8 ms·

Us Americans are so obsessed with government overreach that you'd think our corporate overloads are actually treating us well and that the government is the bad

Us Americans are so obsessed with government overreach that you'd think our corporate overloads are actually treating us well and that the government is the bad guy. When the government wants to fuck us over, think what the NSA has been doing, they won't look for precedents so there's no point in treating every decision they make as a potential sliperry slope. Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple.

colechristensen 4y ago
People like government overreach when they agree with it completely forgetting that they won’t always. Rights aren’t just for your side.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Absolutely. This is why I laugh when republicans who support all republican actions try to consider themselves libertarians. I guess it's the trendy term to be now. If you're a libertarian, you vouch for liberties across the board. Not seesawing utter power against the other side every election cycle.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
throwawayacc2 4y ago
senorrib 4y ago
> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. This last sentence is such a massive slippery slope that an answer isn’t even necessary.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Forgive me, but what is it a slippery slope of? I immediately thought this logic was already applied to things like child toy regulation or lead paint warning regulation or food recall regulation or workplace safety regulation… it’s really common for the government to enforce people to do things (or ban people from doing other things) in certain contexts because of the danger otherwise.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    > Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. There's a pretty significant difference between "you may not sell dangerous products" and "you must use X medicine". Next up, government mandated pedometers with minimum step counts, broccoli consumption, teeth brushing (prevents heart disease that kills people!), flossing, and minimum hours of sleep per night. Once we've kept the fat, foul-breathed insomniacs out of society, government bans you from going into the wilderness (bears! bee allergies!), driving a car, riding a bike, running with scissors, and using a computer for more than a few hours a day. Some of these things obviously kill more than others, but heart disease, cancer and "accident" are all leading causes of death in the US, with heart disease and cancer beating out COVID in 2020 and probably 2022.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      I actually think the government can and should regulate food consumption. We already did it with cigarettes and trans fats. Omega-6 fatty acids should be next. A more fair but less politically viable alternative is to tax the healthcare of people with >%30 body fat. But these should probably have 10 year limits with the ultimate goal of changing people's habits.
      - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        Ok, you want a big brother to tell you what to do. But why would you bring me into this?
realjhol 4y ago
> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. They don't though. None of the vaccines prevent transmission - they were never even tested for that. And only the extremely elderly or obese are in any significant danger of dieing of COVID. If you're not in either of those camps, or have natural immunity the risk is negligible.
- mcculley 4y ago
  > only the extremely elderly or obese are in any significant danger of dieing of COVID We should not make policy decisions as long as only the elderly and otherwise vulnerable are at risk?
  - prottog 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. We shouldn't upend everyone's lives for the sake of the elderly and the feeble. The median age of a Covid-associated death in the US is near the average life expectancy[0]. There's a case to be made that the lockdown-related life loss, including the great increase in deaths of despair, as well as future poverty in children who more or less lost two years of schooling, will exceed the Covid death toll. Our policy response has been madness. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
    - mcculley 4y ago
      Not all policy decisions would necessarily result in "upend[ing] everyone's lives". Many person years were lost: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm I sat in the ICU as my father died and listened to the many ventilators as a result of policy failures. I had lots of time to contemplate possible policy decisions. Pretending that the only possible choices were "do nothing" and "do something stupid" is not useful to the discussion or any future policy decision.
      - 4y ago
seanw444 4y ago
<insert item here> is a threat to our <choose one of: lives, democracy>, and so these regulations and encroachments must be enacted!
int_19h 4y ago
Speaking for myself, I'm obsessed with corporate overreach in general. It just so happens that government is the largest and the most well-armed corporation around, so it gets considerable attention as such.

colechristensen 4y ago

People like government overreach when they agree with it completely forgetting that they won’t always. Rights aren’t just for your side.

seanw444 4y ago
Absolutely. This is why I laugh when republicans who support all republican actions try to consider themselves libertarians. I guess it's the trendy term to be now. If you're a libertarian, you vouch for liberties across the board. Not seesawing utter power against the other side every election cycle.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

throwawayacc2 4y ago

senorrib 4y ago

> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. This last sentence is such a massive slippery slope that an answer isn’t even necessary.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Forgive me, but what is it a slippery slope of? I immediately thought this logic was already applied to things like child toy regulation or lead paint warning regulation or food recall regulation or workplace safety regulation… it’s really common for the government to enforce people to do things (or ban people from doing other things) in certain contexts because of the danger otherwise.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  > Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. There's a pretty significant difference between "you may not sell dangerous products" and "you must use X medicine". Next up, government mandated pedometers with minimum step counts, broccoli consumption, teeth brushing (prevents heart disease that kills people!), flossing, and minimum hours of sleep per night. Once we've kept the fat, foul-breathed insomniacs out of society, government bans you from going into the wilderness (bears! bee allergies!), driving a car, riding a bike, running with scissors, and using a computer for more than a few hours a day. Some of these things obviously kill more than others, but heart disease, cancer and "accident" are all leading causes of death in the US, with heart disease and cancer beating out COVID in 2020 and probably 2022.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    I actually think the government can and should regulate food consumption. We already did it with cigarettes and trans fats. Omega-6 fatty acids should be next. A more fair but less politically viable alternative is to tax the healthcare of people with >%30 body fat. But these should probably have 10 year limits with the ultimate goal of changing people's habits.
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
      Ok, you want a big brother to tell you what to do. But why would you bring me into this?

realjhol 4y ago

> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. They don't though. None of the vaccines prevent transmission - they were never even tested for that. And only the extremely elderly or obese are in any significant danger of dieing of COVID. If you're not in either of those camps, or have natural immunity the risk is negligible.

mcculley 4y ago
> only the extremely elderly or obese are in any significant danger of dieing of COVID We should not make policy decisions as long as only the elderly and otherwise vulnerable are at risk?
- prottog 4y ago
  Yes, exactly. We shouldn't upend everyone's lives for the sake of the elderly and the feeble. The median age of a Covid-associated death in the US is near the average life expectancy[0]. There's a case to be made that the lockdown-related life loss, including the great increase in deaths of despair, as well as future poverty in children who more or less lost two years of schooling, will exceed the Covid death toll. Our policy response has been madness. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
  - mcculley 4y ago
    Not all policy decisions would necessarily result in "upend[ing] everyone's lives". Many person years were lost: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm I sat in the ICU as my father died and listened to the many ventilators as a result of policy failures. I had lots of time to contemplate possible policy decisions. Pretending that the only possible choices were "do nothing" and "do something stupid" is not useful to the discussion or any future policy decision.
    - 4y ago

seanw444 4y ago

<insert item here> is a threat to our <choose one of: lives, democracy>, and so these regulations and encroachments must be enacted!

int_19h 4y ago

Speaking for myself, I'm obsessed with corporate overreach in general. It just so happens that government is the largest and the most well-armed corporation around, so it gets considerable attention as such.