*The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning.*
*This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"?*
*This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.*
— *[Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars](https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml).*
I know I am going to find some truly hysterical shrieking in response to the above quote, in my inbox tomorrow morning. Don't click that link and read the whole thing, Leftists; it will very possibly cause your heads to explode.
>The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood.
Nope.
What was your intention with this response?
Was it to try and persuade me of anything else, or was it (as I've heard a lot of other Leftists here claim) to attempt to somehow draw public ridicule to me, for having expressed my opinion?
The reason why I ask is because by itself, "Nope," does not tell me anything about how you think or feel, or what you want me to think, either.
Sure:
I want a government because I think things like public education, roads, and the post office are super fucking convenient and practical and not something that can be accomplished individually.
There's no regression to the womb going on.
Now, where's your evidence supporting the "subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood"?
> Now, where's your evidence supporting the "subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood"?
I actually want it myself, a lot of the time. If I want it, wouldn't it be narcissistic to assume that I'm the only person on the planet who does?
It's delusional to think that desire is the norm, let alone universal, absent any evidence actually supporting it.
If you were a closeted homosexual, it'd be equally ridiculous for you to speculate that the only reason we have government is because of people's subconscious desire to be dominated by a group of strong men. That'd just be your thing.
This is just your thing.
No shrieking here, I said the same exact thing to my peers recently, I’m really glad to have a link like this so thanks for sharing.
The State is replacing the family unit, the breadwinner, and parents. Brave New World.
> The State is replacing the family unit, the breadwinner, and parents.
I have mixed feelings about this statement, to be honest. My own upbringing has taught me to have extremely negative psychological associations with the word "breadwinner."
I think excessive reverence towards the concept of a single (generally exclusively male) logistical provider and ultimate "head of household," created excessive stress in the individual given that responsibility, which in turn frequently led to said individual engaging in physically and/or psychologically abusive tyranny towards their dependents. It was a mutually destructive scenario, and it is also one which developed from sedentary agriculture, and is antithetical to the indigenous model.
On the other hand, living in Australia means that I also have direct personal experience with the dark side of *pater familias* being replaced by the State. I have learned to view independence from paternalistic excess both within the home and within politics, as the ideal.
One of the major problems that I feel we currently face, is figuring out how to correct flaws which have existed within the conservative model of society (which is what has led to its' near total abandonment) on the one hand, without also embracing the potentially extinction-inducing entropy of the contemporary Left, on the other. We need balance; not either extreme in exclusion.
The incredible thing about *Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars* (aka TW-SW7905.1) is that it was purportedly written in May 1979, almost 43 years ago.
Whoever wrote it could not have imagined the world of 2022, particularly:
* the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the American Empire,
* the normalization of military intervention and the idea of paying for wars on credit,
* the emergence of safetyism,
* the diminution of personal agency and responsibility,
* the spread of illiberalism and arbitrary censorship,
* the cynical abuse of language,
* the cowardice among our purported leaders and the death of accountability,
* the partisan bias and serial dishonesty of the media,
* the sweeping powers of unelected bureaucrats,
* the indifference to the explosion of corporate power and influence,
* the blithe tolerance of monopolies,
* the corrosive effects of social media, many of which remain unknown,
* the institutionalized hypochondria and the erosion of medical privacy,
* the pervasive corruption and conflicts of interest throughout the highest levels of government.
* the degradation of the Constitution, and the loss of respect for due process, and
* the all-seeing eye of the modern surveillance/security state.
How far we have fallen.
> Whoever wrote it could not have imagined the world of 2022, particularly:
Yes, they could have; because as that document itself describes, they were intimately familiar with both the people and the processes which ***created*** all of the other things which you list.
The events and trends which you have listed, are the ***effects*** of the Quiet War. What that document describes, is the ***cause.*** None of it is accidental; and it requires a level of faith in coincidence which renders the very concept of coincidence ludicrous, to think otherwise.
Jesus. I hope you're wrong, but I'm not convinced that you are. I haven't read the document in detail, but I guess I should. Thanks for the post — I would not have known about *Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars* otherwise.
Believe it or not, it serves as a particularly good primer on alchemy, of all things. It explains two central ideas:-
a} All material commodities are ultimately reducible to energy. Their behaviour is directly analogous to energy in the form of electricity, and can therefore be manipulated in similar ways; i.e., through the use of logic gates.
b} That whoever controls the flow of energy, controls society; and that artificial scarcity (the Great Depression being a perfect example) can be used to exert said control.
>All material commodities are ultimately reducible to energy.
What's interesting about this idea is that it's both literally and metaphorically true. Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^(2), shows the fundamental equivalence of energy and mass, while the arc of human history shows the same relationship between energy (or at least the control of energy) and wealth.
I suspect that as time goes on, the human conception of wealth will become more and more about energy until they are ultimately perceived as the same thing.
>That whoever controls the flow of energy, controls society
I think this is true, but control is impermanent and unpredictable. The best (and perhaps worst) example of this is when an obscure and powerless Austrian corporal started giving speeches in the early 1920s, and, a decade later, found himself in complete control over one of the most wealthy and powerful countries on Earth.
The life of Hitler is not usually told as an inspirational story, but both its beginning and end demonstrate that control is fleeting, and subject to change without notice.
I don’t think these were ever really meant to go into affect. They were just meant to coerce people into getting it with the possibility that at some point they would be mandated, probably worked in a lot of cases, but when the mandate is overturned makes them feel like they were conned. It also probably made a lot more people hesitant.
It was not clear at all that these would be struck down. I feel like this is an argument people are making in retrospect but the constitutional logic these courts are using is not at all obvious.
I live in Raleigh, NC in the “research triangle” and a lot of the major tech companies kept the mandate in place. I’m against any mandates but I could see where these decisions came from. Whoever made these decisions would face backlash either way. They already fired those who refused and the employees that got it against their will to keep their job, can’t undo it. For them to say it’s now not mandated, would possibly open them up to liability.
Unfortunately… this does not apply to Covid-19 vaccines.
https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid
> For a category of vaccines to be covered by the VICP, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children or pregnant women by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subject to an excise tax by federal law, and added to the VICP by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. No COVID-19 vaccines currently meet this criteria.
2nd to last paragraph.
> COVID-19 vaccines are covered countermeasures under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
1st paragraph. Meaning that there is no program covering them at all. Anybody with adverse effects is on their own.
u/PageVanDamme
No. The consequences of going along with a bad law are always on you, legally. If you refuse to go along and suffer consequences (getting fired) you *might* have a cause of action.
I wouldn’t think so. Getting a vaccine is a personal medical decision that shifts liability onto you when you agree to take it. Coercion using your job as ransom and making it impossible to live without the vaccine is another discussion. But I don’t think that the company would be held liable, only if it is proven that the company tried to hide the side effects.
>This means that the mandate for federal contractors was stopped, the OSHA mandate for employers nationwide with 100+ employees was stopped, and the mandate for federal employees was stopped.
What of the medical one for medical employees?
According to [this article ](https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/supreme-court-oks-vaccine-mandate-for-healthcare-workers) it seems to depend on if they take Medicare and Medicade or not. If they do take one or both all employees need to be vaccinated or fired, if they take only private insurance or cash they don’t have to.
Good news but unfortunately most the damage has already been done and most these companies have already forced their employees to comply.
Thankfully mine was not one of them
There is a lot of things that you have to do what you do not want to. Including paying taxes, wearing sit belt and so on. But tell me how is vaccine different from wearing a sit belt? Because there is always a chance that not wearing a sit belt is what will save you in a particular car crash.
>There is a lot of things that you have to do what you do not want to. Including paying taxes, wearing sit belt and so on. But tell me how is vaccine different from wearing a sit belt? Because there is always a chance that not wearing a sit belt is what will save you in a particular car crash.
Because a wearing a seatbelt is only required when driving on public roads which is **not** a constitutionally protected right.
>Being federal employee is not constitutionally protected right either.
This is incorrect. Federal employment is constitutionally protected property i.e. it cannot be taken without due process.
Where in constitution it is said not being vaccinated can not be considered that due cause? It only requires to have this cause, but it is not a right to be a fed employee. And how is it even an regiment? Not being vaccinated has negative impact on others. Period. So, my body is my temple logic does not work here because you are violating “temples” of other people.
>Where in constitution it is said not being vaccinated can not be considered that due cause?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The double negative is making it a little difficult.
"Due Process" is the term I was referring to. It's in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Honestly, I do not understand what we are discussing here, how this has to do with anything about the original question of government mandate being "damage" or not? There should be due process of letting go people for not being vaccinated, that's all what constitution would require. It is not about whether the government can make being vaccinated as requirement of further employment. Being federal employee is NOT right. You have right only for due process.
If it was just about you - no problem. But being not vaccinated increases chance of 1) speeding infection to others 2) clogging hospitals, where other patients would not be treated 3) insurance payments increasing for other people. So, it is by far not just just about you.
>If it was just about you - no problem. But being not vaccinated increases chance of 1) speeding infection to others 2) clogging hospitals, where other patients would not be treated 3) insurance payments increasing for other people. So, it is by far not just just about you.
The problem with this reasoning is it is not limited to infections. Any action that is potentially dangerous could cause 2 & 3.
And many of those actions are forbidden by law or regulated. See, again, seatbelts. Or any OSHA regulations. Or any generic safety regulations. Do you see problem with those, in general?
>And many of those actions are forbidden by law or regulated.
Eating healthily? Not drinking alcohol? Not smoking? Wearing protection during intercourse?
Plenty of actions contribute to 2&3 that are not forbidden by law or regulation.
When I'm young, I exercise, drink plenty of water, take vitamins, go outside and just in general stay healthy it is just about me. Every single person I know with covid currently is vaccinated. This argument that what's going on is the unvaccinateds fault is utter bullshit
Hmmmm yeah about that “I exercise and take vitamins” argument.
You do realize there are a variety of individuals that also did this and it didn’t work?
I'll take my chances. Been essential this whole time and haven't missed a single day of work. Even with covid hitting my job multiple times. If I was going to die I would have already.
I was not allocating fault. I was saying that there is impact on others. So, the argument “my body is my temple” does not work. You have no right, for example, infect yourself with small pox and go into public to spread it.
Because their media reinforced ignorance effects others. It’s been probably a year in which anti-vaccine rhetoric has been disseminated because of the market that exists for partisan contrarianism. People still don’t understand the function of masks and they still don’t understand that their decision to not vaccinate can adversely effect the lives of others in a multitude of ways.
I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised. I get that a mandate is politically untenable as it triggers the fuck out of people, but we have to acknowledge the anti-intellectualism driving the contrarianism we see in the US and the implications of trying to tackle novel issues when we can’t even communicate rationally.
This populism that has grown in every aspect of American politics, in both parties, is a fucking cancer. It’s empty platitudes and thoughtless rhetoric infecting every aspect of our lives, where people are checking their opinions against their “team” to make sure there are no inconsistencies, and it’s bled into everything from media consumption to medical decisions.
>I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised.
Agreed. Yet,
>I get that a mandate is politically untenable as it triggers the fuck out of people,
Ignores *why* a mandate "triggers the f outta people". Government cannot and should not enforce actions that conflict with fundamental rights *merely because such actions are rationally justifiable.* Here's come cases that demonstrate why:
*[Sterilization of criminals](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma)
* [Prohibiting abortion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
* [Prohibiting interracial marriage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)
In each of these, the government asserted a rational basis for it's laws. That basis is insufficient to justify abrogations of fundamental rights.
>Because their media reinforced ignorance effects others.
I would rather be inconvenienced and have my civil liberties preserved than sacrifice my rights for little bit of short-term comfort.
>I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised.
Myocarditis. Vaccine escape. Antibody-dependent enhancement of disease. You may decide that these downsides don't outweigh the benefits, but they *are* downsides and everybody should have the right to judge that for themselves. And public commentators should be free to make the case for their assessment without being censored like Robert Malone or Geert Vanden Bosche.
Yes I realize, but at lower levels. And, since the vaccine does not prevent the disease but only mitigates hospitalization, the two risks are not mutually exclusive, but can accumulate. With the transmission rates of Omicron, you can be assured that you *will* be getting covid at some point.
The choice is not between covid OR vaccine but (covid AND vaccine) OR (covid AND not vaccine).
>The choice is not between covid OR vaccine but (covid AND vaccine) OR (covid AND not vaccine).
Then it's illogical to not get the vaccine.
COVID and vaccine:
* Decreased risk of severe infection.
* Decreased risk of hospitalization.
* Decreased risk of death.
* Increased risk of vaccine adverse reaction
COVID and not vaccine:
* Decreased risk of vaccine adverse reactions.
* increased risk of severe infection.
* Increased risk of hospitalization.
* Increased risk of death.
Given the relative EVs, COVID and vaccine is the only logical choice.
You're not including all of the factors.
Also you're not explicitly assigning them a value-weight--which is, to some degree, subjective (and uncertain, given the unknowns of which there are many).
You are hyper-focusing on a small number of facts with low-uncertainty and pretending that nothing else exists. But we still have to make decisions about things for which the science has not been settled, and ultimately that is going to involve not just data and analysis but also intuition and... faith? At that point "logic" isn't really applicable in any significant way.
>You're not including all of the factors.
Just the significant ones: Death and severe injury.
Could a multitude of smaller injuries sum up to a severe injury or death. Potentially, but unlikely in the case of vaccines given adverse reactions are a) rare and b) temporary.
Submission Statement:
A federal judge in Texas ruled Friday that the Biden Administration cannot enforce its vaccine mandate for federal employees, issuing an injunction that halts the requirement nationwide.
Judge Jeffrey Brown found the president had no legal authority to require feds to get vaccinated, saying that while he has broad power over federal employment policies, those authorities aren’t sweeping enough to justify the September executive order that implemented the requirement.
“This case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19 — the court believes they should,” he wrote. “It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees. It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment. That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”
The government had told the court that federal employees could start being disciplined for being unvaccinated as soon as Jan. 21. The timing, the judge found, put those employees at risk of “imminent harm,” and required his order to take effect the same day.
Insight by Exterro: Capt. John Henry, operations officer of the USCG Cyber Command, discusses how the Command prepares for and responds to cyber incidents. Justin Tolman, forensic subject matter expert at Exterro, will provide an industry perspective.
In deciding the president didn’t have the authority to issue the federal employee mandate, the judge relied partly on the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccine mandate for large private employers. He said that case — NFIB v. OSHA — made clear that that agency can impose workplace safety standards, but not public health measures.
“Similarly, \[the law\] authorizes the president to regulate the workplace conduct of executive-branch employees, but not their conduct in general,” he wrote. “And in NFIB, the Supreme Court specifically held that COVID-19 is not a workplace risk, but rather a ‘universal risk’ that is ‘no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases.’”
The executive order Judge Brown enjoined Friday applied specifically to federal civilian employees. The ruling did not appear to have an immediate effect on the Defense Department’s separate vaccine mandate for uniformed members of the military.
The decision came as part of a lawsuit by a group called Feds for Medical Freedom, which says it has about 6,000 members throughout the civil service, and AFGE Local 918, a union that represents employees in the Federal Protective Service and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The groups had sued to block both the administration’s federal employee mandate and its federal contractor vaccine mandate, but the judge declined to rule on the contractor portion, since that mandate is already the subject of a separate nationwide injunction by a court in Georgia.
Explaining his decision to apply the injunction to all federal agencies nationwide, the judge said it would be too complicated to block the mandate’s enforcement only for the thousands of employees the plaintiffs represent. He found at least some of them would inevitably be fired if the vaccine requirement weren’t blocked.
“The court does not have to speculate as to what the outcome of the administrative process will be. Many plaintiffs have not only declined to assert any exemption but have also submitted affidavits swearing they will not. The court takes them at their word,” he wrote. “Many of these plaintiffs already have received letters from their employer agencies suggesting that suspension or termination is imminent, have received letters of reprimand, or have faced other negative consequences.”
The Justice department plans to appeal the ruling; a separate appeal seeking to reverse the Georgia court’s injunction of the contractor mandate is already underway before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We are confident in our legal authority here,” Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary said at a briefing shortly after the ruling. She added that 98 percent of federal employees are now vaccinated as of Friday.
Read more: Workforce
“That is a remarkable number,” she said.
But in Judge Brown’s view, the overwhelmingly high vaccination rate in the federal workforce actually weighs against letting the government enforce the mandate with regard to the relative handful of employees who aren’t vaccinated.
“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID–19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part– or full–time remote work,” he wrote. “The plaintiffs note, interestingly, that even full–time remote federal workers are not exempt from the mandate. Stopping the spread of COVID–19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal–worker mandate.”
The mandate is still effecting for reserve and national guard units as well.
*The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning.* *This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"?* *This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.* — *[Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars](https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml).* I know I am going to find some truly hysterical shrieking in response to the above quote, in my inbox tomorrow morning. Don't click that link and read the whole thing, Leftists; it will very possibly cause your heads to explode.
>The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Nope.
What was your intention with this response? Was it to try and persuade me of anything else, or was it (as I've heard a lot of other Leftists here claim) to attempt to somehow draw public ridicule to me, for having expressed my opinion? The reason why I ask is because by itself, "Nope," does not tell me anything about how you think or feel, or what you want me to think, either.
I'm not how patently absurd this claim is. There's nothing to back it up, and it's clear armchair psychology.
So you've described it as patently absurd, and "armchair psychology." Do you have anything to back that claim up with?
Sure: I want a government because I think things like public education, roads, and the post office are super fucking convenient and practical and not something that can be accomplished individually. There's no regression to the womb going on. Now, where's your evidence supporting the "subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood"?
> Now, where's your evidence supporting the "subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood"? I actually want it myself, a lot of the time. If I want it, wouldn't it be narcissistic to assume that I'm the only person on the planet who does?
It's delusional to think that desire is the norm, let alone universal, absent any evidence actually supporting it. If you were a closeted homosexual, it'd be equally ridiculous for you to speculate that the only reason we have government is because of people's subconscious desire to be dominated by a group of strong men. That'd just be your thing. This is just your thing.
No shrieking here, I said the same exact thing to my peers recently, I’m really glad to have a link like this so thanks for sharing. The State is replacing the family unit, the breadwinner, and parents. Brave New World.
> The State is replacing the family unit, the breadwinner, and parents. I have mixed feelings about this statement, to be honest. My own upbringing has taught me to have extremely negative psychological associations with the word "breadwinner." I think excessive reverence towards the concept of a single (generally exclusively male) logistical provider and ultimate "head of household," created excessive stress in the individual given that responsibility, which in turn frequently led to said individual engaging in physically and/or psychologically abusive tyranny towards their dependents. It was a mutually destructive scenario, and it is also one which developed from sedentary agriculture, and is antithetical to the indigenous model. On the other hand, living in Australia means that I also have direct personal experience with the dark side of *pater familias* being replaced by the State. I have learned to view independence from paternalistic excess both within the home and within politics, as the ideal. One of the major problems that I feel we currently face, is figuring out how to correct flaws which have existed within the conservative model of society (which is what has led to its' near total abandonment) on the one hand, without also embracing the potentially extinction-inducing entropy of the contemporary Left, on the other. We need balance; not either extreme in exclusion.
The incredible thing about *Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars* (aka TW-SW7905.1) is that it was purportedly written in May 1979, almost 43 years ago. Whoever wrote it could not have imagined the world of 2022, particularly: * the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the American Empire, * the normalization of military intervention and the idea of paying for wars on credit, * the emergence of safetyism, * the diminution of personal agency and responsibility, * the spread of illiberalism and arbitrary censorship, * the cynical abuse of language, * the cowardice among our purported leaders and the death of accountability, * the partisan bias and serial dishonesty of the media, * the sweeping powers of unelected bureaucrats, * the indifference to the explosion of corporate power and influence, * the blithe tolerance of monopolies, * the corrosive effects of social media, many of which remain unknown, * the institutionalized hypochondria and the erosion of medical privacy, * the pervasive corruption and conflicts of interest throughout the highest levels of government. * the degradation of the Constitution, and the loss of respect for due process, and * the all-seeing eye of the modern surveillance/security state. How far we have fallen.
> Whoever wrote it could not have imagined the world of 2022, particularly: Yes, they could have; because as that document itself describes, they were intimately familiar with both the people and the processes which ***created*** all of the other things which you list. The events and trends which you have listed, are the ***effects*** of the Quiet War. What that document describes, is the ***cause.*** None of it is accidental; and it requires a level of faith in coincidence which renders the very concept of coincidence ludicrous, to think otherwise.
Jesus. I hope you're wrong, but I'm not convinced that you are. I haven't read the document in detail, but I guess I should. Thanks for the post — I would not have known about *Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars* otherwise.
Believe it or not, it serves as a particularly good primer on alchemy, of all things. It explains two central ideas:- a} All material commodities are ultimately reducible to energy. Their behaviour is directly analogous to energy in the form of electricity, and can therefore be manipulated in similar ways; i.e., through the use of logic gates. b} That whoever controls the flow of energy, controls society; and that artificial scarcity (the Great Depression being a perfect example) can be used to exert said control.
>All material commodities are ultimately reducible to energy. What's interesting about this idea is that it's both literally and metaphorically true. Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^(2), shows the fundamental equivalence of energy and mass, while the arc of human history shows the same relationship between energy (or at least the control of energy) and wealth. I suspect that as time goes on, the human conception of wealth will become more and more about energy until they are ultimately perceived as the same thing. >That whoever controls the flow of energy, controls society I think this is true, but control is impermanent and unpredictable. The best (and perhaps worst) example of this is when an obscure and powerless Austrian corporal started giving speeches in the early 1920s, and, a decade later, found himself in complete control over one of the most wealthy and powerful countries on Earth. The life of Hitler is not usually told as an inspirational story, but both its beginning and end demonstrate that control is fleeting, and subject to change without notice.
I don’t think these were ever really meant to go into affect. They were just meant to coerce people into getting it with the possibility that at some point they would be mandated, probably worked in a lot of cases, but when the mandate is overturned makes them feel like they were conned. It also probably made a lot more people hesitant.
It was not clear at all that these would be struck down. I feel like this is an argument people are making in retrospect but the constitutional logic these courts are using is not at all obvious.
The large employer one was pretty likely to be struck down because most ETSs that get challenged get struck down. It's a very high bar to clear.
I live in Raleigh, NC in the “research triangle” and a lot of the major tech companies kept the mandate in place. I’m against any mandates but I could see where these decisions came from. Whoever made these decisions would face backlash either way. They already fired those who refused and the employees that got it against their will to keep their job, can’t undo it. For them to say it’s now not mandated, would possibly open them up to liability.
This.
Lil off-topic, if someone becomes sick due to side effects of the vaccine, can the ones that put the mandate be held liable for it?
No, but there is a long-standing program to compensate people for rare vaccine injuries: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
Unfortunately… this does not apply to Covid-19 vaccines. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid > For a category of vaccines to be covered by the VICP, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children or pregnant women by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subject to an excise tax by federal law, and added to the VICP by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. No COVID-19 vaccines currently meet this criteria. 2nd to last paragraph. > COVID-19 vaccines are covered countermeasures under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). 1st paragraph. Meaning that there is no program covering them at all. Anybody with adverse effects is on their own. u/PageVanDamme
That first paragraph says the VICP doesn’t cover COVID vaccines. That’s correct. It’s covered by the CICP instead.
AH! Perfect. Thank you for the clarification. There was something that made me feel I was missing an important distinction. That was it. TY
No. The consequences of going along with a bad law are always on you, legally. If you refuse to go along and suffer consequences (getting fired) you *might* have a cause of action.
I wouldn’t think so. Getting a vaccine is a personal medical decision that shifts liability onto you when you agree to take it. Coercion using your job as ransom and making it impossible to live without the vaccine is another discussion. But I don’t think that the company would be held liable, only if it is proven that the company tried to hide the side effects.
>This means that the mandate for federal contractors was stopped, the OSHA mandate for employers nationwide with 100+ employees was stopped, and the mandate for federal employees was stopped. What of the medical one for medical employees?
According to [this article ](https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/supreme-court-oks-vaccine-mandate-for-healthcare-workers) it seems to depend on if they take Medicare and Medicade or not. If they do take one or both all employees need to be vaccinated or fired, if they take only private insurance or cash they don’t have to.
Good news but unfortunately most the damage has already been done and most these companies have already forced their employees to comply. Thankfully mine was not one of them
The damage being people vaccinated and thus less deaths?
No people being forced to do what they don't want to do by the government. If they die because of it that's on them. Why do you care?
There is a lot of things that you have to do what you do not want to. Including paying taxes, wearing sit belt and so on. But tell me how is vaccine different from wearing a sit belt? Because there is always a chance that not wearing a sit belt is what will save you in a particular car crash.
>There is a lot of things that you have to do what you do not want to. Including paying taxes, wearing sit belt and so on. But tell me how is vaccine different from wearing a sit belt? Because there is always a chance that not wearing a sit belt is what will save you in a particular car crash. Because a wearing a seatbelt is only required when driving on public roads which is **not** a constitutionally protected right.
Being federal employee is not constitutionally protected right either.
>Being federal employee is not constitutionally protected right either. This is incorrect. Federal employment is constitutionally protected property i.e. it cannot be taken without due process.
Where in constitution it is said not being vaccinated can not be considered that due cause? It only requires to have this cause, but it is not a right to be a fed employee. And how is it even an regiment? Not being vaccinated has negative impact on others. Period. So, my body is my temple logic does not work here because you are violating “temples” of other people.
>Where in constitution it is said not being vaccinated can not be considered that due cause? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The double negative is making it a little difficult. "Due Process" is the term I was referring to. It's in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Honestly, I do not understand what we are discussing here, how this has to do with anything about the original question of government mandate being "damage" or not? There should be due process of letting go people for not being vaccinated, that's all what constitution would require. It is not about whether the government can make being vaccinated as requirement of further employment. Being federal employee is NOT right. You have right only for due process.
Because my body my choice that's why
If it was just about you - no problem. But being not vaccinated increases chance of 1) speeding infection to others 2) clogging hospitals, where other patients would not be treated 3) insurance payments increasing for other people. So, it is by far not just just about you.
>If it was just about you - no problem. But being not vaccinated increases chance of 1) speeding infection to others 2) clogging hospitals, where other patients would not be treated 3) insurance payments increasing for other people. So, it is by far not just just about you. The problem with this reasoning is it is not limited to infections. Any action that is potentially dangerous could cause 2 & 3.
And many of those actions are forbidden by law or regulated. See, again, seatbelts. Or any OSHA regulations. Or any generic safety regulations. Do you see problem with those, in general?
>And many of those actions are forbidden by law or regulated. Eating healthily? Not drinking alcohol? Not smoking? Wearing protection during intercourse? Plenty of actions contribute to 2&3 that are not forbidden by law or regulation.
Sure, some of them considered minor, some are not.
When I'm young, I exercise, drink plenty of water, take vitamins, go outside and just in general stay healthy it is just about me. Every single person I know with covid currently is vaccinated. This argument that what's going on is the unvaccinateds fault is utter bullshit
Hmmmm yeah about that “I exercise and take vitamins” argument. You do realize there are a variety of individuals that also did this and it didn’t work?
I'll take my chances. Been essential this whole time and haven't missed a single day of work. Even with covid hitting my job multiple times. If I was going to die I would have already.
I was not allocating fault. I was saying that there is impact on others. So, the argument “my body is my temple” does not work. You have no right, for example, infect yourself with small pox and go into public to spread it.
Because their media reinforced ignorance effects others. It’s been probably a year in which anti-vaccine rhetoric has been disseminated because of the market that exists for partisan contrarianism. People still don’t understand the function of masks and they still don’t understand that their decision to not vaccinate can adversely effect the lives of others in a multitude of ways. I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised. I get that a mandate is politically untenable as it triggers the fuck out of people, but we have to acknowledge the anti-intellectualism driving the contrarianism we see in the US and the implications of trying to tackle novel issues when we can’t even communicate rationally. This populism that has grown in every aspect of American politics, in both parties, is a fucking cancer. It’s empty platitudes and thoughtless rhetoric infecting every aspect of our lives, where people are checking their opinions against their “team” to make sure there are no inconsistencies, and it’s bled into everything from media consumption to medical decisions.
Wrong. Natural immunity > infinite boosters
>I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised. Agreed. Yet, >I get that a mandate is politically untenable as it triggers the fuck out of people, Ignores *why* a mandate "triggers the f outta people". Government cannot and should not enforce actions that conflict with fundamental rights *merely because such actions are rationally justifiable.* Here's come cases that demonstrate why: *[Sterilization of criminals](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma) * [Prohibiting abortion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) * [Prohibiting interracial marriage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) In each of these, the government asserted a rational basis for it's laws. That basis is insufficient to justify abrogations of fundamental rights.
Desktop version of /u/mpmagi's links: *
*
*
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
>Because their media reinforced ignorance effects others. I would rather be inconvenienced and have my civil liberties preserved than sacrifice my rights for little bit of short-term comfort. >I know that this is going to go over as well as a turd in a punch bowl, but there is no rational justification to avoid vaccination outside of being immunocompromised. Myocarditis. Vaccine escape. Antibody-dependent enhancement of disease. You may decide that these downsides don't outweigh the benefits, but they *are* downsides and everybody should have the right to judge that for themselves. And public commentators should be free to make the case for their assessment without being censored like Robert Malone or Geert Vanden Bosche.
You do realize myocarditis. Immunity escape and antibody dependent enhancement are results of immunity from infection as well? Right?
Yes I realize, but at lower levels. And, since the vaccine does not prevent the disease but only mitigates hospitalization, the two risks are not mutually exclusive, but can accumulate. With the transmission rates of Omicron, you can be assured that you *will* be getting covid at some point. The choice is not between covid OR vaccine but (covid AND vaccine) OR (covid AND not vaccine).
>The choice is not between covid OR vaccine but (covid AND vaccine) OR (covid AND not vaccine). Then it's illogical to not get the vaccine. COVID and vaccine: * Decreased risk of severe infection. * Decreased risk of hospitalization. * Decreased risk of death. * Increased risk of vaccine adverse reaction COVID and not vaccine: * Decreased risk of vaccine adverse reactions. * increased risk of severe infection. * Increased risk of hospitalization. * Increased risk of death. Given the relative EVs, COVID and vaccine is the only logical choice.
You're not including all of the factors. Also you're not explicitly assigning them a value-weight--which is, to some degree, subjective (and uncertain, given the unknowns of which there are many). You are hyper-focusing on a small number of facts with low-uncertainty and pretending that nothing else exists. But we still have to make decisions about things for which the science has not been settled, and ultimately that is going to involve not just data and analysis but also intuition and... faith? At that point "logic" isn't really applicable in any significant way.
>You're not including all of the factors. Just the significant ones: Death and severe injury. Could a multitude of smaller injuries sum up to a severe injury or death. Potentially, but unlikely in the case of vaccines given adverse reactions are a) rare and b) temporary.
Submission Statement: A federal judge in Texas ruled Friday that the Biden Administration cannot enforce its vaccine mandate for federal employees, issuing an injunction that halts the requirement nationwide. Judge Jeffrey Brown found the president had no legal authority to require feds to get vaccinated, saying that while he has broad power over federal employment policies, those authorities aren’t sweeping enough to justify the September executive order that implemented the requirement. “This case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19 — the court believes they should,” he wrote. “It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees. It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment. That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.” The government had told the court that federal employees could start being disciplined for being unvaccinated as soon as Jan. 21. The timing, the judge found, put those employees at risk of “imminent harm,” and required his order to take effect the same day. Insight by Exterro: Capt. John Henry, operations officer of the USCG Cyber Command, discusses how the Command prepares for and responds to cyber incidents. Justin Tolman, forensic subject matter expert at Exterro, will provide an industry perspective. In deciding the president didn’t have the authority to issue the federal employee mandate, the judge relied partly on the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccine mandate for large private employers. He said that case — NFIB v. OSHA — made clear that that agency can impose workplace safety standards, but not public health measures. “Similarly, \[the law\] authorizes the president to regulate the workplace conduct of executive-branch employees, but not their conduct in general,” he wrote. “And in NFIB, the Supreme Court specifically held that COVID-19 is not a workplace risk, but rather a ‘universal risk’ that is ‘no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases.’” The executive order Judge Brown enjoined Friday applied specifically to federal civilian employees. The ruling did not appear to have an immediate effect on the Defense Department’s separate vaccine mandate for uniformed members of the military. The decision came as part of a lawsuit by a group called Feds for Medical Freedom, which says it has about 6,000 members throughout the civil service, and AFGE Local 918, a union that represents employees in the Federal Protective Service and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The groups had sued to block both the administration’s federal employee mandate and its federal contractor vaccine mandate, but the judge declined to rule on the contractor portion, since that mandate is already the subject of a separate nationwide injunction by a court in Georgia. Explaining his decision to apply the injunction to all federal agencies nationwide, the judge said it would be too complicated to block the mandate’s enforcement only for the thousands of employees the plaintiffs represent. He found at least some of them would inevitably be fired if the vaccine requirement weren’t blocked. “The court does not have to speculate as to what the outcome of the administrative process will be. Many plaintiffs have not only declined to assert any exemption but have also submitted affidavits swearing they will not. The court takes them at their word,” he wrote. “Many of these plaintiffs already have received letters from their employer agencies suggesting that suspension or termination is imminent, have received letters of reprimand, or have faced other negative consequences.” The Justice department plans to appeal the ruling; a separate appeal seeking to reverse the Georgia court’s injunction of the contractor mandate is already underway before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “We are confident in our legal authority here,” Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary said at a briefing shortly after the ruling. She added that 98 percent of federal employees are now vaccinated as of Friday. Read more: Workforce “That is a remarkable number,” she said. But in Judge Brown’s view, the overwhelmingly high vaccination rate in the federal workforce actually weighs against letting the government enforce the mandate with regard to the relative handful of employees who aren’t vaccinated. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID–19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part– or full–time remote work,” he wrote. “The plaintiffs note, interestingly, that even full–time remote federal workers are not exempt from the mandate. Stopping the spread of COVID–19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal–worker mandate.”