matter of figuring out where the line is. I personally believe the government threatening peoples' livelihood in order to compell them to be vaccinated is placing those people under duress, and can not be considered legitimate consent. For what it's worth, I also think most healthy people ought to vaccinate themselves just as a matter of being good member of society.

ukj 5y ago
Honest question: do you think any of the relationships and contracts in Canada were signed with actual guns to anyone’s head? Because your metaphor is emotionally loaded and screams “libertarian bias”. Do you see all interactions/negotiations with government as having a gun to your head? From where I am looking it seems wee bit exaggerated and lacking nuance to equate mandates/economic sanctions and contract law to actual violence. It is precisely because you don’t have to (nor want to) sign the contract which requires you to be vaccinated is why you don’t have to work there any longer. You get what you want (remain unvaccinated). Employer get what they want (no unvaccinated employees). It seems like a win-win negotiation between consenting parties to me?