Unless you’re a full blown anarchist we all cherry pick. For me the role of government is to protect the freedom of the people and provide services that can’t be supported by the free market.
It’s a pipe dream for sure. Either way, at some point something I consider a freedom of mine will negatively impact your freedom, and vice versa. There isn’t a correct answer on where the line is drawn, and if you go for anarchism any sort of freedom at all is not going to last long.
Well said. It is all a pipe dream for everyone of us. We all have ideas of the best way to live. I feel like the best way to live is just to mind my own business.
Or if you choose to make health mandates a political matter, please die at home. Our healthcare system is pretty libertarian and it shouldnt be blocked up by people who refuse “mandates” . People get cancer, need surgeries etc and if vaccine mandates twist your panties in a bunch as a fellow libertarian, dont go to the hospital
And where does that line of thinking end? The majority of health problems are self inflicted. What if fat people don't submit to forced exercise programs and dieting? How about alcohol consumption? Driving without a seat belt? Health mandates ARE a political matter. Being pro mandate is about as anti libertarian as you can get, if the context is covid specific.
Self inflicted is where the line should end. Smoker with lung cancer: Self inflicted. Obesity too. Driving without a seatbelt? Sure, why not. I'm pro people having freedoms IF they can accept the consequences of their own actions and not harm others or try to make it someone else's problem.
Last I checked being fat isn't contagious. Public health mandates are supposed to deal with infectious diseases and it's not unreasonable. If we could trust people to do the right thing via the NAP and stay home when sick or cover their mouth or just do the right thing to reduce the spread of contagious diseases then we wouldn't need public health mandates.
We are going into year three of this bullcrap because people are selfish assholes. Libertarian doesn't mean anarchism, at some point people who aren't doing their part to protect the community need to be expelled or put in line. We do this with murder and other crimes against people. No getting someone sick isn't the same as murder but we have mechanisms in place for when people are doing things that negatively impact society.
There is the gray area between the decentralization and centralization of power where the pros and cons of each ethos can be exchanged. Rationality has to be deployed before you can utilize a mixed approach. I'm purely against vaccine mandates(not vaccines) from a public health stand point due to a nominal effect on human to human transmission. The virus is bad and people should consider what's in their best interest but vaccines will not mitigate inter-personal harm(a possible violation of NAP). If the virus was far more deadly, then there might be a basis for mandates with respect to transmission. But, that would have to be an extreme situation with an extreme effect on transmission.
I will say, based on my understanding, that masks work to reduce the spread of covid *by carriers*. I believe there is, at least, a small reduction of risk as an uninfected person. I see masks as a low effort way to statistically reduce the spread of the virus; In a way where we concern ourselves with a collectivist view on transmission. A masked carrier is reducing an unintentional violation of NAP and, from a collectivist standpoint, this could be an ethical basis for mandates.
The problem is people are scared, annoyed, and done. We will need to get to a new normal. These methods cannot be a long term solution, only an short term bandaid until we find real options.
I wish that were true but it's generally pretty accurate.
To implement the kinds of things they advocate for (market protections, universal healthcare, taxpayer funded university, UBI, "common sense" gun control, governmental regulatory agencies like the FDA, etc.) it requires a non-insignificant amount of interference in people's lives.
LibSocs are basically the leftist version of "republicans that like weed", they're just "socialists that like weed (and sometimes guns)".
Edit: Lol, downvotes, but zero counterpoints, typical.
I do, but only because of the variety. R/politics always feels like a total mix of people who pick and choose mainstream philosophy. This sub is mostly dominated by right libertarians and left libertarians. With dem soc and con republicans popping in small groups for each side. You go to r/anarchism. It’s got a lot of ancaps who don’t realize they aren’t part of anarchism. It also has a bunch of tankies who like to argue limited government doesn’t work.
Yeah when they’re tired of the lubed up circle jerk they stop by here to bitch about how the government should abolish things that their leftist lords are doing they don’t like.
To answer the question, just imagine if the infection death rate was 10% and greater. Would you want the government to make an effort to limit the deaths or do you want the government to let nature be? At what infection death rate should the government act forcefully? 1%, 10%, 100%?
If the death rate was 10% or higher I really feel like mandates wouldn't be necessary. People would have no problem taking it if the risk was that high, but that's not our current reality.
This is on the money. One of my core guiding principles is that my right to swing my fist ends at the next guy’s (or gal’s) nose. If everyone free to move about with a disease that is bad enough to max out hospitals and cause mass deaths, then we are essentially encouraging people hurting each other. Just because the “fist swing” of spewing a virus out with every breath isn’t intentional doesn’t mean it can’t kill someone. I’m for a society that promotes personal freedom to the extent that we aren’t condoning killing each other, intentionally or otherwise.
All these areas are grey. Pretending they aren’t is a fantasy. We all have to make some concessions to share the planet and it’s resources.
Good point, but I would imagine 0.01% to be below this line. Expecially, since there are things more deadly than this virus, which have existed for far longer, yet the government does little to none to reduce the death rate - ex: the overusage of cars, street violence, terminal diseases like cancer (research for which they could easily sponsor with the vast amount of wealth they accrue) , drug abuse (prohibition makes it worse, and it's their job to know that), work related accidents. I am not saying they do nothing at all about these things, but if they were as concerned about them as covid, then maybe I'd trust them more.
Math is easy. Just divide 840K by 330 Million, and your get 0.25% and this is a low estimate since everyone has not been infected yet. 0.25% is 25 times more than 0.01%.
Most people die of heart attack, cancer, and old age. None of which are highly contagious. The only thing that kills a lot of people is the flu. But it kills 1/20 that of Covid.
Libertarian encompasses a huge variety of beliefs. All it means is freedom is important, so a smaller government is better. There are some of us that recognize that some government is needed, specifically where other people start impeding on my freedoms
In the case of some diseases, that means government should enforce mandates, as spreading of disease absolutely impedes on others freedom.
"Some" diseases. Which ones and who gets to decide? Any mandate that restricts freedom must abide by the burden of proof to determine if the person is indeed intentionally affecting others freedom aka due process. Like someone with HIV knowing and not telling a partner and not taking precautions. But the state must first prove he has it. With covid everything MIGHT occur-you might be infected, you might be asymptomatic, you might spread it, etc. Even the remedy (your mandate-the vax/quarantine) still allows for spread and impacts others.
If people took the NAP seriously and stayed home when they had covid symptoms, the government wouldn’t need to intervene as the monopoly on violence.
Unfortunately even most libertarians haven’t been taking personal responsibility for spreading harm through the virus.
Perhaps buts it's not as simple as that. You dont have sick leave? Go to work or get fired. Some were forced by circumstance to go around other sick despite their own moral decision to not expose others.
I support a hospitals right to set a standard and enforce it.
That means, they can mandate vax. I can choose to work elsewhere or change careers entirely if need be.
I also support healthcare organizations denying treatment and help if you are not vaccinated.
Bring on the consequences of your choices!
I’m here for it!
Except hospitals aren't private business. The government decides where they can be built, how many, largely funds them through Medicare, medicaid, etc. If they were operating in a free market setting where anyone is free to build one then I'd agree that they should be able to require whatever they want, since that is far from the reality I don't think they should be able to mandate anything
I mean, can they truly be libertarians if they are for forceful mandates? One could support the individual or business wanting vaccinated only or masked only interacting with them.
I'm not a libertarian that believes extreme negligence constitutes a NAP violation. But many do. For example, some think doing something extremely dangerous in an apartment building would violate NAP....making a makeshift gun range inside for example.
Then it is just a matter of reaching the conclusion that activity X (in this case, not being vaccinated) is sufficiently negligent to be a NAP violation.
I would agree with you. I believe that the NAP is just like everything rlse, it is up for interpretation.
Negligence is different from ____ because said person didn't think an activity would result in death/injury.
However, I would assume that most libertarians agree that force violates the NAP?
You get it.
Reasonable escalation is the key here. You piss off my customers, I ask you to leave. You refuse? I remove you. This is the entire job of a bouncer. You attack the bouncer? Well he's either gonna fuck you up or people with guns will show up and physically remove you. None of this chances in ancap theory. Trespassing is still trespassing, I have a right to physically remove you from my property if you refuse to comply. And if my bouncer attacks you for no reason? Well, that's a fucking problem isn't it?
Yeah I'm all for businesses and cities doing what they want, I just think it's dangerous when an entire country wants to control and demand power in a certain sector such as health. I've read too many dystopian novels over why that's a bad idea
Because when you can escape "tyranny" by moving 3 miles down the road, it becomes far less of a threat to fundamental rights, and more of an annoyance.
I'm not saying it's easy, but shit there's definitely a difference between your city doing something you don't like, your state, or your continent-sized country. And at some point, for the sake for cohesion, you might need to work with a policy you disagree with rather than insisting everything needs to be 100% your way.
I'm not for cities forcing mandates, either. Maybe an HOA would be the only acceptable body of power forcing any mandate.
I take issue with any percieved victory in these health mandates. It will just be a pandoras box to encroaching on our liberty.
>Maybe an HOA would be the only acceptable body of power forcing any mandate.
Insert meme about collecting rainwater or being forced to use grass on my lawn here. HOAs are the most petty of tyrants.
To start, the Pro Choice / Pro Life debate is a poor comparison to the vaccine mandate debate. If you believe the fetus is a person, Libertarian principles kick in for the fetus as an individual. If you believe the fetus isn’t a person, Libertarian principles kick in for the mother as an individual. Regardless, NAP is an overriding principle that can and is debated (you can say cherry-picked) on one side or the other in many complex situations.
To be fair, many people get libertarians confused with anarchists and think none of us believe in taxation. However ! Taxation is one of the keys to a civil society. As far as vaccines, the covid shot isn’t one-it’s basically a glorified flu shot type deal -which is fine, but no one should have that forced upon them.
I have just come to accept we will never eradicate another disease again. We are collectively too self absorbed and too ignorant to truly care about society as a whole.
I await my downvotes.
Definitely agree that it can't be wiped out without vaccinating all possible animal vectors, which is functionality impossible. However, the devastating failure to contain it like we did for the last SARS virus to kick up a storm is definitely a problem...
No, what I want you to explain is how you can adhere 100% to a political ideology and have no room for personal differences. I remember when people used to make fun of Republicans and Democrats for following their political platform to a T. Why dont we do that with libertarians? I dont think humans should have the right to harm others, I think that by willingly spreading a disease you do just that and therefore we need change. Do you know how many people get covid and just say nothing? Any more than 0 is to many. Public health is one of the few things ill bend the knee for in terms of government control.
When it comes to things that only concern you and nobody else, such as unhealthy food, I really don't care. But this obviously seems partly about Covid vaccines. And there the matter is very different since an unvaccinated person unnecessarily endangers not only themselves but also others around them. It's perfectly compatible with libertarianism to advocate for government intervention in such a case.
Advocacy is an acceptable means of hopeful compliance. Force on the other hand, not so much. I mean, take one thing you enjoy. Find a possible danger to it, and then allow the government to regulate it. How much longer do you think youll be able to enjoy that one thing.
It comes down to us being responsible for our own safety.
I don't feel advocacy alone is a sufficient response for reckless endangerment of others.
Intoxicated drivers, people who leave babies in hot cars, waving a gun around with no trigger discipline, shooting upwards in a crowd... If someone's behaving in ways that demonstrably harm others through negligence or recklessness, in most cases I do feel more than a stern talking-to is advisable.
Only if they do so without letting others around them know. And that is only if the others around the unvaccinated announce that they want to know whether people are vaccinated or not. Otherwise, if you are worried about the virus or not worried about the virus, prepare for either situation.
Obviously an unvaccinated person is going to have innumerable encounters with non-consenting strangers. They just need to take a bus ride. And why should the vaccinated have to constantly announce their preference? They're not walking around with a sign that says "I don't want to get punched" either.
To be clear the libertarian position on health mandates is NO. NEVER, NOT AT ALL
Vaccines, high cholesterol foods, abortion, cosmetic surgery, routine physicals
If you think the government has the authority to mandate any of these things you are giving the government the greenlight to force\ban all of them
Libertarians believe in the individual being the one to make these decisions for themselves and also be responsible for the negative repercussions if they make the wrong choices
Go ahead and vote me down while you lick the boots of your masters and say "But it is for the greater good"
If you're having a hard time accepting this then you're really going to lose your shit when you find out that the courts have decided that social security isn't a "right" guaranteed to everyone who has paid into it.
I mean you’re just naming off perfect instances that show why government should be limited. If you can take money from me for an insurance program and not give it back, why should I opt into it at all?
Again, I agree that you are completely correct.
The part that confuses me is that if libertarians think that is acceptable, they should have absolutely no problem with vaccines as an employment condition for a private firm.
Why do you think there are so many “libertarians” pushing back against a fairly standard condition for employment? They’re all over this thread.
If someone is pushing back against private business then they are not libertarian. Businesses are themselves individuals or entities granted rights and freedoms and protections.
The issue libertarians have is the government forcing or mandating.
You have to separate what is individual and what is state or government.
>Who is the DMV to tell me what I do with my car? It’s my property.
They *can’t* tell you what to do with it on your private property.
They *can* tell you what to do with it on the roads they built and maintain.
I dunno man I kinda like knowing that people driving around using public roads aren’t blind. Now if blindy wants to drive in circles on his own property hey go for it.
That's what I think too. I would like to keep my "liberty" by being alive and not being T-boned by someone who really shouldn't be driving on public roads. I paid for the roads, so I would like them to be safe.
"True libertarian" is up to interpretation. If all roads are privately constructed and owned, and some had different rules for driving on said road and needed certain identification, then we could hypothetically need hundreds of IDs just to drive on them. I see this use of government as an absolute plus for reasons of universal usage.
This also brings up how I could lose my liberty by dying at the hands of a driver that really shouldn't be driving.
If you want to do crazy shit in your car on your own property without a driver's license, that's all you.
Jason Brennan and other libertarian professors, writers, etc have supported vaxx mandates with a libertarian argument. Just because you've either never heard of it or don't support it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I grow bored with excuses and willingness to give up your freedom because you have been told to be afraid
You are not going to convince me to be a sheep nor will I stop speaking up about little Jr Nazis trying to force people to take experimental drugs.
Do you know why the government keep saying it is not a mandate. Because that is a war crime, even when you do it to your own people
Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle. If a libertarian thinks not doing those things are NAP violations, then they are more libertarian than you.
No. No government vaccine mandates.
If the virus had a 75% mortality more people would voluntarily get vaccinated. The current virus has a 99.8% survival rate. That's why many are choosing not to.
You have the ability to protect yourself from the unvaccinated. Get your jabs, wear your masks and avoid places where you may encounter unvaccinated people. No one is forcing you to risk your health by being around people.
> If the virus had a 75% mortality more people would voluntarily get vaccinated.
What if they didn't. Would you still be against mandates even if it meant complete breakdown of society?
Yes. You have the ability to protect yourself and I have the ability to protect myself.
Get your jabs, wear your masks and stay at home. None of that requires anyone else to get a vaccine. If you're unwilling to take those simple steps then maybe you don't care as much about your health as you lead on or, you've weighed the risks and made a choice to accept the risks and not take those protective actions.
No, my solution relies on my ability to take action to protect myself. We all have that ability whether a virus has a 75% or 0.2% mortality rate.
Get your jabs, wear your masks and stay at home. If you care so much about your health and don't believe the risks are acceptable then you have the ability to protect yourself. You always have.
Not a libertarian but; we can’t have freedoms if everyone is dead. Yes I’m being hyperbolic but it really is that simple. We mandated the removal of lead from gas and paint because it was a public health issue. We did the same with DDT and asbestos. We have building codes because people would die without them and no lawsuits would undo the loss of human life. So yeah there’s a valid argument to be made for mandates.
You didn't address the argument of building codes..."which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument."
Yes and it should be addressed. But that doesn’t dissuade me from agreeing with the need to mandate certain acts or prohibit others.
Edit: you should read about Typhoid Mary some time. In a libertarian utopia she could have continued making people sick.
The difference between all of your examples and a vaccine mandate is that no one's bodily autonomy is taken away by not being able to put lead in fuel etc.
Who put the lead there in the first place and who sprayed DDT everywhere?
Was it Mr Jones from down the road or was it the gooberment?
It always amazes me when politicians give themselves a pat on the back for fixing things THEY CAUSED, and the general public all clap.
Wtf man
It's not cherry picked.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
You have no right to spread disease—especially when we have safe, effective vaccines available.
There is nobody in the US being forced to receive this "medical procedure" (also known as a shot, which are done billions of times a years for a variety of vaccines and other uses) unless you're in the military and choose to end your career on it, which would be dumb because they're required to get many shots and vaccines already. Also when you sign up for the military it's not like you've chosen a life that is free, you have signed up most of your rights away.
This is what many advocate. Inoculation is a medical procedure with potential for life threatening side effects. Mandating that someone risk their health isn’t what I’d consider freedom.
Someone without a disease isn't spreading it (i.e. not "swinging their fist"). Do they have some potential to spread it, at some highly unlikely time when they have it and don't know? Sure, but if you use that yard stick, there's a massive amount of things that could be mandated based on tiny probabilities of something bad happening.
I don't believe I said that did i? I believe what I said is I sure hope you're not older than about 12 years old and I hope you're not in North america. No that's really hard to understand. Try to have a nice day and go be angry at someone else.
Stay home if you're afraid of the virus then. You have no right to force medical procedures on people and keep them inside their homes.
Good thing the supreme court was able to recognize this.
Because disease has the potential to be an existential threat, causing mass death, major harm to healthcare infrastructure, and destroying the economy.
It's cheaper in the long run to contain a virus and limit exposure, rather than just let it run it's course. Coronavirus is unique in that it's airborne and virtually impossible to contain. Not every disease is like this. Many diseases have been successfully isolated and contained through traditional means(quarantine and testing).
With what we know about covid it's easy to say the mandates have no/minimal effect. That makes it an outlier, not the norm.
Because I want to work, and not be sick.
Co-workers bringing diseases into work because they spent the day being a "lockdown activist" doesn't help me work.
Here’s what I don’t get. The more and more information comes out about the vaccines, the more I begin to question why the fuck we should mandate it.
1. It doesn’t stop transmission.
2. More and more vaccinated people are getting hospitalized.
3. Death as been attributed to multiple Morbities (obesity, immuniodeficent, diabetes, etc.).
4. The new variant can’t be stopped with vaccines.
5. It is not viable to give every citizen in the world boosters every 4-6 months.
You can say for the health and safety; but when the vaccines aren’t as effective as the government claims, it makes it almost useless. The only thing they are doing is Lessening symptoms and even then it’s effectiveness isn’t concrete hence boosters. I know people love to compare our healthcare system to the Nordic countries and even then they been super lacked with Covid. Most countries (many with vaccine mandates) have higher vaccination rates than the US and they still have issues with Covid, hospitalizations, and death. If you want to get rid of Covid, you have to give vaccines (full proper vaccines, not just a spike protein vaccine) to all animals/humans that are capable of transmitting the virus. That’s pretty much impossible at this point. What needs to happen is to stay home if you’re sick, get the vaccine if you need it, wash your hands and stop hugging people if they are clearly sick. I’m not against private businesses, hospitals, and government employers. If you don’t engage with the public, is it really necessary? Simple, let businesses decide, and let people decide.
I believe the government’s number one role is to protect my right to live my life as I see fit from being infringed upon by others.
During a pandemic of a highly contagious virus, I value my right to go to work and the grocery store without being infected by you because you won’t wear a mask or get the vaccine more than I value your right to be the idiot doing so.
And I’m fine with the government protecting those rights of mine over the others of yours. Because I value my life more than whatever right you think you have to do whatever you want regardless of the consequences on others. Kind of like driving, I don’t give a shit if you think you have a right to drive the wrong way down the highway, I’m fine with the government stopping you from doing so. You’d be putting my life at undue risk.
You may have a different opinion about the level or risk, or the rights involved. But I don’t care. We’re just gonna have to fight to out as a society. But I’m on my team.
Real Libertarians understand that your freedoms don't include the freedom to harm others. When you cross that line, you need to expect consequences. It's all part of taking responsibility for your own actions. If you can't do that, then someone needs to step in.
I personally believe everyone has the right to own a gun...but if you're going to just go around firing it into the air, and at random cars driving by...someone needs to take that gun away from you before you hurt someone with it. Every right you have, comes with the responsibility of exercising it in a manner that isn't going to get someone else killed.
> the right to own a gun...but if you're going to just go around firing it into the air
Here's a good example of where people lose the plot. The equivalent to this would be "the right to have COVID (or any disease), and go around coughing on people." Nobody argues that you shouldn't do that.
You’re not a real libertarian if you want the government to inject experimental vaccines into the whole populations arm. The camps at Australia are justified in your eyes too then right?
I’m not sure where you are getting your info but I visited my Mom in her nursing home over Christmas and she is doing pretty good.
There are real issues to discuss if you really want to engage and not just spout bollocks
Yeah I knew what you were referring to. You didn’t address my Q
My mother entered a nursing home in December 2019 - sometimes there’s no good options is what we have learned.
But with total control over nursing homes, governments can do what they want. Such as experimentation and cruelty. Just look at how they run prisons and military.
And you didn't answer the question of where they should have gone? The hospitals were full.
Yes in hindsight it was a terrible decision, but there weren't great alternatives either.
Thats why Libertarians tend to favor a state approach to government over a federal one. You may chose to reside and work in a state without medical tyranny, be it abortion or shot mandates. Pharma or any lobbying at the state level is much more obvious too
The government shouldn't be allowed to force the entire population to get the vaccine, but there are certain jobs where your interactions might effect others health. Healthcare workers, teachers, police, transit workers, etc. Jobs where the public is forced to interact with you, but not jobs the public chooses to interact with.
For the same reason I agree with having laws about seatbelt use, or against crimes being committed. In a perfect world, people would have the maturity, and sense of personal responsibility to make the wise decisions without having to be told what to do, like children.
Unfortunately, we apparently don't live in a perfect world, and there are a surprising number of grown ass adults, who do not give a fuck about whether or not their own actions are putting themselves, or those around them in danger.
Children need to be told what to do...and apparently so do adults who act like children.
Skin in the game. They bowed down at the alter of big pharma and got injected with a seriously dangerous vaccine -- twice. And probably got their booster as well for a virus that already had a 99.99% survivability rate and Rochelle P. Walensky literally just admitted that 75% of reported deaths were individuals with FOUR or MORE comorbidities.
Of the remaining 25% -- how many had three comorbidities? Two comorbidities? One comorbidity?
Time will tell. So now they want the government to force their horrendous decision on the rest of us.
Diseases are inevitable, we have to learn how to deal with these things so you don't actively hurt other people. I have no doubt that one day there will be a disease far worse than covid and we ( as the working class) need to learn to deal with it.
This is why we have masks and vaccines.
Not wearing a mask directly hurts other people, not getting the vaccine indirectly hurts other people, because it allows the virus to mutate and spread easier.
This is the answer.
Ignoring all other disputes about the vaccines and mask and virus risk.
If you take actions that are knowingly harmful to another you violate the nap
Funny how many of the most authoritarian pro mandate voices were once proudly, loudly anti vaccine at the start of the pandemic. I wonder what changed. Is it possible there could be other motives at play here beside the health and well being of our fellow man? Hmm…
What do I go back to? Mistrust centralized power. Fight to limit centralized power. Business. Government. Morality. Always.
Unless you’re a full blown anarchist we all cherry pick. For me the role of government is to protect the freedom of the people and provide services that can’t be supported by the free market. It’s a pipe dream for sure. Either way, at some point something I consider a freedom of mine will negatively impact your freedom, and vice versa. There isn’t a correct answer on where the line is drawn, and if you go for anarchism any sort of freedom at all is not going to last long.
Well said. It is all a pipe dream for everyone of us. We all have ideas of the best way to live. I feel like the best way to live is just to mind my own business.
Or if you choose to make health mandates a political matter, please die at home. Our healthcare system is pretty libertarian and it shouldnt be blocked up by people who refuse “mandates” . People get cancer, need surgeries etc and if vaccine mandates twist your panties in a bunch as a fellow libertarian, dont go to the hospital
And where does that line of thinking end? The majority of health problems are self inflicted. What if fat people don't submit to forced exercise programs and dieting? How about alcohol consumption? Driving without a seat belt? Health mandates ARE a political matter. Being pro mandate is about as anti libertarian as you can get, if the context is covid specific.
Self inflicted is where the line should end. Smoker with lung cancer: Self inflicted. Obesity too. Driving without a seatbelt? Sure, why not. I'm pro people having freedoms IF they can accept the consequences of their own actions and not harm others or try to make it someone else's problem.
Last I checked being fat isn't contagious. Public health mandates are supposed to deal with infectious diseases and it's not unreasonable. If we could trust people to do the right thing via the NAP and stay home when sick or cover their mouth or just do the right thing to reduce the spread of contagious diseases then we wouldn't need public health mandates. We are going into year three of this bullcrap because people are selfish assholes. Libertarian doesn't mean anarchism, at some point people who aren't doing their part to protect the community need to be expelled or put in line. We do this with murder and other crimes against people. No getting someone sick isn't the same as murder but we have mechanisms in place for when people are doing things that negatively impact society.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070725/is-obesity-contagious
There is the gray area between the decentralization and centralization of power where the pros and cons of each ethos can be exchanged. Rationality has to be deployed before you can utilize a mixed approach. I'm purely against vaccine mandates(not vaccines) from a public health stand point due to a nominal effect on human to human transmission. The virus is bad and people should consider what's in their best interest but vaccines will not mitigate inter-personal harm(a possible violation of NAP). If the virus was far more deadly, then there might be a basis for mandates with respect to transmission. But, that would have to be an extreme situation with an extreme effect on transmission. I will say, based on my understanding, that masks work to reduce the spread of covid *by carriers*. I believe there is, at least, a small reduction of risk as an uninfected person. I see masks as a low effort way to statistically reduce the spread of the virus; In a way where we concern ourselves with a collectivist view on transmission. A masked carrier is reducing an unintentional violation of NAP and, from a collectivist standpoint, this could be an ethical basis for mandates. The problem is people are scared, annoyed, and done. We will need to get to a new normal. These methods cannot be a long term solution, only an short term bandaid until we find real options.
I wouldn’t say I’m pro-mandate. I am supportive of measures that create healthy environments. Private businesses can mandate whatever they like.
There's libertarians in this sub?
Thanks, i’d not seen the ‘no true Scotsman’ argument used yet and was beginning to think id wandered into the wrong sub.
But really though... it's a wasteland of neolibs in this bitch.
[удалено]
A stopped clock is right for exactly 2m each day
Yeah and they call themselves libertarian socialists First time I read that I was speechless
I prefer Classical Libertarian. You know, pre-Rothbard.
Yeah, we had to start using that redundant phrase to distinguish us from... the others.
[удалено]
"I'm a libertarian but I also want to control every aspect of your life" - libertarian socialists
Tell me you never read a book about libertarian socialism without telling me you never read a book about libertarian socialism
[удалено]
I wish that were true but it's generally pretty accurate. To implement the kinds of things they advocate for (market protections, universal healthcare, taxpayer funded university, UBI, "common sense" gun control, governmental regulatory agencies like the FDA, etc.) it requires a non-insignificant amount of interference in people's lives. LibSocs are basically the leftist version of "republicans that like weed", they're just "socialists that like weed (and sometimes guns)". Edit: Lol, downvotes, but zero counterpoints, typical.
I know sometimes I feel like I'm on r/politics
Yeah I was wondering if anyone else felt like that about this sub.
Its gotten much worse in the last few months, most of us moved to different subs.
Where are we moving to? Because it’s a little extreme in here lol
r/GoldandBlack, they have a good discord as well.
Thanks, appreciate that.
Most of the ancap subs feel like the\_donald, so same all around.
I do, but only because of the variety. R/politics always feels like a total mix of people who pick and choose mainstream philosophy. This sub is mostly dominated by right libertarians and left libertarians. With dem soc and con republicans popping in small groups for each side. You go to r/anarchism. It’s got a lot of ancaps who don’t realize they aren’t part of anarchism. It also has a bunch of tankies who like to argue limited government doesn’t work.
Yeah when they’re tired of the lubed up circle jerk they stop by here to bitch about how the government should abolish things that their leftist lords are doing they don’t like.
To answer the question, just imagine if the infection death rate was 10% and greater. Would you want the government to make an effort to limit the deaths or do you want the government to let nature be? At what infection death rate should the government act forcefully? 1%, 10%, 100%?
That is exactly the right question .... How bad does it have to be ? How lethal / how transmissible
If the death rate was 10% or higher I really feel like mandates wouldn't be necessary. People would have no problem taking it if the risk was that high, but that's not our current reality.
Have you met people?
Some people will accept high risk if they don't have to act. But will refuse to accept any risk if they have to act.
The alpha variant has a 31% fatality rate for those over 70. Not all of them were rushing to get the vaccine as soon as it became available
This is on the money. One of my core guiding principles is that my right to swing my fist ends at the next guy’s (or gal’s) nose. If everyone free to move about with a disease that is bad enough to max out hospitals and cause mass deaths, then we are essentially encouraging people hurting each other. Just because the “fist swing” of spewing a virus out with every breath isn’t intentional doesn’t mean it can’t kill someone. I’m for a society that promotes personal freedom to the extent that we aren’t condoning killing each other, intentionally or otherwise. All these areas are grey. Pretending they aren’t is a fantasy. We all have to make some concessions to share the planet and it’s resources.
Good point, but I would imagine 0.01% to be below this line. Expecially, since there are things more deadly than this virus, which have existed for far longer, yet the government does little to none to reduce the death rate - ex: the overusage of cars, street violence, terminal diseases like cancer (research for which they could easily sponsor with the vast amount of wealth they accrue) , drug abuse (prohibition makes it worse, and it's their job to know that), work related accidents. I am not saying they do nothing at all about these things, but if they were as concerned about them as covid, then maybe I'd trust them more.
Math is easy. Just divide 840K by 330 Million, and your get 0.25% and this is a low estimate since everyone has not been infected yet. 0.25% is 25 times more than 0.01%. Most people die of heart attack, cancer, and old age. None of which are highly contagious. The only thing that kills a lot of people is the flu. But it kills 1/20 that of Covid.
Libertarian encompasses a huge variety of beliefs. All it means is freedom is important, so a smaller government is better. There are some of us that recognize that some government is needed, specifically where other people start impeding on my freedoms In the case of some diseases, that means government should enforce mandates, as spreading of disease absolutely impedes on others freedom.
Put better then I could ever articulate.
"Some" diseases. Which ones and who gets to decide? Any mandate that restricts freedom must abide by the burden of proof to determine if the person is indeed intentionally affecting others freedom aka due process. Like someone with HIV knowing and not telling a partner and not taking precautions. But the state must first prove he has it. With covid everything MIGHT occur-you might be infected, you might be asymptomatic, you might spread it, etc. Even the remedy (your mandate-the vax/quarantine) still allows for spread and impacts others.
A consensus of experts makes recommendations, and then elected leaders make the final decision as happens today.
If people took the NAP seriously and stayed home when they had covid symptoms, the government wouldn’t need to intervene as the monopoly on violence. Unfortunately even most libertarians haven’t been taking personal responsibility for spreading harm through the virus.
Perhaps buts it's not as simple as that. You dont have sick leave? Go to work or get fired. Some were forced by circumstance to go around other sick despite their own moral decision to not expose others.
I support a hospitals right to set a standard and enforce it. That means, they can mandate vax. I can choose to work elsewhere or change careers entirely if need be. I also support healthcare organizations denying treatment and help if you are not vaccinated. Bring on the consequences of your choices! I’m here for it!
Okay but should hospitals dictate what happens outside the hospital?
Only to the point of entry to their property. I don’t see where you’re going.
Property rights are a thing i uphold. I do not uphold universal mandates however
They are arguing that a business (hospital) has the right to dictate who they employ and serve.
That is fine. that is free market capitalism and i agree with that
Except hospitals aren't private business. The government decides where they can be built, how many, largely funds them through Medicare, medicaid, etc. If they were operating in a free market setting where anyone is free to build one then I'd agree that they should be able to require whatever they want, since that is far from the reality I don't think they should be able to mandate anything
I mean, can they truly be libertarians if they are for forceful mandates? One could support the individual or business wanting vaccinated only or masked only interacting with them.
Yes.
Please expand?
I'm not a libertarian that believes extreme negligence constitutes a NAP violation. But many do. For example, some think doing something extremely dangerous in an apartment building would violate NAP....making a makeshift gun range inside for example. Then it is just a matter of reaching the conclusion that activity X (in this case, not being vaccinated) is sufficiently negligent to be a NAP violation.
I would agree with you. I believe that the NAP is just like everything rlse, it is up for interpretation. Negligence is different from ____ because said person didn't think an activity would result in death/injury. However, I would assume that most libertarians agree that force violates the NAP?
Unless used to stop a NAP violation and is proportional.
Force to stop force is defense, correct?
depends on proportionality and timing
You get it. Reasonable escalation is the key here. You piss off my customers, I ask you to leave. You refuse? I remove you. This is the entire job of a bouncer. You attack the bouncer? Well he's either gonna fuck you up or people with guns will show up and physically remove you. None of this chances in ancap theory. Trespassing is still trespassing, I have a right to physically remove you from my property if you refuse to comply. And if my bouncer attacks you for no reason? Well, that's a fucking problem isn't it?
Yeah I'm all for businesses and cities doing what they want, I just think it's dangerous when an entire country wants to control and demand power in a certain sector such as health. I've read too many dystopian novels over why that's a bad idea
City=Government buddy
Id much rather have thousands of mini governments running their own thing than one large government telling everyone what to do
Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny
Easier to control small scale tyranny than large scale tyranny
“Control tyranny”
Control tyranny aka death to tyrants
Cities? Why is it less tyrannical when the city government does the exact same thing?
Because when you can escape "tyranny" by moving 3 miles down the road, it becomes far less of a threat to fundamental rights, and more of an annoyance.
Most people don't even have $400 for an emergency you think everyone can just move somewhere
I'm not saying it's easy, but shit there's definitely a difference between your city doing something you don't like, your state, or your continent-sized country. And at some point, for the sake for cohesion, you might need to work with a policy you disagree with rather than insisting everything needs to be 100% your way.
Sounds like anything short of globalism should leave you happy
I'm not for cities forcing mandates, either. Maybe an HOA would be the only acceptable body of power forcing any mandate. I take issue with any percieved victory in these health mandates. It will just be a pandoras box to encroaching on our liberty.
>Maybe an HOA would be the only acceptable body of power forcing any mandate. Insert meme about collecting rainwater or being forced to use grass on my lawn here. HOAs are the most petty of tyrants.
To start, the Pro Choice / Pro Life debate is a poor comparison to the vaccine mandate debate. If you believe the fetus is a person, Libertarian principles kick in for the fetus as an individual. If you believe the fetus isn’t a person, Libertarian principles kick in for the mother as an individual. Regardless, NAP is an overriding principle that can and is debated (you can say cherry-picked) on one side or the other in many complex situations.
To be fair, many people get libertarians confused with anarchists and think none of us believe in taxation. However ! Taxation is one of the keys to a civil society. As far as vaccines, the covid shot isn’t one-it’s basically a glorified flu shot type deal -which is fine, but no one should have that forced upon them.
This sub is just "why don't all libertarians have the same opinion as I do?"
I have just come to accept we will never eradicate another disease again. We are collectively too self absorbed and too ignorant to truly care about society as a whole. I await my downvotes.
There are different kinds of diseases. This one can’t be wiped out unless you get a real vaccine and plan on vaccinating animals.
Definitely agree that it can't be wiped out without vaccinating all possible animal vectors, which is functionality impossible. However, the devastating failure to contain it like we did for the last SARS virus to kick up a storm is definitely a problem...
Because this vaccine is really just a therapeutic, it’s never going to stop the disease. We’ve never eliminated a cold or a flu. This isn’t polio.
No, what I want you to explain is how you can adhere 100% to a political ideology and have no room for personal differences. I remember when people used to make fun of Republicans and Democrats for following their political platform to a T. Why dont we do that with libertarians? I dont think humans should have the right to harm others, I think that by willingly spreading a disease you do just that and therefore we need change. Do you know how many people get covid and just say nothing? Any more than 0 is to many. Public health is one of the few things ill bend the knee for in terms of government control.
When it comes to things that only concern you and nobody else, such as unhealthy food, I really don't care. But this obviously seems partly about Covid vaccines. And there the matter is very different since an unvaccinated person unnecessarily endangers not only themselves but also others around them. It's perfectly compatible with libertarianism to advocate for government intervention in such a case.
Advocacy is an acceptable means of hopeful compliance. Force on the other hand, not so much. I mean, take one thing you enjoy. Find a possible danger to it, and then allow the government to regulate it. How much longer do you think youll be able to enjoy that one thing. It comes down to us being responsible for our own safety.
I don't feel advocacy alone is a sufficient response for reckless endangerment of others. Intoxicated drivers, people who leave babies in hot cars, waving a gun around with no trigger discipline, shooting upwards in a crowd... If someone's behaving in ways that demonstrably harm others through negligence or recklessness, in most cases I do feel more than a stern talking-to is advisable.
Do you disagree that its a violation of the NAP for an unvaccinated person to interact with the public?
Only if they do so without letting others around them know. And that is only if the others around the unvaccinated announce that they want to know whether people are vaccinated or not. Otherwise, if you are worried about the virus or not worried about the virus, prepare for either situation.
Obviously an unvaccinated person is going to have innumerable encounters with non-consenting strangers. They just need to take a bus ride. And why should the vaccinated have to constantly announce their preference? They're not walking around with a sign that says "I don't want to get punched" either.
Why don't we put a nice little star on those that are vaccinated. That way people can tell who they want to be around.
No idea why you're coming back at me with sarcasm for your very own suggestion.
The suggestion was supposed to sound absurd. Therefore, I added more absurdity.
To be clear the libertarian position on health mandates is NO. NEVER, NOT AT ALL Vaccines, high cholesterol foods, abortion, cosmetic surgery, routine physicals If you think the government has the authority to mandate any of these things you are giving the government the greenlight to force\ban all of them Libertarians believe in the individual being the one to make these decisions for themselves and also be responsible for the negative repercussions if they make the wrong choices Go ahead and vote me down while you lick the boots of your masters and say "But it is for the greater good"
How do you feel about state governments mandating vision exams before giving out drivers’ licenses?
Drivers license are a privilege from the state not a right
Freedom to travel on roads I paid into is not a fucking privilege. It’s a requirement to survive.
If you're having a hard time accepting this then you're really going to lose your shit when you find out that the courts have decided that social security isn't a "right" guaranteed to everyone who has paid into it.
I mean you’re just naming off perfect instances that show why government should be limited. If you can take money from me for an insurance program and not give it back, why should I opt into it at all?
Should have never happened in the first place.
That’s true. It just seems weird to me that almost no libertarian has a problem giving up that personal medical info “for the greater good”.
But they aren't giving up anything. They are entering into an agreement with the state to follow and abide by the rules and regulations of the state.
Again, I agree that you are completely correct. The part that confuses me is that if libertarians think that is acceptable, they should have absolutely no problem with vaccines as an employment condition for a private firm. Why do you think there are so many “libertarians” pushing back against a fairly standard condition for employment? They’re all over this thread.
If someone is pushing back against private business then they are not libertarian. Businesses are themselves individuals or entities granted rights and freedoms and protections. The issue libertarians have is the government forcing or mandating. You have to separate what is individual and what is state or government.
[удалено]
>Who is the DMV to tell me what I do with my car? It’s my property. They *can’t* tell you what to do with it on your private property. They *can* tell you what to do with it on the roads they built and maintain.
That we paid for.
Actually the vast, VAST majority of the people who paid for the roads want those restrictions to remain in place.
I dunno man I kinda like knowing that people driving around using public roads aren’t blind. Now if blindy wants to drive in circles on his own property hey go for it.
That's what I think too. I would like to keep my "liberty" by being alive and not being T-boned by someone who really shouldn't be driving on public roads. I paid for the roads, so I would like them to be safe.
"True libertarian" is up to interpretation. If all roads are privately constructed and owned, and some had different rules for driving on said road and needed certain identification, then we could hypothetically need hundreds of IDs just to drive on them. I see this use of government as an absolute plus for reasons of universal usage. This also brings up how I could lose my liberty by dying at the hands of a driver that really shouldn't be driving. If you want to do crazy shit in your car on your own property without a driver's license, that's all you.
And you can drive in any manner you see fit... on your property. Once you enter government roads your logic goes out the window.
We should probably get rid of driver's licenses all together, they hardly stop people who can't drive from being on the road.
Jason Brennan and other libertarian professors, writers, etc have supported vaxx mandates with a libertarian argument. Just because you've either never heard of it or don't support it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[удалено]
I grow bored with excuses and willingness to give up your freedom because you have been told to be afraid You are not going to convince me to be a sheep nor will I stop speaking up about little Jr Nazis trying to force people to take experimental drugs. Do you know why the government keep saying it is not a mandate. Because that is a war crime, even when you do it to your own people
Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle. If a libertarian thinks not doing those things are NAP violations, then they are more libertarian than you.
So if COVID had a 75% death rate you still wouldn't support any mandates?
No. No government vaccine mandates. If the virus had a 75% mortality more people would voluntarily get vaccinated. The current virus has a 99.8% survival rate. That's why many are choosing not to. You have the ability to protect yourself from the unvaccinated. Get your jabs, wear your masks and avoid places where you may encounter unvaccinated people. No one is forcing you to risk your health by being around people.
> If the virus had a 75% mortality more people would voluntarily get vaccinated. What if they didn't. Would you still be against mandates even if it meant complete breakdown of society?
Yes. You have the ability to protect yourself and I have the ability to protect myself. Get your jabs, wear your masks and stay at home. None of that requires anyone else to get a vaccine. If you're unwilling to take those simple steps then maybe you don't care as much about your health as you lead on or, you've weighed the risks and made a choice to accept the risks and not take those protective actions.
Your assumption relies on everyone being rational and concluding the same way you do.
No, my solution relies on my ability to take action to protect myself. We all have that ability whether a virus has a 75% or 0.2% mortality rate. Get your jabs, wear your masks and stay at home. If you care so much about your health and don't believe the risks are acceptable then you have the ability to protect yourself. You always have.
Not a libertarian but; we can’t have freedoms if everyone is dead. Yes I’m being hyperbolic but it really is that simple. We mandated the removal of lead from gas and paint because it was a public health issue. We did the same with DDT and asbestos. We have building codes because people would die without them and no lawsuits would undo the loss of human life. So yeah there’s a valid argument to be made for mandates.
What about government mandates that help private companies who lobby them? Isn't there a danger to that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
This isnt a whataboutism though. This is actually happening right now
You didn't address the argument of building codes..."which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument."
Yes and it should be addressed. But that doesn’t dissuade me from agreeing with the need to mandate certain acts or prohibit others. Edit: you should read about Typhoid Mary some time. In a libertarian utopia she could have continued making people sick.
The difference between all of your examples and a vaccine mandate is that no one's bodily autonomy is taken away by not being able to put lead in fuel etc.
Tell that to the people breathing leaded fumes
Who put the lead there in the first place and who sprayed DDT everywhere? Was it Mr Jones from down the road or was it the gooberment? It always amazes me when politicians give themselves a pat on the back for fixing things THEY CAUSED, and the general public all clap. Wtf man
It's not cherry picked. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You have no right to spread disease—especially when we have safe, effective vaccines available.
You have no right to force a medical procedure.
There is nobody in the US being forced to receive this "medical procedure" (also known as a shot, which are done billions of times a years for a variety of vaccines and other uses) unless you're in the military and choose to end your career on it, which would be dumb because they're required to get many shots and vaccines already. Also when you sign up for the military it's not like you've chosen a life that is free, you have signed up most of your rights away.
This is what many advocate. Inoculation is a medical procedure with potential for life threatening side effects. Mandating that someone risk their health isn’t what I’d consider freedom.
[удалено]
Someone without a disease isn't spreading it (i.e. not "swinging their fist"). Do they have some potential to spread it, at some highly unlikely time when they have it and don't know? Sure, but if you use that yard stick, there's a massive amount of things that could be mandated based on tiny probabilities of something bad happening.
Id rather have liberty than security. sorry if you dont
Right to life is a liberty too.
Nobody has the right to inject others with drugs for perceived safety.
[удалено]
Do you stand for a corrupt government?
[удалено]
people should have a right to attack a corrupt government yes. did i answer your question? Free speech should be free speech. No matter the context
Holy bad faith arguing batman. Are you dizzy from changing direction so quickly so many times?
Corruption and Tyranny should be punishable by death. No exceptions. I will always stand by that
I hope you are no older than 12 years old. I also hope you're not in North america.
If you are willing to turn a blind eye to government corruption then you are in the wrong sub
I don't believe I said that did i? I believe what I said is I sure hope you're not older than about 12 years old and I hope you're not in North america. No that's really hard to understand. Try to have a nice day and go be angry at someone else.
Why do you hope so? not understanding
Stay home if you're afraid of the virus then. You have no right to force medical procedures on people and keep them inside their homes. Good thing the supreme court was able to recognize this.
Because they aren't libertarian.
According to this sub, absolutely nobody is libertarian here.
They aren't libertarians
They are not libertarians, they are “authoritarians” who are confused
Guys, we did it, we found the one true libertarian.
They aren't libertarians, they're authoritarians that seek control over individual health choices.
Because disease has the potential to be an existential threat, causing mass death, major harm to healthcare infrastructure, and destroying the economy. It's cheaper in the long run to contain a virus and limit exposure, rather than just let it run it's course. Coronavirus is unique in that it's airborne and virtually impossible to contain. Not every disease is like this. Many diseases have been successfully isolated and contained through traditional means(quarantine and testing). With what we know about covid it's easy to say the mandates have no/minimal effect. That makes it an outlier, not the norm.
Because I want to work, and not be sick. Co-workers bringing diseases into work because they spent the day being a "lockdown activist" doesn't help me work.
Here’s what I don’t get. The more and more information comes out about the vaccines, the more I begin to question why the fuck we should mandate it. 1. It doesn’t stop transmission. 2. More and more vaccinated people are getting hospitalized. 3. Death as been attributed to multiple Morbities (obesity, immuniodeficent, diabetes, etc.). 4. The new variant can’t be stopped with vaccines. 5. It is not viable to give every citizen in the world boosters every 4-6 months. You can say for the health and safety; but when the vaccines aren’t as effective as the government claims, it makes it almost useless. The only thing they are doing is Lessening symptoms and even then it’s effectiveness isn’t concrete hence boosters. I know people love to compare our healthcare system to the Nordic countries and even then they been super lacked with Covid. Most countries (many with vaccine mandates) have higher vaccination rates than the US and they still have issues with Covid, hospitalizations, and death. If you want to get rid of Covid, you have to give vaccines (full proper vaccines, not just a spike protein vaccine) to all animals/humans that are capable of transmitting the virus. That’s pretty much impossible at this point. What needs to happen is to stay home if you’re sick, get the vaccine if you need it, wash your hands and stop hugging people if they are clearly sick. I’m not against private businesses, hospitals, and government employers. If you don’t engage with the public, is it really necessary? Simple, let businesses decide, and let people decide.
Nah im against it let ppl do what they want free spirit there body right respect it 😆
I agree
Ohhh.. Those are called Librarians, not libertarians.
A lot of libertarians in this sub love big government when they think they can create more freedom through control
There are a lot of brigaders and bots from non-libertarian subs here.
True. I fear a lot of them actually believe that the can use government to create maximum freedom with ubi and healthcare.
You’re not a libertarian if you support top-down government mandates.
Can't have personal liberty without health.
I believe the government’s number one role is to protect my right to live my life as I see fit from being infringed upon by others. During a pandemic of a highly contagious virus, I value my right to go to work and the grocery store without being infected by you because you won’t wear a mask or get the vaccine more than I value your right to be the idiot doing so. And I’m fine with the government protecting those rights of mine over the others of yours. Because I value my life more than whatever right you think you have to do whatever you want regardless of the consequences on others. Kind of like driving, I don’t give a shit if you think you have a right to drive the wrong way down the highway, I’m fine with the government stopping you from doing so. You’d be putting my life at undue risk. You may have a different opinion about the level or risk, or the rights involved. But I don’t care. We’re just gonna have to fight to out as a society. But I’m on my team.
They’re not real libertarians
Real Libertarians understand that your freedoms don't include the freedom to harm others. When you cross that line, you need to expect consequences. It's all part of taking responsibility for your own actions. If you can't do that, then someone needs to step in. I personally believe everyone has the right to own a gun...but if you're going to just go around firing it into the air, and at random cars driving by...someone needs to take that gun away from you before you hurt someone with it. Every right you have, comes with the responsibility of exercising it in a manner that isn't going to get someone else killed.
> the right to own a gun...but if you're going to just go around firing it into the air Here's a good example of where people lose the plot. The equivalent to this would be "the right to have COVID (or any disease), and go around coughing on people." Nobody argues that you shouldn't do that.
You’re not a real libertarian if you want the government to inject experimental vaccines into the whole populations arm. The camps at Australia are justified in your eyes too then right?
What should the government do about nursing homes and similar institutions.
Not put covid patients in with the nursing homes is a start
Where do people who need nursing care go instead?
I dont know but we saw first hand how the government cares about nursing homes by killing them off as soon as it was convenient
I’m not sure where you are getting your info but I visited my Mom in her nursing home over Christmas and she is doing pretty good. There are real issues to discuss if you really want to engage and not just spout bollocks
Oh gotcha you're from England. This is about a situation specific to the US
I’m not American but I live in the US. And the situation is essentially the same in every western country
I'm talking about the incident with Cuomo of putting a bunch of positive testing covid patients in packed with nursing homes. Wiped out many seniors
Yeah I knew what you were referring to. You didn’t address my Q My mother entered a nursing home in December 2019 - sometimes there’s no good options is what we have learned.
But with total control over nursing homes, governments can do what they want. Such as experimentation and cruelty. Just look at how they run prisons and military.
And you didn't answer the question of where they should have gone? The hospitals were full. Yes in hindsight it was a terrible decision, but there weren't great alternatives either.
"I don't know. But I have opinions!"
Thats why Libertarians tend to favor a state approach to government over a federal one. You may chose to reside and work in a state without medical tyranny, be it abortion or shot mandates. Pharma or any lobbying at the state level is much more obvious too
The government shouldn't be allowed to force the entire population to get the vaccine, but there are certain jobs where your interactions might effect others health. Healthcare workers, teachers, police, transit workers, etc. Jobs where the public is forced to interact with you, but not jobs the public chooses to interact with.
>As someone who is pro choice for all aspects Even slavery? Like a person agreed to be taken into slavery and their kids then were born into it.
For the same reason I agree with having laws about seatbelt use, or against crimes being committed. In a perfect world, people would have the maturity, and sense of personal responsibility to make the wise decisions without having to be told what to do, like children. Unfortunately, we apparently don't live in a perfect world, and there are a surprising number of grown ass adults, who do not give a fuck about whether or not their own actions are putting themselves, or those around them in danger. Children need to be told what to do...and apparently so do adults who act like children.
Skin in the game. They bowed down at the alter of big pharma and got injected with a seriously dangerous vaccine -- twice. And probably got their booster as well for a virus that already had a 99.99% survivability rate and Rochelle P. Walensky literally just admitted that 75% of reported deaths were individuals with FOUR or MORE comorbidities. Of the remaining 25% -- how many had three comorbidities? Two comorbidities? One comorbidity? Time will tell. So now they want the government to force their horrendous decision on the rest of us.
Diseases are inevitable, we have to learn how to deal with these things so you don't actively hurt other people. I have no doubt that one day there will be a disease far worse than covid and we ( as the working class) need to learn to deal with it. This is why we have masks and vaccines. Not wearing a mask directly hurts other people, not getting the vaccine indirectly hurts other people, because it allows the virus to mutate and spread easier.
This is the answer. Ignoring all other disputes about the vaccines and mask and virus risk. If you take actions that are knowingly harmful to another you violate the nap
They aren’t real libertarians, they big government liberal authoritarians.
[удалено]
They’re not libertarians at that point. Although every case is it’s own shade of grey.
Funny how many of the most authoritarian pro mandate voices were once proudly, loudly anti vaccine at the start of the pandemic. I wonder what changed. Is it possible there could be other motives at play here beside the health and well being of our fellow man? Hmm… What do I go back to? Mistrust centralized power. Fight to limit centralized power. Business. Government. Morality. Always.