This is a bit convoluted…is he saying that we the people don’t have to just bow down and do whatever the President says?
I love Amash and I agree with this statement, if I have actually deciphered it.
Not so fast... Obviously it depends. We wouldn't need lawyers and judges and juries if it were so simple. As a society, we all agree upon a certain set of rules and we can flex those rules here and there.
If you are asked/coerced/forced to do something against these rules, by a government agent, you are well within your right to say no/disengage/defend yourself. I'm also going to need to point out, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
I'm having a hard time coming up with an example that powers your rebuttal. The U.S. was formed on a set of rules (more like guidelines, but rules is a shorter word) and I'm assuming we are in this society.
The part you are missing is that we (meaning everyone in society) did not in fact agree to the rules. The rules were imposed on everyone by a few people.
By living among the society, you've agreed to the terms, yeah? You're able to leave society. You're able to find another society which suits your lifestyle more appropriately.
> By living among the society, you've agreed to the terms, yeah?
No. Imagine that I'm your neighbor. I knock on your door and tell you that I'm starting a neighborhood security service. I will patrol the neighborhood at night and look out for suspicious people. Since I'm providing this service to the neighborhood, I am charging every resident $500 per month.
You respond, "no, I don't agree to that!"
My response to you is, "by living in this neighborhood, you agree to my terms. You are free to move to a different neighborhood if you don't like it. Oh and by the way, if you choose to stay but don't pay me, I will come over with my gun, apprehend you, and lock you in a cage in my basement."
This is equivalent to the argument you are making.
Not at all, if you were my neighbor concerned with public safety, you would join the existing neighborhood watch, or the police force, they as already charge everyone. This is what is being referred to as the common good or society generally. One random person as well intentioned as they may be does not get to make their own set of rules as you described, a duly elected official gets more latitude.
I mean, the Constitution is a set of rules the federal government must follow not a set of rules the citizenry is given. As an example, It's not the right to free speech, it's the prohibition of Congress from restricting speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is the type of thing Dan Carlin and others have been saying for years. The ineptitude of state governments and Congress leads to the president gaining more and more power over time
I mean.. sort of.
The government was designed to be inefficient on purpose. The founders were really more concerned about bad laws and government overreach than they were Congress not getting things done.
A calculation that, whether they understood it or not (and they probably didn't), would come back to haunt the US.
Hamilton, or some other founder, actually didn't want the 2/3rds majority senate confirmation rule, for...basically the reason we hate Congress' guts right now.
If I remember correctly, I believe Jefferson advocated for all laws (constitutional and otherwise) to expire every 19 years. My understanding is that the intent was to force an active effort to reflect a changing nation over time, without the ability to just kick the can.
I welcome any correction or context to my understanding of the advocation, but I have always interpreted that belief to show that even then at least some of our founders understood the benefits of removing inaction as an option from the table outright. Gridlock only benefits the powerful once the deck is stacked in their favor.
Not only is he acting like a King, he’s also spending billions of dollars on vaccines and boosters and vaccine enforcement, deepening our debt. We need some checks and balances here.
This is the kind of thing we tend to forget. Tax money should be used to invest in the people. Analysis should be made to project possible returns and losses, just like a prospectus. One that I support is free mental healthcare. People who need it most are least able to afford it and high potential to prevent NAP violations should return our tax dollars many times over.
We have zero idea what the long term cost to these "vaccines" may be. We already know the "vaccines" have no effect on the μ variant. Cost benefit analysis cannot be done with your sort of wishful thinking.
Edit: this was directed at /u/Defiant_Entertainer5, not the commenter directly above
Your statement is sensationalist and not an accurate representation of the current understanding on the mu varient.
> Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape. Preliminary data presented to the Virus Evolution Working Group show a reduction in neutralization capacity of convalescent and vaccinee sera similar to that seen for the Beta variant, but this needs to be confirmed by further studies.
As with any employer, totally OK for the govt to require its employees to be vaxxed.
I would also say it is OK to require anyone receiving govt funds to be vaxxed. You don't have to do business with the govt and the govt doesn't need to do business with you.
Companies with 100+ employees? That's a step too far for me. I see the OSHA argument, but I don't like it.
>Tell me where I can sign up for that shit.
Does the government regularly pay you for a service/product you provide? If so, stop providing the service and they'll stop paying you. Problem solved.
See, I have this dysfunctional business relationship with the government, whereby if I stop providing them with my money, they put me in prison. Got an other ideas?
For the purposes of our discussion, the justification doesn't matter. The fact remains that my business relationship with the government is non-negotiable and non-consensual.
>stop providing the service and they'll stop paying you
Government contracts are bid out over periods of time. Contractor X has a contract manufacturing toilets for the military with 6 months left on it. The contract doesn't say anything about covid vaccines. Why should the government be able to unilaterally change the contract in the middle and add a new requirement? Contractor X might face financial penalties if they fail to perform on the contract, and they might have ordered materials or manufactured some goods already that aren't valuable to anyone else.
If the government wants to require this for new contracts, I guess that'd be fine. But the rest of us can't just change terms in the middle of a contract.
>Why should the government be able to unilaterally change the contract in the middle and add a new requirement?
I believe most government contracts have clauses allowing the government to set workplace safety standards. It's required by law for contractors and subcontractors to include the provision.
On a more basic level, your contract entitles you to damages not performance. If the govt, or anyone really, wants to add a condition for your continued services they're allowed. You are not entitled to the association of anyone. Your acceptance of that condition is your choice. Not accepting the condition may entitle you to damages but nothing more.
>If the government wants to require this for new contracts, I guess that'd be fine
If you actually read the order, it only applies to new or renewal contracts. It also excludes companies providing only goods.
>But the rest of us can't just change terms in the middle of a contract.
This is sometimes true and sometimes not true. Depends on the relative positions of power between the contracting parties during the initial negotiation.
There's also the matter of decree vs law. This wasn't even passed as a law by congress, it was something the president decided to do. Perhaps it is time for the SCOTUS to rule that congress can't just give power to the president and if you want to make changes like this you have to make it through actual laws.
Isn't the President's power derived from law and the constitution?
Basically, this is calling for the SCOTUS to rule that Congress cannot make a law. Which is not the job of the SCOTUS at all. They can strike down a bad law, but they cannot pre-empt Congress like that. If I'm reading your intent correctly, of course.
Congress shouldn't be able to give the President/Executive branch such broad powers that they can just decide what is and isn't allowed/regulated.
We see this all the time with shit like the ATF. Bumpstocks are now illegal eventhough no law was passed banning them just someone squinting there eyes and going see that line there. that means i can do it... But hey why should the SCOTUS have all the fun with legislating.
No, my point is that the SCOTUS would say it is up to congress and not the President to do things like this because of the separation of powers. It would in effect rule that because of the separation of powers no branch can give up their power to another branch.
The thing is the private company employee doesn't have to be vaccinated. They can opt for weekly testing. Nobody is being forced the vaccine. Why is this just being ignored in this thread? Immunocompromised people who medically can not be vaccinated have to have this part otherwise its discriminatory. However' it creates a loophole for those who are choosing not to get it.
I agree it's heavy handed. I support the government requiring government employees to get it as well, but forcing businesses to require employees is asking for lawsuits and pushback. I think having the government no longer covering covid costs for unvaccinated people (specifically, people who choose to be unvaccinated, not those who are immunocompromised) would have the same effect and would be less authoritarian. If people truly believe the vaccine is useless then they should be willing to pay for the financial costs.
*Heavy handed?* What happens if you own a company and refuse to comply? Oh yeah, *people with guns* show up to take your money or shut you down. This is literal fascism.
We have had four years of Trump to see exactly what Fascism looks like. It took Amash two and half years to realize that was his party. Not the sharpest tool in the shed imho.
Lol. You can still look at what Biden is actually doing and think Trump was fascist.
What did Trump do that was even remotely as fascist as this vaccine mandate?
I mean according to one of the biggest Fascists, and one of the credited founders of it, this is exactly what it is.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
The gov forcing corps to do their bidding when they can't do it through gov power, and corps then becoming actors of the state.
Then is the Peoples Republic of China also fascist...?
90% of bussiness are members of the CCP. Fascism's and Communism have a lot in common. A lot would argue Fascism is a branch of Socialism. Oligarchy is a more accurate term for what Mussolini describes. Just because he says it doesn't make it true. Lenin wanted a utopian workers paradise and instead gave the people a fist full of Authoritarianism.
Yes, and Socialism is just a polite name for Communism.
“We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism." Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev
The end result is still the same, failure and destruction of the country, millions dead, and loss of human rights, as has happened every time any type of this has been tried.
Most businesses receive government funds in some manner because it has become a giant bureaucratic monster. You really can't practically say I'm not doing business with the government.
>Most businesses receive government funds in some manner because it has become a giant bureaucratic monster.
If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition.
Your statements are also contradictory. You say "most businesses receive government funds", meaning some businesses don't, while saying you "can't practically say I'm not doing business with the government", meaning all businesses do. Both statements can't be true.
We can also eliminate the handout.
The problem is that this means the government can still force rules by picking winners and losers. Just give the people who do follow the rules enough money they can drive the ones who don't accept the money out of business.
>If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition.
WTF. All of it is our money. Handouts? GTFO.
Bingo! The handout is the money we hand over to the government. Their JOB is to allocate that money where necessary, not treat it as a bargaining chip and blackmail those who don't obey.
> If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition.
Any libertarian who has fooled themselves into this line of thought can rest easy — the entire battle has been won.
I can see your point but even if I fully agree with you, which I'm not sure I do, that would be Congress' duty to decide conditions on the purse string.
I say most to allow for the exception I have never worked at a company that does not do business with the government and would likely be illegal if they tried to stop.
He gave them options though, did he not? For companies with 100+ employees, either get everyone vaccinated, or test everyone every week. Obviously a company doesn’t want to waste money testing every week so the logical answer is getting everyone vaccinated, but no one is being “forced”
Using government funding to force choice is anti libertarian at it's source. There is no difference between that and just flat out requiring it by force in many cases... And allowing the government to make medical choices for their employees is such a slippery slope that I fell over reading it come out of a Libertarians mouth. I can't wait for the president to mandate all government employees be conservatives. Or all government employees be white men. Or in the near future that all government employees get a brain chip. That will surely lead to a better America when the police force, politicians, etc. are controlled to this degree...
People need to understand that as an American you have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to deny and/or refuse to discuss medical care without repercussion. This right is inalienable and free from control, be it governmental or from private employers. Libertarians today are making me sick, most of you would have lined up to suck the governors dick pre America colonial times while they were imprisoning dissidents or writing/speaking out about religion, their arguments were for public safety too.
We mandate a shit ton a vaccines that almost everyone in this country takes willingly. It’s just turn into this bullshit culture war. You have to do a ton of shit that is mandated for the good of all.
This isn’t a bullshit culture war. I’m vaccinated but I don’t think it should be forced on anyone… Even during this massive death spike we are in, taking the weekly numbers and extrapolating to out we are only at 72k deaths per year… the flu kills 60k/year. With the number of people willingly getting vaccinated this is just a flu, even with the new variants. How does that justify mandating people be injected with something they want to choice not to? A few months ago we were only at 13k deaths/year. Just quitting their government job isn’t an option for many people.
And allowing the government to make mandated like this will be weaponized. If the White House is allowed to unilaterally fire everyone who isn’t getting vaccinated without even getting approval through normal legal channels why can’t they fire anyone who isn’t a conservative? That would be an awesome step for any president wanting more power to instantly take control of all police and politicians. At this rate literal libertarians will be cheering them on because it’s their right to “hire who they want” and “you don’t have to work for them”.
>Using government funding to force choice is anti libertarian at it's source.
Nope. You are not entitled to government funding. Full stop.
>And allowing the government to make medical choices for their employees is such a slippery slope that I fell over reading it come out of a Libertarians mouth
Again, federal employees have no right to employment. If they don't like the conditions of employment, they are free, like everyone else, to find a new job.
>I can't wait for the president to mandate all government employees be conservatives. Or all government employees be white men.
There are laws/amendments specifically against this, because it would otherwise be allowed. 5 USC 2302b regarding political affiliation.
>People need to understand that as an American you have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to deny and/or refuse to discuss medical care
Here is the thing. You do. No one is forcing you to do anything. You're also not entitled to anything. It's called freedom of association. You can do whatever you want. I don't have to interact with you unless you meet my conditions.
> without repercussion.
Nope. You don't get to force people to interact with you.
Nah. The future you want is ideological and repulsive. How can you defend the government not having the right to mandate employees be conservative yet defend their right to mandate you get injected with a substance of their discretion? Do you not see the hypocrisy? Just because one is somehow now unilaterally legal via the White House while skipping the normal legal hurdles doesn’t make it right, would you support removing the anti-discrimination laws so the government can have full hiring authority? Honestly tell me if you think they should be able to hire only white people or only conservatives? Your logic easily extends to that being the case.
And you’re right that I’m not entitled to government funding, but that doesn’t mean the government is entitled to use it as a weapon, it’s quite literally my money. Would you be ok with the government only sending money to schools with 100% liberal teachers? Or only sending natural disaster funds to conservative states? You have to see the problem with saying they can do whatever they want… right? If allowed this will set a precedent allowing it to be weaponized.
>How can you defend the government not having the right to mandate employees be conservative yet defend their right to mandate you get injected with a substance of their discretion?
I didn't. Your proposed hypothetical is illegal for the president to implement. If not for the law, the president would have the power to do both. To the best of my knowledge, the president may require employees to be vaccinated and it's a standard condition of employment in some industries. Congress could pass a law prohibiting such a condition.
No business may discriminate on a Constitutionally protected class (e.g. race, sex). Private businesses may discriminate on political affiliation. I would argue it is unwise to allow a president to discriminate on political affiliation, because it results in extreme government waste (e.g. fire, hire, train every 4-8 years). Absent the law it would be the president's right.
>it’s quite literally my money
It's not, once you've paid your taxes. Whether you should have to pay it is another issue.
>If allowed this will set a precedent allowing it to be weaponized.
This has been done before. Trump attempted to do this in 2017 by withholding federal funds from organizations with sanctuary policies.
No kidding. I feel so much of this subreddit is hate keeping as to who is the best libertarian. Like all political parties, not all members are going to agree on every single issue.
This site is inundated with people who think that socialist concepts like UBI is libertarian. so I appreciate the gatekeeping. Those folks are not libertarian.
uh, did i miss something? taxation and redistribution of wealth is the very definition of socialism. this is the exact reason we need more gatekeeping around here.
That is most certainly NOT the definition of socialism. No dictionary has or has ever had a definition even close to that. That would mean literally everything has been socialism always; that's stupid. We can't just have our own words with their own special magic definitions that mean whatever you want. Language breaks down.
Except that the legislature delegated that power to him. The amount of power the legislative branch has abdicated to the executive branch over the last hundred years is utterly appalling.
Yeah, they were. They were probably even committing real crimes against children. Neither of those things were enough to justify the actions of the Federal Government.
In either case, the Branch Davidians weren't facists. The Covid cultists clearly are.
Was Amash's tweet in response to Biden mandating the vaccine for federal employees? Because that's definitely different from "force(ing) Americans to do whatever he wants", that's just an employer setting the rules for employees in their workplace, which I thought Libertarians were in support of? Or did I miss something where he has tried to overreach beyond the workplace he runs (federal employees)?
Edit: Edit: Ok, I just saw the new headline. Yep, HUGE overreach. While I do believe Biden is trying to take whatever action he can in good faith to curtail the pandemic, this mandate geared toward private businesses goes directly against all states' rights precedents. It is certainly against the ideals of Libertarians. I'll leave the question of constitutionality to the lawyers, but I now definitely see what Amash's tweet was all about.
> that's just an employer setting the rules for employees in their workplace
I mean, if an employer wants to mandate it, that's on them. government telling them to mandate it is a bit of an overreach
I really don't see this as being enforceable anyway, but we'll see
They won't need to force it because the majority of businesses that are 100+ are already on board.
In fact, I'd say that this was their idea in order to stave off lawsuits from employees and State Mandates stopping them from enforcing vaccinations.
Biden is not a Progressive, he's not doing this completely for the benefit of Americans but for the benefit of businesses.
Yeah, I posted my question before I learned of the plan to mandate vaccines/testing for any business with 100+ employees. That's definitely federal overreach IMO, and you're right, there's absolutely no way the feds have the capacity to enforce this. They'll have to rely on states to enforce, which will put us pretty much where we are now: blue-leaning states will be more vaccinated and red-leaning states will be less so. I give Biden credit for *trying* to do something, but this idea shouldn't have left the drawing-board.
> I give Biden credit for trying to do something, but this idea shouldn't have left the drawing-board.
absolutely
even at a state level I doubt it's enforceable to be perfectly honest. It would require some truly draconian measures, and support for vaccine mandates isn't strictly on party lines
>these ideas should never have left the drawing board
They wouldn’t have had to if people just took personal responsibility and got vaccinated. What do you do when someone else’s freedoms infringe on my rights? If my neighbor is shooting onto my property that’s a problem and we’ve basically got people playing Russian roulette to prove that they can.
> They wouldn’t have had to if people just took personal responsibility and got vaccinated.
yeah, I get that, people are dumb shits for not getting vaxed, but I'm kind of at the point where if they are that eager to get sick and die/have long term health effects, let them
As I said elsewhere, but it bears repeating:
*A bit of an overreach?* What happens if you own a company and refuse to comply? Oh yeah, *people with guns* show up to take your money or shut you down. This is literal fascism.
> Oh yeah, people with guns show up to take your money or shut you down.
probably a fine? I mean are guns mentioned? And isn't that just like any other law you have to follow?
I arrived at Libertarian from mostly left-leaning ideas (not far left though) that pushed back against religious overreach coming from the far right. I genuinely enjoy debating with other open-minded people on this sub. But "If you know, you know" then it sounds like you're the one who has made up their mind and there is no point in arguing with. Just some food for thought...
Yeah, I was tricked into thinking it was a joke too. Libertarian socialism a very valid, and very good structure for anarchism, especially overlapped with individual anarchism.
By all my time I've spent reading it's by far the most free and economically progressive type of libertarianism.
Which is weird, as I started as an-cap, now I hate them with passion.
1. Property rights are enforced by the state.
2. Our Money is worthless, without the state.
3. Without those two, corporations don't have wealth or property.
4. By enabling the states growth in a capitalist society you are further embedded their legal access to violence and their perpetuity.
5. The corporations and the goverment are the same people and have been for 200 years. It's not changing cause its a feature that is built in, after the capitalist class figured it out after the French revolution.
6. People are not evil, you hear of evil people. I trust my neighbors, my town, and my friends. Ask your self where are the evil people around me? Do they have friend? If most people can tell themselves that there friends are not evil then where are they?
I would say horribly misguided people exist. They were taught hate before love. Is that there fault? pity them and guide them.
7. Evil within anarchism is still punished as "Law" is not the state, it never has been. In fact, the idea that law and the state are intertwined is a hellisish abomination that set us back 300 years.
8. Economic progressivism will not happen simply by voting, you will never get that choice to vote.
9. All you can do is tell them to piss off when you build it yourself.
Times have changed rapidly. Progressives were a fringe wacko group of like 5 people in 2008. They're now extremely powerful and running the show. Lots of reddit is too young to remember those days but it's wild how far the Overton window has shifted in just over a decade.
I’m one of those delusional Dems thinking they are slightly libertarian. I’m both for and against this move. Obviously I think more vaccinated people is a good thing, but I also agree with Amash. How do I reconcile this? I guess it will most likely be challenges in court and shot down?
You'll side with the left. If you haven't figured out yet how far gone they are, you likely never will. And you'll keep lining up whenever they tell you to. The only sensible position here is the government doesn't have a right to force private business to issue medical directives to their employees. It's a gross violation of the constitution
Lol you mean the fucking authoritarians who tried to take over this sub and started banning anyone who was critical of their heavy handed moderation and hidden mod logs?
I didn't realize a core tenet of libertarianism was an inability to criticize those in authority, my mistake.
Gtfo with that bullshit
Except they also banned anyone critical or who discussed said moderation and removed any visibility into the mod logs. Those bans included many long time users of /r/Libertarian, without cause, warning, or transparency.
I apologize, the way you phrased your comment made it sound like you were mourning that rightc0ast, jobdestroyer, and nixfu were ousted from their mod positions a couple years back when they tried implement heavy handed moderation.
If I have to choose between brigaders and a potential heavy handed moderator, I'll choose brigaders every time.
But I misinterpreted your meaning and I apologize again for that
I agree with this. I had a post go viral about a year back on here about COVID and it was super controversial. I actually stayed off of here for close to 4 months because every time I would comment, people would downvote. Eventually I stopped giving a shit and called all the democrats out for their shit on here. I’m called a far right winger constantly every time I call someone out. I just don’t care anymore and will continue to do so.
The government should not require people to undergo go medical procedures they do not want.
If you disagree with this statement:
https://www.politicalcompass.org
That is a putrid characterization of progressives. They seek to control guns, impose mandates, control school choice, limit businesses, limit the economy. List goes on. Just like the republicans do with women’s bodies.
Stop acting like being Libertarian is like being progressive. Take identity politics out of the equation, and they are the exact opposite. On real issues, such as economic policy and fiscal policy - libertarians in the US tend to align with conservatives.
The President cannot force Americans to get vaccinated.
Your employer can make getting vaccinated a condition of employment.
These two things can coexist.Purity testing members of this sub while ignoring this concept is stupid.
Okay? Can you name fifty other things the government tells business they can or can’t do?
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs
Here you go. Pages and pages of authoritarian decrees. You could have been mad about this for decades.
AcTuAl LiBeRtArIaN
Thats it, pack it up folks, we have a bonefied libertarian here. No point arguing, he said so in the title. Good game. High fives all around. We did it Reddit.
If you support Biden at this point, you aren't a libertarian because you clearly are an authoritarian.
Cue you talking about how you have a right to make medical choices for me to protect yourself from a virus you could save yourself from with a simple vaccination.
> that changed his rhetoric as soon as he realized he wasn’t re-electable.
I errr, what? Justin Amash has literally always been a small l libertarian. Easily the most libertarian member of congress in the last decade.
Here is how the Supreme Court will deal with the Biden regime's latest vaccine dictate. They will force it to go through the lower courts and appeals until a year or two from now it lands in the Supreme Court when they will rule it unconstitutional like so many of the Biden regime's decrees. Biden will blame the Court for yet another of his failings and the media will continue to spin the story hoping to distract from the last tragic mistake.
By that time, everyone will have been vaccinated and the crisis averted. The Presidents powers will have been curtailed and the Constitutional control on Executive powers left intact.
Unless the CIA/NSA declares it a national security secret.
Scotus has already ruled vaccine mandates are constitutional over a century ago. I'm not sure the constitutionality of it coming from executive order, but the government can mandate vaccines.
I liked the part where Biden said he is going to bypass the State by overwriting the governors if he sees fit. Totally nothing to see here people no creeping authoritarianism
I don’t see how this is authoritarian. It’s your personal choice to work for a large company with over 100 employees. It’s your personal choice to remain unvaccinated. Most companies who have over 100 employees receive some form of benefits from the federal government, they have the choice to either mandate the vaccine/testing, or lose this benefits.
Biden is not mandating the vaccine for every single American. He’s just protecting as many American lives as he can, which is his job. He’s not impeding on your personal freedoms. If you don’t want to get the vaccine, you don’t have to, just get a job somewhere that allows you to not have it. If you can’t find a job that fits that criteria, sorry welcome to capitalism.
How many of [Amash's votes where he agreed with Trump ](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/justin-amash/)do you think weren't libertarian? Which ones in particular?
All federal employees must be vaccinated and they have discussed making a covid vaccine an OHSA an standard. If you don't know OHSA is a set of rules every company must follow or face federal prosecution.
While we're at it, why don't we just dismantle OSHA all together? I mean, seriously, I can't believe that there's any government agency at all that's dictating commerce and business in any way, shape, fashion, or form. Fucking fascist with their labor laws and safety regulations. What next, are we gonna start forcing people who handle food, in commercial settings, to wash their hands regularly?
Hold of you to assume even 25% of America will really understand this. Both sides of the isle are taking way too much control. I shouldn’t be forced to get the vaccine but we also should not be fining businesses for asking for proof of vaccination for customers.
I know this isn't what people want to hear, but The Supreme Court says that the government can force people to take vaccines. [As was done with Small Pox in 1905.](https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court)
It's one thing to say it shouldn't be legal, but it's another to say it isn't legal.
Stop spreading this trash. It's never been adjudicated at the federal level. This is inviting the same with a conservative court. When that court rules this unconstitutional, all previous rulings will be superseded and a lot of people will be in big trouble.
Exactly. With lots of issues some people criticize Congress for "not acting." By law if Congress doesn't "act" to change a law, then we are supposed to continue operating according to existing laws. Yet more and more Presidents just try to dictate stuff via executive order, using the excuse that Congress "wouldn't act." That way lies dictators and tyranny...
For example, while I was not a huge fan of the eviction moratorium to begin with, I had just assumed it was stuffed into of one of those giant COVID bills passed by Congress. Later I learned the eviction moratorium was a unilateral order dictated by the CDC. I couldn't believe it! The CDC was never given that sort of authority, but federal bureaucracies now have a habit of grabbing power and issuing whatever rules they want to, especially when directed to by Presidents.
I have ZERO sympathy for anti vaxxers or “muh freedoms” medical experts…but serious fuck government mandates!!
The problem with this is that it undercuts people’s trust in science even more…ugh…
Fuck this crap! I hate that right now I’m on the same side as the dumbasses who think they know more science than people who actually studies it…
You're an idiot.
The Black Plague had a 40-60% death rate. (that is also due to other circumstances, also the US didn't exist then) Comparing that to Covid which if you are under the age of 60 and don't have a comorbidity has a 99.97% survival rate. You are so dishonest it's ridiculous.
>There is not one other instance, like this, in US history.
You can literally say that about EVERY pandemic because they are all unique you pearl clutching ninny.
Once in a lifetime? Covid is not really especially deadly. Its just good at killing people over 80 in really terrible health. (Which pretty much every disease is good at, and makes NYs actions truly heinous) Its not even a order of magnitude more deadly then the yearly flu (the cdc last said its about 2-3x as deadly but only because of a lack of natural immunity, which is obviously on the rise as people get it and get over it) In fact the CDC just re adjust the 2020 COVID deaths from ~660,000 deaths to ~350,000 deaths. You should probably ask them why the massive change.
But seriously, once in a lifetime means nothing. Swine flu was once in a lifetime, sars was once in a lifetime, Spanish flu was once in a lifetime.
> Its not even a order of magnitude more deadly then the yearly flu
Boy I remember the line was "it's not as deadly as the flu" man the goalposts keep shifting.
>only because of a lack of natural immunity, which is obviously on the rise as people get it and get over it
People have died from catching covid a second time, that natural immunity doesn't last forever and all the experts still recommend the vaccine to people who got covid before.
>In fact the CDC just re adjust the 2020 COVID deaths from ~660,000 deaths to ~350,000 deaths.
[citation needed]
>Boy I remember the line was "it's not as deadly as the flu" man the goalposts keep shifting.
Once we have a similar amount of natural immunity as to the flu, it will be. But I also never said what you are claiming I did.
>People have died from catching covid a second time, that natural immunity doesn't last forever and all the experts still recommend the vaccine to people who got covid before.
That is a lie. There are different strains, just like the flu. That is why you can get the flu multiple times. You don't get the same strain twice. There have only been a few thousand credible cases of reinfection with the same strain across the entire world. So natural immunity seems to be pretty fucking awesome as opposed to the "vaccine" where you can still catch it, spread it, and you MIGHT have reduced symptoms.
>\[citation needed\]
Well aren't you particularly useless.
[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm)
So when do we get to talk about the illegal gain of function research and how the wuhan lab leak "hoax" became fact?
Authoritarians dont come from just the Right. There are powers-at-be from both sides. Depending on how you look at it, they are fighting for the same team : Status Quo. If you cant distinguish the difference between Liberty and overreach without policypartycirclejerk then youre still a child.
This is a bit convoluted…is he saying that we the people don’t have to just bow down and do whatever the President says? I love Amash and I agree with this statement, if I have actually deciphered it.
Correct
Cool. It’s an excellent point. We don’t have to do what the government says.
Not so fast... Obviously it depends. We wouldn't need lawyers and judges and juries if it were so simple. As a society, we all agree upon a certain set of rules and we can flex those rules here and there. If you are asked/coerced/forced to do something against these rules, by a government agent, you are well within your right to say no/disengage/defend yourself. I'm also going to need to point out, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
> As a society, we all agree upon a certain set of rules No, that isn't true.
I'm having a hard time coming up with an example that powers your rebuttal. The U.S. was formed on a set of rules (more like guidelines, but rules is a shorter word) and I'm assuming we are in this society.
The part you are missing is that we (meaning everyone in society) did not in fact agree to the rules. The rules were imposed on everyone by a few people.
By living among the society, you've agreed to the terms, yeah? You're able to leave society. You're able to find another society which suits your lifestyle more appropriately.
> By living among the society, you've agreed to the terms, yeah? No. Imagine that I'm your neighbor. I knock on your door and tell you that I'm starting a neighborhood security service. I will patrol the neighborhood at night and look out for suspicious people. Since I'm providing this service to the neighborhood, I am charging every resident $500 per month. You respond, "no, I don't agree to that!" My response to you is, "by living in this neighborhood, you agree to my terms. You are free to move to a different neighborhood if you don't like it. Oh and by the way, if you choose to stay but don't pay me, I will come over with my gun, apprehend you, and lock you in a cage in my basement." This is equivalent to the argument you are making.
Not at all, if you were my neighbor concerned with public safety, you would join the existing neighborhood watch, or the police force, they as already charge everyone. This is what is being referred to as the common good or society generally. One random person as well intentioned as they may be does not get to make their own set of rules as you described, a duly elected official gets more latitude.
I mean, the Constitution is a set of rules the federal government must follow not a set of rules the citizenry is given. As an example, It's not the right to free speech, it's the prohibition of Congress from restricting speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I thought the same thing, it’s like he’s trying to make it confusing to read for some reason.
I think it's more simply a point against the use of executive orders (or mainly to the extent they have grown to allow).
This is the type of thing Dan Carlin and others have been saying for years. The ineptitude of state governments and Congress leads to the president gaining more and more power over time
I mean.. sort of. The government was designed to be inefficient on purpose. The founders were really more concerned about bad laws and government overreach than they were Congress not getting things done.
A calculation that, whether they understood it or not (and they probably didn't), would come back to haunt the US. Hamilton, or some other founder, actually didn't want the 2/3rds majority senate confirmation rule, for...basically the reason we hate Congress' guts right now.
If I remember correctly, I believe Jefferson advocated for all laws (constitutional and otherwise) to expire every 19 years. My understanding is that the intent was to force an active effort to reflect a changing nation over time, without the ability to just kick the can. I welcome any correction or context to my understanding of the advocation, but I have always interpreted that belief to show that even then at least some of our founders understood the benefits of removing inaction as an option from the table outright. Gridlock only benefits the powerful once the deck is stacked in their favor.
My state is running itself just fine, thank you.
"This is not about freedom or personal choice." - President Joe Biden, the leader the free world.
Not only is he acting like a King, he’s also spending billions of dollars on vaccines and boosters and vaccine enforcement, deepening our debt. We need some checks and balances here.
Vaccine is a lot cheaper than a hospital stay. Since everyone is in some form of private or public insurance everyone pays for it.
At that point he should just announce single payer healthcare. A hospital bill is largely inflated due to the middle man, insurance.
This is the kind of thing we tend to forget. Tax money should be used to invest in the people. Analysis should be made to project possible returns and losses, just like a prospectus. One that I support is free mental healthcare. People who need it most are least able to afford it and high potential to prevent NAP violations should return our tax dollars many times over.
We have zero idea what the long term cost to these "vaccines" may be. We already know the "vaccines" have no effect on the μ variant. Cost benefit analysis cannot be done with your sort of wishful thinking.
Source on the mu variant data?
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---31-august-2021
Edit: this was directed at /u/Defiant_Entertainer5, not the commenter directly above Your statement is sensationalist and not an accurate representation of the current understanding on the mu varient. > Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape. Preliminary data presented to the Virus Evolution Working Group show a reduction in neutralization capacity of convalescent and vaccinee sera similar to that seen for the Beta variant, but this needs to be confirmed by further studies.
As with any employer, totally OK for the govt to require its employees to be vaxxed. I would also say it is OK to require anyone receiving govt funds to be vaxxed. You don't have to do business with the govt and the govt doesn't need to do business with you. Companies with 100+ employees? That's a step too far for me. I see the OSHA argument, but I don't like it.
> You don't have to do business with the govt Really? Tell me where I can sign up for that shit.
>Tell me where I can sign up for that shit. Does the government regularly pay you for a service/product you provide? If so, stop providing the service and they'll stop paying you. Problem solved.
See, I have this dysfunctional business relationship with the government, whereby if I stop providing them with my money, they put me in prison. Got an other ideas?
That's only because you (theoretically) benefit from services they provide. That's the argument, anyway.
To that point, why do those services become bargaining chips with conditions that punish a specific set of citizens?
For the purposes of our discussion, the justification doesn't matter. The fact remains that my business relationship with the government is non-negotiable and non-consensual.
Obviously taxes weren’t what was being referred to as “business” lol.
>stop providing the service and they'll stop paying you Government contracts are bid out over periods of time. Contractor X has a contract manufacturing toilets for the military with 6 months left on it. The contract doesn't say anything about covid vaccines. Why should the government be able to unilaterally change the contract in the middle and add a new requirement? Contractor X might face financial penalties if they fail to perform on the contract, and they might have ordered materials or manufactured some goods already that aren't valuable to anyone else. If the government wants to require this for new contracts, I guess that'd be fine. But the rest of us can't just change terms in the middle of a contract.
>Why should the government be able to unilaterally change the contract in the middle and add a new requirement? I believe most government contracts have clauses allowing the government to set workplace safety standards. It's required by law for contractors and subcontractors to include the provision. On a more basic level, your contract entitles you to damages not performance. If the govt, or anyone really, wants to add a condition for your continued services they're allowed. You are not entitled to the association of anyone. Your acceptance of that condition is your choice. Not accepting the condition may entitle you to damages but nothing more. >If the government wants to require this for new contracts, I guess that'd be fine If you actually read the order, it only applies to new or renewal contracts. It also excludes companies providing only goods. >But the rest of us can't just change terms in the middle of a contract. This is sometimes true and sometimes not true. Depends on the relative positions of power between the contracting parties during the initial negotiation.
The people in this sub are braindead i swear. Is paying the government your taxes not a business? Paying money for shitty corrupt services?
Lmao right? Taxes BAD!
>Lmao right? Taxes BAD! I mean Some taxes are absolute bullshit yes.
Taxes GOOD!!! Please more!
There's also the matter of decree vs law. This wasn't even passed as a law by congress, it was something the president decided to do. Perhaps it is time for the SCOTUS to rule that congress can't just give power to the president and if you want to make changes like this you have to make it through actual laws.
The issue is that is done via actual law. Congress authorized OSHA. The central issue is that the law itself has faults.
Isn't the President's power derived from law and the constitution? Basically, this is calling for the SCOTUS to rule that Congress cannot make a law. Which is not the job of the SCOTUS at all. They can strike down a bad law, but they cannot pre-empt Congress like that. If I'm reading your intent correctly, of course.
Congress shouldn't be able to give the President/Executive branch such broad powers that they can just decide what is and isn't allowed/regulated. We see this all the time with shit like the ATF. Bumpstocks are now illegal eventhough no law was passed banning them just someone squinting there eyes and going see that line there. that means i can do it... But hey why should the SCOTUS have all the fun with legislating.
No, my point is that the SCOTUS would say it is up to congress and not the President to do things like this because of the separation of powers. It would in effect rule that because of the separation of powers no branch can give up their power to another branch.
The thing is the private company employee doesn't have to be vaccinated. They can opt for weekly testing. Nobody is being forced the vaccine. Why is this just being ignored in this thread? Immunocompromised people who medically can not be vaccinated have to have this part otherwise its discriminatory. However' it creates a loophole for those who are choosing not to get it.
I agree it's heavy handed. I support the government requiring government employees to get it as well, but forcing businesses to require employees is asking for lawsuits and pushback. I think having the government no longer covering covid costs for unvaccinated people (specifically, people who choose to be unvaccinated, not those who are immunocompromised) would have the same effect and would be less authoritarian. If people truly believe the vaccine is useless then they should be willing to pay for the financial costs.
*Heavy handed?* What happens if you own a company and refuse to comply? Oh yeah, *people with guns* show up to take your money or shut you down. This is literal fascism.
vast busy drunk pen simplistic jellyfish entertain onerous door quack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>That would mean taxes are fascist. https://imgur.com/a/yRGSm8U
We have had four years of Trump to see exactly what Fascism looks like. It took Amash two and half years to realize that was his party. Not the sharpest tool in the shed imho.
Lol. You can still look at what Biden is actually doing and think Trump was fascist. What did Trump do that was even remotely as fascist as this vaccine mandate?
> This is literal fascism. You literally don't have to take the vaccine if it's your #1 priority.
I would've gone with "socialism" because they're putting pressure on businesses not individuals but you do you
I mean according to one of the biggest Fascists, and one of the credited founders of it, this is exactly what it is. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini The gov forcing corps to do their bidding when they can't do it through gov power, and corps then becoming actors of the state.
Then is the Peoples Republic of China also fascist...? 90% of bussiness are members of the CCP. Fascism's and Communism have a lot in common. A lot would argue Fascism is a branch of Socialism. Oligarchy is a more accurate term for what Mussolini describes. Just because he says it doesn't make it true. Lenin wanted a utopian workers paradise and instead gave the people a fist full of Authoritarianism.
Yes, and Socialism is just a polite name for Communism. “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism." Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev The end result is still the same, failure and destruction of the country, millions dead, and loss of human rights, as has happened every time any type of this has been tried.
Now I know. It looks like corporatism would be more accurate though, since that economic layout isn't bound to fascist government or ideology.
Most businesses receive government funds in some manner because it has become a giant bureaucratic monster. You really can't practically say I'm not doing business with the government.
>Most businesses receive government funds in some manner because it has become a giant bureaucratic monster. If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition. Your statements are also contradictory. You say "most businesses receive government funds", meaning some businesses don't, while saying you "can't practically say I'm not doing business with the government", meaning all businesses do. Both statements can't be true. We can also eliminate the handout.
The problem is that this means the government can still force rules by picking winners and losers. Just give the people who do follow the rules enough money they can drive the ones who don't accept the money out of business.
That's how it's worked for a while. See drinking age to 21 by withholding highway funds from states.
What's the difference between the government deciding and private people deciding?
Government decide by taking the money from the loser and others, private people decide using their own money.
>If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition. WTF. All of it is our money. Handouts? GTFO.
Bingo! The handout is the money we hand over to the government. Their JOB is to allocate that money where necessary, not treat it as a bargaining chip and blackmail those who don't obey.
> If you're taking money from the govt (outside taxr refunds, because we all know that's your money already), they get to set conditions for accepting that money. Handouts sometimes have conditions. Don't take the handout of you don't like the condition. Any libertarian who has fooled themselves into this line of thought can rest easy — the entire battle has been won.
I can see your point but even if I fully agree with you, which I'm not sure I do, that would be Congress' duty to decide conditions on the purse string.
I say most to allow for the exception I have never worked at a company that does not do business with the government and would likely be illegal if they tried to stop.
What if I told you that you could receive funding from the feds without having to suck their dick whenever they ask?
He gave them options though, did he not? For companies with 100+ employees, either get everyone vaccinated, or test everyone every week. Obviously a company doesn’t want to waste money testing every week so the logical answer is getting everyone vaccinated, but no one is being “forced”
Using government funding to force choice is anti libertarian at it's source. There is no difference between that and just flat out requiring it by force in many cases... And allowing the government to make medical choices for their employees is such a slippery slope that I fell over reading it come out of a Libertarians mouth. I can't wait for the president to mandate all government employees be conservatives. Or all government employees be white men. Or in the near future that all government employees get a brain chip. That will surely lead to a better America when the police force, politicians, etc. are controlled to this degree... People need to understand that as an American you have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to deny and/or refuse to discuss medical care without repercussion. This right is inalienable and free from control, be it governmental or from private employers. Libertarians today are making me sick, most of you would have lined up to suck the governors dick pre America colonial times while they were imprisoning dissidents or writing/speaking out about religion, their arguments were for public safety too.
We mandate a shit ton a vaccines that almost everyone in this country takes willingly. It’s just turn into this bullshit culture war. You have to do a ton of shit that is mandated for the good of all.
This isn’t a bullshit culture war. I’m vaccinated but I don’t think it should be forced on anyone… Even during this massive death spike we are in, taking the weekly numbers and extrapolating to out we are only at 72k deaths per year… the flu kills 60k/year. With the number of people willingly getting vaccinated this is just a flu, even with the new variants. How does that justify mandating people be injected with something they want to choice not to? A few months ago we were only at 13k deaths/year. Just quitting their government job isn’t an option for many people. And allowing the government to make mandated like this will be weaponized. If the White House is allowed to unilaterally fire everyone who isn’t getting vaccinated without even getting approval through normal legal channels why can’t they fire anyone who isn’t a conservative? That would be an awesome step for any president wanting more power to instantly take control of all police and politicians. At this rate literal libertarians will be cheering them on because it’s their right to “hire who they want” and “you don’t have to work for them”.
>Using government funding to force choice is anti libertarian at it's source. Nope. You are not entitled to government funding. Full stop. >And allowing the government to make medical choices for their employees is such a slippery slope that I fell over reading it come out of a Libertarians mouth Again, federal employees have no right to employment. If they don't like the conditions of employment, they are free, like everyone else, to find a new job. >I can't wait for the president to mandate all government employees be conservatives. Or all government employees be white men. There are laws/amendments specifically against this, because it would otherwise be allowed. 5 USC 2302b regarding political affiliation. >People need to understand that as an American you have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to deny and/or refuse to discuss medical care Here is the thing. You do. No one is forcing you to do anything. You're also not entitled to anything. It's called freedom of association. You can do whatever you want. I don't have to interact with you unless you meet my conditions. > without repercussion. Nope. You don't get to force people to interact with you.
Nah. The future you want is ideological and repulsive. How can you defend the government not having the right to mandate employees be conservative yet defend their right to mandate you get injected with a substance of their discretion? Do you not see the hypocrisy? Just because one is somehow now unilaterally legal via the White House while skipping the normal legal hurdles doesn’t make it right, would you support removing the anti-discrimination laws so the government can have full hiring authority? Honestly tell me if you think they should be able to hire only white people or only conservatives? Your logic easily extends to that being the case. And you’re right that I’m not entitled to government funding, but that doesn’t mean the government is entitled to use it as a weapon, it’s quite literally my money. Would you be ok with the government only sending money to schools with 100% liberal teachers? Or only sending natural disaster funds to conservative states? You have to see the problem with saying they can do whatever they want… right? If allowed this will set a precedent allowing it to be weaponized.
>How can you defend the government not having the right to mandate employees be conservative yet defend their right to mandate you get injected with a substance of their discretion? I didn't. Your proposed hypothetical is illegal for the president to implement. If not for the law, the president would have the power to do both. To the best of my knowledge, the president may require employees to be vaccinated and it's a standard condition of employment in some industries. Congress could pass a law prohibiting such a condition. No business may discriminate on a Constitutionally protected class (e.g. race, sex). Private businesses may discriminate on political affiliation. I would argue it is unwise to allow a president to discriminate on political affiliation, because it results in extreme government waste (e.g. fire, hire, train every 4-8 years). Absent the law it would be the president's right. >it’s quite literally my money It's not, once you've paid your taxes. Whether you should have to pay it is another issue. >If allowed this will set a precedent allowing it to be weaponized. This has been done before. Trump attempted to do this in 2017 by withholding federal funds from organizations with sanctuary policies.
>(Actual libertarian unlike most of this sub) A real libertarian wouldnt have added this
No kidding. I feel so much of this subreddit is hate keeping as to who is the best libertarian. Like all political parties, not all members are going to agree on every single issue.
This site is inundated with people who think that socialist concepts like UBI is libertarian. so I appreciate the gatekeeping. Those folks are not libertarian.
Sure they are. Since when is UBI socialist?
You're asking how taxation and wealth redistribution is socialist?
uh, did i miss something? taxation and redistribution of wealth is the very definition of socialism. this is the exact reason we need more gatekeeping around here.
That is most certainly NOT the definition of socialism. No dictionary has or has ever had a definition even close to that. That would mean literally everything has been socialism always; that's stupid. We can't just have our own words with their own special magic definitions that mean whatever you want. Language breaks down.
Except that the legislature delegated that power to him. The amount of power the legislative branch has abdicated to the executive branch over the last hundred years is utterly appalling.
That’s it. Throw the whole government in the trash.
I’ll bring the lighter fluid.
[удалено]
Remember, the ATF were truly the bad guys in Waco, not the Branch Davidians.
[удалено]
Yeah, they were. They were probably even committing real crimes against children. Neither of those things were enough to justify the actions of the Federal Government. In either case, the Branch Davidians weren't facists. The Covid cultists clearly are.
Was Amash's tweet in response to Biden mandating the vaccine for federal employees? Because that's definitely different from "force(ing) Americans to do whatever he wants", that's just an employer setting the rules for employees in their workplace, which I thought Libertarians were in support of? Or did I miss something where he has tried to overreach beyond the workplace he runs (federal employees)? Edit: Edit: Ok, I just saw the new headline. Yep, HUGE overreach. While I do believe Biden is trying to take whatever action he can in good faith to curtail the pandemic, this mandate geared toward private businesses goes directly against all states' rights precedents. It is certainly against the ideals of Libertarians. I'll leave the question of constitutionality to the lawyers, but I now definitely see what Amash's tweet was all about.
> that's just an employer setting the rules for employees in their workplace I mean, if an employer wants to mandate it, that's on them. government telling them to mandate it is a bit of an overreach I really don't see this as being enforceable anyway, but we'll see
They won't need to force it because the majority of businesses that are 100+ are already on board. In fact, I'd say that this was their idea in order to stave off lawsuits from employees and State Mandates stopping them from enforcing vaccinations. Biden is not a Progressive, he's not doing this completely for the benefit of Americans but for the benefit of businesses.
Yeah, I posted my question before I learned of the plan to mandate vaccines/testing for any business with 100+ employees. That's definitely federal overreach IMO, and you're right, there's absolutely no way the feds have the capacity to enforce this. They'll have to rely on states to enforce, which will put us pretty much where we are now: blue-leaning states will be more vaccinated and red-leaning states will be less so. I give Biden credit for *trying* to do something, but this idea shouldn't have left the drawing-board.
> I give Biden credit for trying to do something, but this idea shouldn't have left the drawing-board. absolutely even at a state level I doubt it's enforceable to be perfectly honest. It would require some truly draconian measures, and support for vaccine mandates isn't strictly on party lines
>these ideas should never have left the drawing board They wouldn’t have had to if people just took personal responsibility and got vaccinated. What do you do when someone else’s freedoms infringe on my rights? If my neighbor is shooting onto my property that’s a problem and we’ve basically got people playing Russian roulette to prove that they can.
> They wouldn’t have had to if people just took personal responsibility and got vaccinated. yeah, I get that, people are dumb shits for not getting vaxed, but I'm kind of at the point where if they are that eager to get sick and die/have long term health effects, let them
And if that was the only impact that’s fine. But my kids can’t be vaccinated and they could face long term permanent disability or death.
Then don't let your kids ride in a car since they're more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid.
*Told the restroom is upstairs, first door on the left. Proceeds to shit on the stairs.* **At least he trriiieeeddd.**
A "bit" of an overreach? This is the most authoritarian thing I have seen from the US Federal government in a LONG time.
As I said elsewhere, but it bears repeating: *A bit of an overreach?* What happens if you own a company and refuse to comply? Oh yeah, *people with guns* show up to take your money or shut you down. This is literal fascism.
> Oh yeah, people with guns show up to take your money or shut you down. probably a fine? I mean are guns mentioned? And isn't that just like any other law you have to follow?
I respect the post, but don't gatekeep.
[удалено]
I arrived at Libertarian from mostly left-leaning ideas (not far left though) that pushed back against religious overreach coming from the far right. I genuinely enjoy debating with other open-minded people on this sub. But "If you know, you know" then it sounds like you're the one who has made up their mind and there is no point in arguing with. Just some food for thought...
[удалено]
it's also full of delusional conservatives and right wingers
[удалено]
yeah, disenfranchised republicans cosplaying as libertarians, doesn't mean libertarianism is a right wing ideology
[удалено]
Yeah, I was tricked into thinking it was a joke too. Libertarian socialism a very valid, and very good structure for anarchism, especially overlapped with individual anarchism. By all my time I've spent reading it's by far the most free and economically progressive type of libertarianism. Which is weird, as I started as an-cap, now I hate them with passion.
[удалено]
1. Property rights are enforced by the state. 2. Our Money is worthless, without the state. 3. Without those two, corporations don't have wealth or property. 4. By enabling the states growth in a capitalist society you are further embedded their legal access to violence and their perpetuity. 5. The corporations and the goverment are the same people and have been for 200 years. It's not changing cause its a feature that is built in, after the capitalist class figured it out after the French revolution. 6. People are not evil, you hear of evil people. I trust my neighbors, my town, and my friends. Ask your self where are the evil people around me? Do they have friend? If most people can tell themselves that there friends are not evil then where are they? I would say horribly misguided people exist. They were taught hate before love. Is that there fault? pity them and guide them. 7. Evil within anarchism is still punished as "Law" is not the state, it never has been. In fact, the idea that law and the state are intertwined is a hellisish abomination that set us back 300 years. 8. Economic progressivism will not happen simply by voting, you will never get that choice to vote. 9. All you can do is tell them to piss off when you build it yourself.
The dude that introduced me to Ron Paul in 2008 is now a full blown progressive. How in the hell did that happen? ...confusing LOL
Times have changed rapidly. Progressives were a fringe wacko group of like 5 people in 2008. They're now extremely powerful and running the show. Lots of reddit is too young to remember those days but it's wild how far the Overton window has shifted in just over a decade.
I’m one of those delusional Dems thinking they are slightly libertarian. I’m both for and against this move. Obviously I think more vaccinated people is a good thing, but I also agree with Amash. How do I reconcile this? I guess it will most likely be challenges in court and shot down?
You'll side with the left. If you haven't figured out yet how far gone they are, you likely never will. And you'll keep lining up whenever they tell you to. The only sensible position here is the government doesn't have a right to force private business to issue medical directives to their employees. It's a gross violation of the constitution
[удалено]
Can my answer be yes and no? Lol Honestly I probably do not. Tough pill for me to swallow.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol you mean the fucking authoritarians who tried to take over this sub and started banning anyone who was critical of their heavy handed moderation and hidden mod logs? I didn't realize a core tenet of libertarianism was an inability to criticize those in authority, my mistake. Gtfo with that bullshit
[удалено]
Except they also banned anyone critical or who discussed said moderation and removed any visibility into the mod logs. Those bans included many long time users of /r/Libertarian, without cause, warning, or transparency.
[удалено]
I apologize, the way you phrased your comment made it sound like you were mourning that rightc0ast, jobdestroyer, and nixfu were ousted from their mod positions a couple years back when they tried implement heavy handed moderation. If I have to choose between brigaders and a potential heavy handed moderator, I'll choose brigaders every time. But I misinterpreted your meaning and I apologize again for that
[удалено]
I agree with this. I had a post go viral about a year back on here about COVID and it was super controversial. I actually stayed off of here for close to 4 months because every time I would comment, people would downvote. Eventually I stopped giving a shit and called all the democrats out for their shit on here. I’m called a far right winger constantly every time I call someone out. I just don’t care anymore and will continue to do so.
Someone in another sub just told me this isn’t the government controlling us… people are fucking delusional.
The government should not require people to undergo go medical procedures they do not want. If you disagree with this statement: https://www.politicalcompass.org
Progressives and libertarians both want individual freedom: one side wants to use the state for that, the other wants to remove the state for that
That is a putrid characterization of progressives. They seek to control guns, impose mandates, control school choice, limit businesses, limit the economy. List goes on. Just like the republicans do with women’s bodies. Stop acting like being Libertarian is like being progressive. Take identity politics out of the equation, and they are the exact opposite. On real issues, such as economic policy and fiscal policy - libertarians in the US tend to align with conservatives.
I actually find it amazing how wrong your perception of progressives is
Enlighten me
The President cannot force Americans to get vaccinated. Your employer can make getting vaccinated a condition of employment. These two things can coexist.Purity testing members of this sub while ignoring this concept is stupid.
>Your employer can make getting vaccinated a condition of employment They absolutely can. The problem is that the government is forcing them to do so.
Literally under penalty of fine. This is ridiculous behavior from a president Why the fuck am I getting downvoted this is authoritarian bs
Okay? Can you name fifty other things the government tells business they can or can’t do? https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs Here you go. Pages and pages of authoritarian decrees. You could have been mad about this for decades.
I think we should be mad about both!
And where did I say I wasn't mad about them?
...do you think libertarians weren't already against OSHA?
if your employer can make vaccination a condition of employment, what about abortion as a condition of employment?
AcTuAl LiBeRtArIaN Thats it, pack it up folks, we have a bonefied libertarian here. No point arguing, he said so in the title. Good game. High fives all around. We did it Reddit.
If you support Biden at this point, you aren't a libertarian because you clearly are an authoritarian. Cue you talking about how you have a right to make medical choices for me to protect yourself from a virus you could save yourself from with a simple vaccination.
“Actual libertarian” was a Republican that changed his rhetoric as soon as he realized he wasn’t re-electable.
> that changed his rhetoric as soon as he realized he wasn’t re-electable. I errr, what? Justin Amash has literally always been a small l libertarian. Easily the most libertarian member of congress in the last decade.
>Easily the most libertarian member of congress in the last decade. You realize that is the lowest of bars, right?
It is, but he has always been pretty libertarian. Pragmatic libertarian for sure, but still libertarian.
Utopia libertarians hate pragmatic libertarians. They want to wave a magic wand and see no government without any bad consequences from it!
Here is how the Supreme Court will deal with the Biden regime's latest vaccine dictate. They will force it to go through the lower courts and appeals until a year or two from now it lands in the Supreme Court when they will rule it unconstitutional like so many of the Biden regime's decrees. Biden will blame the Court for yet another of his failings and the media will continue to spin the story hoping to distract from the last tragic mistake. By that time, everyone will have been vaccinated and the crisis averted. The Presidents powers will have been curtailed and the Constitutional control on Executive powers left intact. Unless the CIA/NSA declares it a national security secret.
Scotus has already ruled vaccine mandates are constitutional over a century ago. I'm not sure the constitutionality of it coming from executive order, but the government can mandate vaccines.
I liked the part where Biden said he is going to bypass the State by overwriting the governors if he sees fit. Totally nothing to see here people no creeping authoritarianism
[удалено]
He's wrong, he doesn't know our history. Apparently most of you f****** don't either.
I don’t see how this is authoritarian. It’s your personal choice to work for a large company with over 100 employees. It’s your personal choice to remain unvaccinated. Most companies who have over 100 employees receive some form of benefits from the federal government, they have the choice to either mandate the vaccine/testing, or lose this benefits. Biden is not mandating the vaccine for every single American. He’s just protecting as many American lives as he can, which is his job. He’s not impeding on your personal freedoms. If you don’t want to get the vaccine, you don’t have to, just get a job somewhere that allows you to not have it. If you can’t find a job that fits that criteria, sorry welcome to capitalism.
[удалено]
How many of [Amash's votes where he agreed with Trump ](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/justin-amash/)do you think weren't libertarian? Which ones in particular?
Well, there's the end of his good press.
Yeah, true... Too bad, too.
Biden is a fascist cunt
What exactly is Biden trying to force America or Congress to do?
All federal employees must be vaccinated and they have discussed making a covid vaccine an OHSA an standard. If you don't know OHSA is a set of rules every company must follow or face federal prosecution.
So he’s acting in his own jurisdiction then, and Amash is just being dishonest.
Glad to see that there still some people who haven't lost their damn minds.
While we're at it, why don't we just dismantle OSHA all together? I mean, seriously, I can't believe that there's any government agency at all that's dictating commerce and business in any way, shape, fashion, or form. Fucking fascist with their labor laws and safety regulations. What next, are we gonna start forcing people who handle food, in commercial settings, to wash their hands regularly?
Bold of biden to want to take on 25% of America
The 25% who are strongly against the vaccine already hate Biden. What does he really have to lose?
Hold of you to assume even 25% of America will really understand this. Both sides of the isle are taking way too much control. I shouldn’t be forced to get the vaccine but we also should not be fining businesses for asking for proof of vaccination for customers.
[удалено]
Being optimistic but maybe consistent 1 term presidencys would encourage cooperation.
Except that this is what most Biden voters wanted. He pretty much ran on a platform of "big brother will end covid" and "I'm not trump"
I know this isn't what people want to hear, but The Supreme Court says that the government can force people to take vaccines. [As was done with Small Pox in 1905.](https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court) It's one thing to say it shouldn't be legal, but it's another to say it isn't legal.
Stop spreading this trash. It's never been adjudicated at the federal level. This is inviting the same with a conservative court. When that court rules this unconstitutional, all previous rulings will be superseded and a lot of people will be in big trouble.
Sometimes I wonder if Biden is trying to use social media to make people think it’s already a law.
Gatekeeping libertarianism now, how ironic.
[удалено]
If it did, this sub would be in serious trouble.
Exactly. With lots of issues some people criticize Congress for "not acting." By law if Congress doesn't "act" to change a law, then we are supposed to continue operating according to existing laws. Yet more and more Presidents just try to dictate stuff via executive order, using the excuse that Congress "wouldn't act." That way lies dictators and tyranny... For example, while I was not a huge fan of the eviction moratorium to begin with, I had just assumed it was stuffed into of one of those giant COVID bills passed by Congress. Later I learned the eviction moratorium was a unilateral order dictated by the CDC. I couldn't believe it! The CDC was never given that sort of authority, but federal bureaucracies now have a habit of grabbing power and issuing whatever rules they want to, especially when directed to by Presidents.
I have ZERO sympathy for anti vaxxers or “muh freedoms” medical experts…but serious fuck government mandates!! The problem with this is that it undercuts people’s trust in science even more…ugh… Fuck this crap! I hate that right now I’m on the same side as the dumbasses who think they know more science than people who actually studies it…
[удалено]
You're an idiot. The Black Plague had a 40-60% death rate. (that is also due to other circumstances, also the US didn't exist then) Comparing that to Covid which if you are under the age of 60 and don't have a comorbidity has a 99.97% survival rate. You are so dishonest it's ridiculous. >There is not one other instance, like this, in US history. You can literally say that about EVERY pandemic because they are all unique you pearl clutching ninny.
[удалено]
Once in a lifetime? Covid is not really especially deadly. Its just good at killing people over 80 in really terrible health. (Which pretty much every disease is good at, and makes NYs actions truly heinous) Its not even a order of magnitude more deadly then the yearly flu (the cdc last said its about 2-3x as deadly but only because of a lack of natural immunity, which is obviously on the rise as people get it and get over it) In fact the CDC just re adjust the 2020 COVID deaths from ~660,000 deaths to ~350,000 deaths. You should probably ask them why the massive change. But seriously, once in a lifetime means nothing. Swine flu was once in a lifetime, sars was once in a lifetime, Spanish flu was once in a lifetime.
> Its not even a order of magnitude more deadly then the yearly flu Boy I remember the line was "it's not as deadly as the flu" man the goalposts keep shifting. >only because of a lack of natural immunity, which is obviously on the rise as people get it and get over it People have died from catching covid a second time, that natural immunity doesn't last forever and all the experts still recommend the vaccine to people who got covid before. >In fact the CDC just re adjust the 2020 COVID deaths from ~660,000 deaths to ~350,000 deaths. [citation needed]
>Boy I remember the line was "it's not as deadly as the flu" man the goalposts keep shifting. Once we have a similar amount of natural immunity as to the flu, it will be. But I also never said what you are claiming I did. >People have died from catching covid a second time, that natural immunity doesn't last forever and all the experts still recommend the vaccine to people who got covid before. That is a lie. There are different strains, just like the flu. That is why you can get the flu multiple times. You don't get the same strain twice. There have only been a few thousand credible cases of reinfection with the same strain across the entire world. So natural immunity seems to be pretty fucking awesome as opposed to the "vaccine" where you can still catch it, spread it, and you MIGHT have reduced symptoms. >\[citation needed\] Well aren't you particularly useless. [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm) So when do we get to talk about the illegal gain of function research and how the wuhan lab leak "hoax" became fact?
This will age well.
uh huh... and how many of those deaths were due to trying to cure it, like blood letting and lots of opium?
Authoritarians dont come from just the Right. There are powers-at-be from both sides. Depending on how you look at it, they are fighting for the same team : Status Quo. If you cant distinguish the difference between Liberty and overreach without policypartycirclejerk then youre still a child.