3 ms·

The core argument of this article is one I agree with. If you give government the ability to do whatever they want, eventually power will change hands and act a

The core argument of this article is one I agree with. If you give government the ability to do whatever they want, eventually power will change hands and act against you. It’s a cycle of progressively more wild pendulum swings. Good times create weak men. I fear what comes next.

ReactiveJelly 5y ago
But it's not a cycle. Governments have been trending towards policies I like since long before I was born. And the people who want to hold back the progress I want, don't seem to respect precedent any more than I do. Why should I be faithful in this game theory when they seem to have already betrayed?
- cato_the_elder 5y ago
  > Governments have been trending towards policies I like since long before I was born. Assuming you aren't too young, were you in favour of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Patriot Act? Trump's travel ban? The the long arc of the moral universe doesn't always bend towards our understanding of justice.
woodruffw 5y ago
To point out the exceedingly obvious: vaccine mandates are not carte blanche. They aren't even new, and the government did not have to pass any legislation to require vaccination in many domains because we already had a (century old!) body of law dedicated to vaccination.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Except that the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine", hence the century-old body of law is describing a different set of nouns, outcomes and policy choices. The WHO also changed the definition of "pandemic" about a decade ago.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Except that the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine", hence the century-old body of law is describing a different set of nouns, outcomes and policy choices. I can't find a direct link to what, exactly, they changed when I look this up. I would appreciate an official reference. Speculating idly: I'm guessing they probably introduced some language clarifying that vaccination does not guarantee that the individual can't be infected with the disease in the future. This has always been true, and it's why vaccination policies have always striven towards herd immunity. I don't believe any court of law would consider the CDC's clarifications in those respects to be a meaningful undermining of what it means to be given a vaccine.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      > I don't believe any court of law The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against OSHA mandates. Amorphous "protection" is not the same as the historical gold standard of "sterilizing immunity". No one claimed that historical immunity of prior vaccines was 100%, but it was close enough to stop infections and transmissions, unlike the current Covid-19 injections which do not -- and decline even further in efficacy on a monthly basis. vaccine efficacy over time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against OSHA mandates. Critically, not on the cockamamie basis that the CDC's website reflects the ground truth of what it means to be vaccinated. SCOTUS's ruling was based on OSHA's authority, not a definitional dispute.
        walterbell 5y ago
        Yes, there are so many reasons to rule against ill-conceived vaccine mandates. SCOTUS picked one.
    - josephcsible 5y ago

ReactiveJelly 5y ago

But it's not a cycle. Governments have been trending towards policies I like since long before I was born. And the people who want to hold back the progress I want, don't seem to respect precedent any more than I do. Why should I be faithful in this game theory when they seem to have already betrayed?

cato_the_elder 5y ago
> Governments have been trending towards policies I like since long before I was born. Assuming you aren't too young, were you in favour of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Patriot Act? Trump's travel ban? The the long arc of the moral universe doesn't always bend towards our understanding of justice.

woodruffw 5y ago

To point out the exceedingly obvious: vaccine mandates are not carte blanche. They aren't even new, and the government did not have to pass any legislation to require vaccination in many domains because we already had a (century old!) body of law dedicated to vaccination.

walterbell 5y ago
Except that the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine", hence the century-old body of law is describing a different set of nouns, outcomes and policy choices. The WHO also changed the definition of "pandemic" about a decade ago.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Except that the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine", hence the century-old body of law is describing a different set of nouns, outcomes and policy choices. I can't find a direct link to what, exactly, they changed when I look this up. I would appreciate an official reference. Speculating idly: I'm guessing they probably introduced some language clarifying that vaccination does not guarantee that the individual can't be infected with the disease in the future. This has always been true, and it's why vaccination policies have always striven towards herd immunity. I don't believe any court of law would consider the CDC's clarifications in those respects to be a meaningful undermining of what it means to be given a vaccine.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    > I don't believe any court of law The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against OSHA mandates. Amorphous "protection" is not the same as the historical gold standard of "sterilizing immunity". No one claimed that historical immunity of prior vaccines was 100%, but it was close enough to stop infections and transmissions, unlike the current Covid-19 injections which do not -- and decline even further in efficacy on a monthly basis. vaccine efficacy over time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against OSHA mandates. Critically, not on the cockamamie basis that the CDC's website reflects the ground truth of what it means to be vaccinated. SCOTUS's ruling was based on OSHA's authority, not a definitional dispute.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        Yes, there are so many reasons to rule against ill-conceived vaccine mandates. SCOTUS picked one.
  - josephcsible 5y ago