3 ms·
None of those are generally made mandatory. It's a reasonable position to say the government shouldn't be able to compel you to put any particular drugs in your
by dmurray 9mo ago
None of those are generally made mandatory. It's a reasonable position to say the government shouldn't be able to compel you to put any particular drugs in your body, even if it would benefit the population at large.
The opposite position is also reasonable: the government should be able to compel you to take certain medical treatments in the name of improving public health. Reasonable people not blinded by ideology can accept both of those positions and handle individual cases on their merits. In the modern liberal world we've reached a consensus something like: measles vaccine OK, sterilising people with hereditary defects not OK. But people in other times and places settle on other compromises.
Note: I'm aware that this decision isn't about forcing anyone to have the vaccine, it's just "advice". But it's only one step removed from that. Public schools already withhold services from kids who don't have CDC-recommended vaccines, and we've seen various governments willing to go much further during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- guelo 9mo agogsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.
- qsera 9mo agoNow that the original thread is flagged and hidden, we can discuss without fear. In capitalism, the incentive of the manufactures to maintain product quality is that people won't buy the thing if it is bad, or does not appear to work. This cannot be cheated. You cannot "bribe" a population. But when government mandates a product, then it changes the equation greatly against the population. Manufacture is no longer incentivized to maintain quality. If the quality is not easy to identify then it becomes much more easy. Now, they are outside capitalism. Now they can bribe the government, and enjoy perpetual sales. So to answer your question, if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Such businesses will run out of business as capitalism run its course.
- surgical_fire 9mo agoThat's not how it works. Governments have regulatory powers. They can stipulate prices, control quality, etc and so forth. Companies can be fined for breaching regulation. Ultimately, the government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary.
- qsera 9mo ago> Governments have regulatory powers. Which part of "bribe the government" didn't you understand, assuming you read my whole message? > The government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary. Right. Let that be done.
- surgical_fire 9mo ago> Which part of "bribe the government" I read it. I just interpreted as "government icky" rhetoric that is very common around here. Corruption is a tool of any power structure. Gesturing vaguely towards it to invalidate any societal initiative is not an argument, it is just bad-faith whinging. "Why build roads? The government can be bribed" "Why trust the courts? The government can be bribed" "Wefare? The government can be bribed"
- qsera 9mo ago>is not an argument Can you clarify which argument of mine are you referring to here?
- lostlogin 9mo agoNot OP but I’d say that your argument sounds like the libertarian one whereby all government and all regulation is bad. If that is your position, point me towards a place where libertarianism has worked.
- lostlogin 9mo ago
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]