5 ms·

The first party didn't actually force anyone to get vaccinated though. And that second party also says they can tell you what to put in your body and mandates

The first party didn't actually force anyone to get vaccinated though. And that second party also says they can tell you what to put in your body and mandates death panels now in health care. Means-testing for cancer patients. Murder and rapine as government policies. The second party is actually doing that. But yeah, both parties...

_heimdall 3mo ago
The Biden administration absolutely wanted to mandate covid vaccines, they just didn't believe they would get it past the courts. Instead they leveraged their ability to drive a massive smear campaign against anyone in the public who chose not to get vaccinated. And to be clear, vaccines are mandated for anyone who wishes to use the school system they already pay for via property taxes.
- iAMkenough 3mo ago
  Seatbelts are also mandated in the vehicles they paid for with their own money.
  - _heimdall 3mo ago
    Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority? If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.
    - iAMkenough 3mo ago
      Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like. When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
      - _heimdall 3mo ago
        I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing into me have to do with seat belts? We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
    - teh64 3mo ago
      This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me. You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well: 1. Your body as a projectile could harm others. 2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family. 3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc... 4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them. It is not a victimless crime.
      - toss1 3mo ago
        Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured. You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte. I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue. The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever. They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
        _heimdall 3mo ago
        I said this in a sibling comment, but when do we begin regulating other personal choices in the name of shared health care costs? I see the problem there as being a society wholely dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any one particular factor that can raise rates. Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is something you choose to use. You don't have to have health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to take on the risk that others' decisions impact your rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain from the coverage.
    - Hizonner 3mo ago
      > If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
      - _heimdall 3mo ago
        That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.
  - cobbzilla 3mo ago
    Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??
    - iAMkenough 3mo ago
      7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click
  - eptcyka 3mo ago
    There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.
- sgarland 3mo ago
  I see nothing wrong with mandating vaccines if you want to exist in society. You want to use public services? Be a responsible part of the public. Vaccines were once heralded as miracles of science, because they are. It wasn’t until the U.S. began deemphasizing education and encouraging anti-intellectualism that we lost our collective minds.
  - momo_O 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - _heimdall 3mo ago
    That only makes sense IMO if paying for said public services is optional. If one has to pay taxes to fund public services it seems unreasonable to say they also must get vaccinated or they can't use the very things they are paying for.
    - sgarland 3mo ago
      That’s a fair rebuttal. A counter - though not entirely so, depending on the logic behind your statement - is that public schools (in the U.S., anyway) are paid for by taxes, even if you have no children who are benefiting from it.
      - _heimdall 3mo ago
        Yeah its generally paid for specifically with property taxes if I'm not mistaken (that's how my local schools are funded). I take issue with that setup partly because I have little say in how schools are run, though I could run for the school board so at that point my inaction is kind of accepting the status quo.
        sgarland 3mo ago
        Yes, at some point it boils down to “how much do you actually care?” I was in the same position when I lived in Texas; the local school board was insane, but I didn’t care enough (because my kids were in a Montessori school) to do anything about it.

_heimdall 3mo ago

The Biden administration absolutely wanted to mandate covid vaccines, they just didn't believe they would get it past the courts. Instead they leveraged their ability to drive a massive smear campaign against anyone in the public who chose not to get vaccinated. And to be clear, vaccines are mandated for anyone who wishes to use the school system they already pay for via property taxes.

iAMkenough 3mo ago
Seatbelts are also mandated in the vehicles they paid for with their own money.
- _heimdall 3mo ago
  Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority? If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.
  - iAMkenough 3mo ago
    Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like. When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
    - _heimdall 3mo ago
      I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing into me have to do with seat belts? We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
  - teh64 3mo ago
    This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me. You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well: 1. Your body as a projectile could harm others. 2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family. 3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc... 4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them. It is not a victimless crime.
    - toss1 3mo ago
      Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured. You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte. I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue. The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever. They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
      - _heimdall 3mo ago
        I said this in a sibling comment, but when do we begin regulating other personal choices in the name of shared health care costs? I see the problem there as being a society wholely dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any one particular factor that can raise rates. Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is something you choose to use. You don't have to have health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to take on the risk that others' decisions impact your rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain from the coverage.
  - Hizonner 3mo ago
    > If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
    - _heimdall 3mo ago
      That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.
- cobbzilla 3mo ago
  Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??
  - iAMkenough 3mo ago
    7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click
- eptcyka 3mo ago
  There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.
sgarland 3mo ago
I see nothing wrong with mandating vaccines if you want to exist in society. You want to use public services? Be a responsible part of the public. Vaccines were once heralded as miracles of science, because they are. It wasn’t until the U.S. began deemphasizing education and encouraging anti-intellectualism that we lost our collective minds.
- momo_O 3mo ago
  [dead]
- _heimdall 3mo ago
  That only makes sense IMO if paying for said public services is optional. If one has to pay taxes to fund public services it seems unreasonable to say they also must get vaccinated or they can't use the very things they are paying for.
  - sgarland 3mo ago
    That’s a fair rebuttal. A counter - though not entirely so, depending on the logic behind your statement - is that public schools (in the U.S., anyway) are paid for by taxes, even if you have no children who are benefiting from it.
    - _heimdall 3mo ago
      Yeah its generally paid for specifically with property taxes if I'm not mistaken (that's how my local schools are funded). I take issue with that setup partly because I have little say in how schools are run, though I could run for the school board so at that point my inaction is kind of accepting the status quo.
      - sgarland 3mo ago
        Yes, at some point it boils down to “how much do you actually care?” I was in the same position when I lived in Texas; the local school board was insane, but I didn’t care enough (because my kids were in a Montessori school) to do anything about it.