Fifth Amendment

In a Rush To Ban Vaccine Passports, Texas Is Violating Private Property Rights

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he stands for freedom. That doesn't apply to business owners.


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has positioned himself as more than a Republican, but as a true conservative. It was with that framing that the leader of the Lone Star State signed a law to ban private businesses from setting their own terms of service when it comes to helping customers.

"Texas is open 100 percent," Abbott said in a clip posted to Twitter. "And we want to make sure that you have the freedom to go where you want without limits."

He will not extend that same freedom of association to individual actors who have their own enterprises. "The Texas legislature passed a law that I am about to sign that prohibits vaccine passports in Texas," he added. "No business or government entity can require a person to provide a vaccine passport, or any other vaccine information, as a condition of receiving any service, or entering any place."

Abbott's got part of it right. He's also gotten a major part wrong.

The notion that no "government entity" should demand a vaccine passport makes fine sense. The state has a monopoly on power, and necessitating proof of vaccination would amount to forced inoculation. In March, reports circulated that President Joe Biden's administration was collaborating with private companies to implement vaccine passports—a sketchy way of couching the requirement outside of the public sector. He abandoned that plan shortly thereafter, citing privacy rights.

Such pieces of legislation are typically pushed by left-leaning types—the same people who would, in virtually every other circumstance, back the "my body, my choice" mantra. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Abbott is not immune from that hypocrisy. Core to the conservative creed is the idea that private businesses are not held to the same rules as the government, in that they are allowed to set their own policies and operate within their own values. It's also core to the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas bill "violates private property rights," says Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. "The longstanding legal tradition has always been that businesses owe an obligation to protect their customers' safety, at least to some basic extent, and this law comes along and says, not only are they not free to make that choice, but they're prohibited from doing so."

The legislation uses several different state levers to strong-arm businesses into compliance. It weaponizes governmental occupational licensing requirements—something Abbott has rightly railed against in other contexts—and threatens to withhold "a license, permit, or other state authorization necessary for conducting business in this state" should a company run afoul of the law.

Perhaps more notably, it also precludes any entity that disobeys from "receiv[ing] a grant or enter[ing] into a contract payable with state funds."

Yet it was Abbott who applied the exact opposite justification when he (again, rightly) signed a law that allowed taxpayer-funded faith-based adoption agencies to operate within their belief systems when pairing children with prospective parents. The difference here: One comports with his personal values, and the other—vaccine verification—does not.

Similarly, there was the kerfuffle around Hobby Lobby, the company that in 2012 sought to exempt itself from Obamacare's mandate requiring most businesses to cover birth control in their employee health plans. As Texas attorney general, Abbott signed a brief in support of the corporation's argument, which invoked its owners' deeply held religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby eventually prevailed in front of the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately for Abbott, the Constitution is not a partisan document. Its rights apply to all private actors—regardless of whether or not he's comfortable with the outcomes.

"It cannot be rationally justified," adds Sandefur. "It's simply a matter of people saying that the government shouldn't force people to do things they don't like and should force people to do things they do like. It's totally inconsistent, and a violation of basic property rights and constitutional law."

NEXT: Ron DeSantis Is Celebrating Twitter's Ban of Rebekah Jones. His Own Big Tech Law Could Force Them To Replatform Her.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good conservatives favor your private property rights… Except, of course, when they do NOT!

    1. At this rate, they’ll be quoting Proudhon before the end of the year.

      1. Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do. everybody will get this job.Go to home media tab for additional details… Visit Here

        1. Making money online more than 800$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Suddenly reason cares about private property rights…? LMFAO!!!!!!!!

      1. This snarky article is no further off the mark than several other Binion articles that have appeared recently. I’m not sure what point this author is trying to make, but I suspect he just couldn’t come up with anything else to ping conservatives on this morning. No problem, he’ll find something else to piss into the tent about tomorrow. I’m also not sure what benefit the editors of Reason think he brings to the table or why they prefer to have him in the tent pissing in the tent rather than at least eject him from the tent force him to micturate outside.

        It seems to give those who fancy themselves to be pure libertarians derive a certain satisfaction in trying to pull down certain conservative ideas. This indicates a lack of understanding that in our current, and continuing for the near future, two-party system anything that weakens conservatism in general enables and empowers those (called liberals) who would impose far greater restrictions on political liberty while supporting the removal of all strictures on activities that can generally described as hedonistic.

        The analogy to crabs in a bucket is inescapable. But crabs aren’t very smart. Is Binion simply a non-thinking libertarian anarchist, or is he a poseur, wearing libertarian camouflage while seeking purposely to discredit conservatism and advance the liberal Democrat agenda?

        1. Two points: a Libertarian columnist criticizing conservatives is not “in the tent pissing in the tent”, because conservatives are not in the Libertarian tent! Additionally – yes, we Libertarians do derive satisfaction in criticizing crackpot ideas! These in question are not, as you claim, “conservative ideas”. Restricting the rights of business to operate as they choose is in no way “conservative”.

    3. Wipe your chin; there’s something on it.

    4. Joseph Mercola said it best.

      It’s important to realize that vaccine passports or any other type of certification in and of themselves are not the end goal here. They’re merely a part of a much larger plan to implement a social credit system, such as that already implemented in China. First, they’d be expanded to cover other required vaccinations.

      Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance.

      Booster shots against COVID-19 variants would logically come first, followed by any number of other vaccinations. The sky’s the limit as far as that’s concerned, and many are likely to be gene-based and therefore dangerous in the extreme. Already, vaccine makers have announced they’re working on a combination COVID-flu/mRNA vaccine, a pneumococcal-COVID/mRNA booster shot for adults over 65, and mRNA/seasonal influenza vaccines.

      Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. It may even extend to include real-time biological data.

      The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance. If you disobey or act “out of line” with a prevailing dictate, your freedom to travel, bank, shop, get a loan or even leave your home could be vastly restricted.

      We can see how such a system could work by looking at the Chinese social credit system where behavior is electronically monitored to assess “trustworthiness” in real-time. Aside from failing to pay taxes on time, score-lowering actions can include such minutia as cheating in an online video game, jaywalking, not visiting your parents on a frequent-enough basis, smoking in a nonsmoking zone or walking your dog without a leash.

  2. If it wasn’t obvious, what Abbott and DeSantis are doing are keeping the far left dems from insisting you wear masks permanently and carry your papers around like good little sheep. I’ll take this over the alternative. Litigate it all you want, it won’t matter.

    1. Yes, and personal and property rights often conflict. When they do personal rights like the right to protect your medical records should triumph. That is why the HIPPA act was passed.
      Yet ultra liberal extreme right-wing “woke” Reason can’t reason anymore.

      1. You do realize you’re a dumbass right?

        HIPAA governs what other people can do with your medical info. You are free to give, or not give, out your medical info as you see fit.

        Vaccine “passports” and the like do not at all violate any part of HIPAA. So yeah- maybe understand what you’re talking about before spouting off complete stupid garbage.

        1. Functionally, they do violate HIPAA. They require proof of vaccination which should be protected patient information under HIPAA.

          1. That doesn’t even make sense. PHI is only protected when covered entities–doctors, insurance companies, and a handful of intermediaries–are involved.

    2. You do understand that if they can’t make you show a vaccine paper then they can just require masks in perpetuity right?

      I would hope they do for idiots like you. At least keeps the shit flowing out of your mouth as loud.

      1. If the businesses knuckled under to mask and gathering restrictions, they can bend over and deal with the vaccine passport ban. They’ve already shown that they’re state bootlickers, so they can continue licking those boots.

  3. I’m a bit torn on this, to be honest.

    On the one hand, I would typically be in favor of maintaining the freedom of private enterprises to set their own rules.

    On the other hand, why should they feel entitled to *any* of my private health information? I’m not a big fan of the idea of vaccine passports.

    And normally, one might say that it’s possible to just go somewhere else if you don’t like the rules at one place. Well, we only have a two major full-service grocers in our area, for instance. What if they both get together, collude, and decide that they are both going to require vaccination proof for entry? Two companies have like 80% of the market share. That’s a severe limitation on where someone can shop, should they individually choose to either a) not get vaccinated, or b) maintain their privacy.

    1. The purpose of the vaccine passports are to single out people who don’t believe/are complicit enough to the government.

      1. But why would a grocer care about that? They’ll go out of their way to try to cater even to very narrow “dissenting” populations, such as of vegans or those who keep kosher or halal. You ask them to stock Sweetheart soap, there’s a very good chance they’ll bump that demand up the distribution chain to where it has some effect, even if you haven’t spent dollar one on it yet.

        1. No really caters to vegans – at least not for long.

          And kosher/halal communities are not exactly ‘narrow’. They’re pretty large groups. Hence why there are national certifying agencies. And once you’re certified, its not an issue for a grocer to carry your product.

        2. Trust me, I have steadfastly refused to slap that mug nappie accross my face, and as my due reward I’ve been kicked out or denied entry to a number of “grocers who don’t care” , In one case I got kicked out of one store, hopped into my car and drive a mile up the road, walked in, found my desired products, plopped them on the belt at checkout, paid for them in cash, nad a nice friendly chat with the checker, picked up my things and walked back out to the car. The first store COULD have had my money, but the bulldyke female mangler decided her powertrip bullying tumped her company’s ability to take my money.

        3. The grocers forced me to wear a face shield for a year and one of them didn’t even accept that.

    2. But why would they want to, if it hurts their business even a little bit? Their insurers aren’t going to insist on it, because insurers as a whole show better business sense and knowledge of the math than most.

      1. Because many corporations value politics over profits.

      2. Because people are compliant and break resistance at the first sign of hardship.

        And if more people get vaccinated to shop at their store and shop at the pharmacy and go out to their favorite restaurant and to go to a great hang out spot, then their business wouldn’t really hurt from it.

        The only people that end up truly hurting are the ones who bite the bullet and refuse to comply.

    3. You’re either supportive of Public Accommodation laws or not.

      1. But public accommodation laws don’t hurt business. They are against freedom of contract, but more often than not they increase business, because then the business can say to even a broad boycott, “We can’t help it, we have to serve them by law.” So there won’t be a boycott by the majority, because it’s useless, so they wind up serving both minorities and bigots.

        1. because then the business can say to even a broad boycott, “We can’t help it, we have to serve them by law.”

          Assumes no one wants their local pizzeria to cater their wedding.

      2. Are you saying private businesses are not free to deny service to folks who, for any reason, they don’t approve of? [Even if they are white?] Why, “I’m shocked. Simply shocked I tell you.” “But, ‘No shoes, no shirt, no service’,” say they. “Only when backed up by scientific proof and and enforced with legally enacted legislation”, say I.

    4. First I tried to organize within my local community to do food runs to other jurisdictions. Blast it everywhere, that next week we are going to Acme Foods because they value freedom and the American Way, get your orders in now! Not a sustainable solution, but in the short term it would probably get one of them to balk especially if they saw a large drop in sales.

      Running to government should be seen as the last resort, not first.

      Added bonus, maybe Matthew McConaughey plays you in the Minadin’s Buyers Club.

      1. “Running to government should be seen as the last resort.” Correct: “A government big enough to give everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.” -Ronald Reagan

        1. ronald reagan? he might have said it, but he wasn’t the first one

    5. Imagine what ENB would write if hotels required an STD history of all unaccompanied female guests.

    6. They’re not entitled to your personal medical info just the same as you’re not entitled to their wares.

      Don’t want to offer it? Fine- go get whatever you need elsewhere. Seems pretty easy and just the same as no shirt, no shoes, no service.

      1. Hey, you wanted a society where the government can tell businesses what to do irrespective of private property rights.

        Don’t cry like a bitch now because it isn’t going in your favor, bitch. Bootlicking business owners can continue licking those boots and like it.

  4. This virus, and all appurtenances thereto, have become hopelessly politicized. The “pro- and anti-virus” sides now override any consideration of principle. The best we can hope is that this fever (heh) will pass, and that it’ll be a long time before another rises to its prominence.

    1. This. Exactly this.

      I can at least understand how the left has gone batshit crazy over vaccinated people and masks, but I don’t understand how the right has gone batshit crazy over anything meant to control the virus. Yeah a lot of the shut downs were way overdone but masks (earlier) and vaccination (now) are nothing. But Trump or something, I don’t know.

      1. I think Diane Paul summarizes it pretty well below Bevis. I don’t think the masks were nothing, it wasn’t fun to have a headache at the end of everyday with extended use or be told to wear it while you run (my mid distance 3 to 7miles pace is 10 miles an hour so please try it with a mask and let me know how great that is, and dont’ say run slower when staying healthy should be priority). That’s not nothing – you being partial to not caring about them in place is fine, but it’s not an honest statement to say they were nothing to some of us. I also love how Oregon law gets no attention but Texas etc. are forcing the iron fist on use by letting us be through a method that’s not great but better then the other side.

        1. Also why are we so concerned with passports when the case levels have been steadily going down for a while now? A fifth wave? it seems like this should be a non issue in total since we didn’t see a massive resurgence when mask and lockdown orders were repealed

          1. Because power.

        2. Yeah, masks are not nothing when you have to wear one for most of the day. There are real psychological and health consequences that are not trivial.

      2. Yeah a lot of the shut downs were way overdone but masks (earlier) and vaccination (now) are nothing.

        Because lying government kept valid medications away from patients to make this pandemic worse than it was and now I should trust them?

        I should have the right to options in my healthcare. Hydroxychloroquine works. Why should I risk an unknown when a suitable therapy is available?

        1. It most certainly does not but I support your right to be a jackass and take something that has no medical value against covid-19.

  5. Just so we’re all keeping up with current events maaaan, forcing businesses to close and mask mandates were violations of private property.

    1. Fifteen state governments require people who are not yet fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to wear face coverings in most indoor public settings. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also have mask orders in place.

      Remaining state mandates vary in detail (for example, exemptions for children range in cutoff age from 2 to 12), but broadly speaking, they require masks in indoor public spaces such as restaurants and stores. Where masks are still required outdoors, the rules apply when people are unable to maintain 6 feet of distance from others.

    2. The End of California’s Lockdowns
      Wednesday: State officials said they planned to lift all pandemic restrictions except the mask mandate on June 15.

    3. The move will allow Californians — regardless of which county they live in — to return to restaurants, bars, movie theaters, houses of worship and concerts without strict capacity limits for the first time in more than a year. President Biden has said there will be enough vaccines available for all adults in the country by the end of May.

      The land of the free! Take that, Florida and Texas!

      1. Having, in my checkered past, been a carrier of hazardous materials and, in that capacity, having to test real mask’s for integrity, let me ask you a couple of questions: 1., Are Covid-19 viruses larger or smaller than odor molecules? 2., If larger, then why can you smell those burgers on the grill when you’re by the local greasy spoon/fast food joint? If smaller, what, exactly, are those masks protecting you from?

    4. California Will Impose Its Strongest Virus Measures Since the Spring
      Millions of people across Southern and Central California are likely to see outdoor dining shuttered, playgrounds roped off and hair salons closed within days.

      This was well-thought, cautiously directed public policy.

      Texas banning such moves will threaten the very fabric of our Democracy! Liberty ends as we know it when you leave California and enter Texas! Who would want to start a business in Texas when you’re not allowed to demand a vaccine passport! The choice is clear, if you want real freedom to do business, stay in California.

    5. Apparantly we don’t talk about private property violations when they’re ‘following the science’. Even when they’re not.

      1. And we won’t talk about a coordinated effort between government officials, press and a small group of dudes in Silicon Valley who wear sandals, fly on private jets and drink $60 a bottle mineral water to silence any science which questioned the need or efficacy of lockdowns.

        1. Partly because this particular group of people’s coordinated efforts also had a political motive that was shared by this publication.

    6. Thanks, Paul. Anyone who hasn’t been loudly condemning all of those violations of private property rights for the past year + needs to shut the fuck up now. We saw basically a complete totalitarian takeover of most of the country (and world). That’s the fucking problem and any politician trying to make sure that won’t happen again is who we need to be supporting right now, however imperfect they may be. I’ve usually been a real stick-to-principle guy, but this has been so awful that I’m now pretty much single issue. I don’t care what other crazy shit you think. If you want to prevent further public health tyranny and are doing something about it, you are the friend liberty needs right now.

      1. The entire country (and I won’t even talk about Europe) has been legally and brutally sodomized by Democrats, and now I’m supposed to be filled with anger and righteous indignation that one drawling red state politician with a ten gallon hat, cowboy boots and a ‘God is my Copilot’ bumper sticker is trying to pass a law saying that private business can’t require being sodomized before entering…

        We’ve lost something… and I fear we may never get it back.

        1. We’ve lost something… and I fear we may never get it back.

          Or, conversely, we’ve gained something and it may be too late for even the most systemically destructive treatments.

      2. So because politicians over the last year plus were irrational and disorganized in the shit they forced on us, anybody now who tries to do something rational should be shot down as well.

        Because, honestly, keeping unvaccinated people off of cruise ships – which are in the best of times disease factories – makes a lot of sense.

        1. Bevis I don’t mean to come after you multiple times but want to resond. Again you are treating this like a.) the black plague and b.) that the people who haven’t gotten vaccinated at this point don’t understand the less than a percent risks. I also agree with Zeb – it’s now cool to push against people trying even though imperfect rather than the psycho Fauci’s of the world who we deemed as Saints for their god awful treatment of us and any wrong thought.

          1. My daughter worked in a Covid ICU, so I understand it a bit. There’s been enough time that the differences between vaccinated and not are starting to show and it’s stark. The pandemic is over for vaccinated people. Fur the unvaccinated things are about like they were in January.

            We should be free to move on. The left clinging to their masks with all the “how do we know they’re not lying about being vaccinated” is terminally stupid. And although I’m vaccinated I have no intention of ever carrying a vaccine passport.

            But keeping people at risk away from certain situations is simply prudent. Cruises are a perfect example. People who have chosen to not vaccinate have knowingly chosen to stay at risk and, well sorry but that choice has consequences.

            1. My daughter worked in a Covid ICU, so I understand it a bit.

              “COVID” ICU? Bullshit. Name the “COVID ICU” where your daughter worked. My bet is it carries the same name it carried in November of 2019.

              Fur the unvaccinated things are about like they were in January.

              So the vaccinated transmit the disease at the same rate and nobody comes by immunity naturally? Again, bullshit.

              1. It was an intermediate care unit in a major hospital in the Houston Medical Center. Three times during the surges they converted it to an ICU to handle the covid overflow and it was 100% covid patients. Very sick people, many of whom died alone and others of whom are permanently damaged. A 24 year old who got a heart/kidney transplant (the first of that combo ever) and now has maybe a 5 year life expectancy and has small children.

                We couldn’t see her face to face between April and December of last year (when she was vaccinated) because the risk was too high. Several of her coworkers got the disease, fortunately she didn’t and fortunately none of her friends died.

                So fuck off with your politically influenced bullshit. You have absolutely no knowledge of what you’re talking about.

                1. Eat a bullet, bevis.

                  1. Typical rational response Nardz. Trump has eaten away your brain.

                    1. I’m not sure there was much to begin with honestly.

              2. Look at this snowflake getting harmed by facts. It’s ok- you can stay in your make believe world where covid never existed and is overblown. The 500k+ who died in this country alone sadly don’t have that option anymore.

            2. But keeping people at risk away from certain situations is simply prudent.

              With a widely available vaccine, there’s no longer a Commons issue. People who are unvaccinated can live with their choices. There’s no need to use force to “protect” them.

              1. I thought this entirely true until fairly recently. The more I’ve read into virology, the more I’ve become unsure. I know I’m tired of it as much as the next guy when the news reports a new “even scarier than the last” mutation. But the truth of the matter is, so long as you have a decent amount of population passing around a virus back and forth, it will mutate many times over. While most will be benign and meaningless ; there is no reason except utter evolutionary randomness that this strain wasn’t more deadly or resistant to vaccination. There is no great reason I can think of to make an assumption that it will just fizzle out. So it sort of seems like the unvaccinated are choosing to let the people who risked getting vaccinated for what they felt was a responsible good for the nation (something I’ve always placed close to Conservatism) risk having done it for nothing. And for what? Because they are scared? To prove some point about their liberal individualism? And what if you are wrong? Surely most of the people choosing to bypass the vaccination are doing so for a myriad of reasons. But I am having a hard time picturing the lot of them sifting through virology studies to back up a very staunch position where if they are wrong….might kill many of their fellow countrymen.

                I’m frustrated because conservatism feels as if it is redefining itself into tribal ideas that don’t align with the original idealogy that actually does make America one of the greatest experiments in the world. It’s become more about spiteful adherence to dogmatic assumption than a reverence for the tenants laid forth by the founding fathers.

                Anyway, hope I didn’t come off shitty. Enjoyed reading everyone’s thoughts and wanted to share mine.

                1. This is called “concern trolling”

                  In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

                  Forcing people to take a drug that has not been approved by the FDA in order to participate in society is totalitarian and you are bugfuck nuts. This is a respiratory virus with a 1 in 10,000 fatality rate for people under 70 with fewer than 3 co-morbidities. Take your precautionary principle and shove it up your ass you fucking bootlicking worm.

                  1. This is called “ad hominem”. People use these argumentive tactics to strenghthen their argument if there isn’t too much else going on with it. It is most common in the school yard.

                    Now see what I’ve done? I’ve ad homined him. Made myself cringe there a bit.

                  2. I thought we didn’t care what the FDA thought? They are a government regulatory agency; libertarians should be making choices for themselves based on all the available evidence, not what some fucking gov agency says is best.

                    I got the shot, because AZ has made it clear if you get the shot you can tell everyone else to fuck off about the mask. Seems like a fair tradeoff; I didn’t even have to pay for the thing.

                    1. Damn fine bootlicking, ma’am

                  3. Nobody is forcing anyone. You’re a part of society or you’re not. Do SOMETHING for society and enjoy its benefits.

                    You’re just a freeloader. Do you also think you’re entitled to use the roads if you don’t pay taxes?

                    If you love freedom so much, then fuck off and leave society be. But you won’t because you think you’re entitled to everything in society without ever having to do anything as a member of that society.

                    Say it with me- I am a MOOCH and a FREELOADER who thinks I am ENTITLED to everything without giving ANYTHING.

                    1. You might have a point if we required proof of vaccination for any other communicable disease in order to participate in society.

                      Since we don’t, you can fuck off, fascist.

            3. But keeping people at risk away from certain situations is simply prudent. Cruises are a perfect example. People who have chosen to not vaccinate have knowingly chosen to stay at risk and, well sorry but that choice has consequences.

              We actually had an entire case study in COVID on a quarantined cruises ship. Maybe you should go do some research on that instead of histrionically screeching about your “daughter” working in a “COVID ICU” as an excuse for your emotionally-driven retardation.

              Now, if your magical vaccine works as well as it says on the sticker, what exactly are you risking by being on a cruise ship with an unvaccinated person? Even in the astronomically low probability that they are pre-symptomatic and carrying the virus, aren’t you protected by the vaccine? Whose life are they risking besides their own? Why is the consequence for accepting a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from a simple respiratory virus being closed off from participating in society alongside people who are immune from the virus? It sounds like you’re either incredibly stupid, or you don’t have quite as much faith in your talismans as you pretend you do.

        2. No, it doesn’t.

        3. I think that it was much worse than “irrational and disorganized”. It was an all out assault on our most essential freedoms. Trying to make sure that doesn’t happen again is far more important than minimizing deaths from this one particular virus.

      3. Well said Zeb. Reason has been extremely selective in their defense of property right over the last year +.

    7. This position is not correct. The Anglo-American legal tradition allowed infringement of property rights to protect public health going back to the Black Death in the 14th century, including quarantines and compulsory wearing of protective clothing. Professor Volokh himself has posted about this in the past.

      1. Some, some infringements are ok, Explain why other are not?

      2. Leftists are a public health crisis.
        You ready for that?

      3. You. Don’t. Quarantine. Healthy. People.

    8. ” forcing businesses to close and mask mandates were violations of private property.”

      Reason’s double standards and flexibility on principles are nothing if not entirely predictable.

      But don’t think Boehm understands any of this, he’s just a stenographer.

  6. Of course we’re also supposed to pretend we haven’t noticed that no private business would ever dream of making such demands if not for over a year of nonstop government propaganda and totalitarian decrees.

    1. Shush that. Who cares how long and how many were thrown in front of the firing squads, we must not allow a backlash!

      1. I think you should at least be admit that a “backlash” is unprincipled.

        1. It is unprincipled from a libertarian point of view– certainly. And I have been (and have repeatedly stated) that I am categorically against these interventions, including the legal ones trying to tell big tech who they can and can’t censor.

          However, I’m taking great pleasure in seeing what gets other people animated after a year of being legally brutalized by a band of coastal zealots which received either silence or begrudging agreement.

    2. And entitlement and spending. No shirt, no shoes, no service was racist but ‘Vaccine papers, please!’ is OK because the government bought enough vaccines for everyone to get them for free.

  7. In a Rush To Ban Vaccine Passports, Texas Is Violating Private Property Rights

    Why do we not see countervailing articles lamenting the violation of private property rights that are government mandates *for* vaccine passports?

    Government wants to violate private property rights by mandating passports – that gets what? One article.

    Government wants to violate property rights by forbidding passports – that’s being yelled from the tops of the trees across the forest.

    1. Conservatives are authoritarian.

      Liberals are totalitarian.

      If I get a choice I’ll go with the former.

      1. One wants to pass a law saying you can’t bar the public if they refuse to wear pieces of flair.

        The other kicked in your door, raped the women, burned the business down and seized your bank accounts because you refused to closed during a lockdown.

      2. At least the conservative authoritarian mandates will come at a predictable pace.

  8. In case you’re wondering what the bill _actually_ does, here’s a summary:

    “Those that violate the ban may not contract with the state, and state agencies that oversee various sectors of business may decide to make compliance with the state law a condition of getting licensed or permitted.”

    1. Killjoy. Why bring up such unrelated items as the actual bill?

    2. don’t read the text of the bill, otherwise we’lll discover they didn’t end qualified immunity at all!

    3. “We will “merely” NOT permit or license your business if you do not comply! That is, you must comply with ALL of our decrees that say YOUR business is OUR collective-Hive business! And STOP being such a cry-baby about it!”

      Right-wing Marxists are now out-doing left-wing Marxists, pooping ALL over the idea of “your property is YOUR property”!

      All Hail the Collective Hive!

      1. If instead he wanted to get rid of all business licensing, I could get behind that. Not allowing them to contract with the state seems quite reasonable and appropriate.

  9. As long as the businesses have full, unlimited, joint and several liability for any and all future effects from the unapproved vaccine, and the businesses follow the science and exempt fertile women, youth, and those who have survived the Communist Chinese Virus, then Bob’s your uncle.
    Customers can just take their business elsewhere, but employees are not really all that free.
    No one seems to care that the vaccine(s) were not tested on fertile women for future effects on “clumps of cells” that might briefly reside in their wombs, and no long term studies have been done at all, hence the emergency designation. Likewise, the effects on the young have not yet been fully studied. Restricting vaccine proof is no more or less “legal” than the lockdowns, mask mandates, mandated distancing, or any other silliness required by petty tyrants in the name of “science”. Yet suddenly now it is just awful that some politician is getting involved.
    I call bullshit.

  10. Cuomo good Abbott baaaaad.

    1. It’s almost as if both can be authoritarian pieces of shit.

      1. anyone seeking elected office …

        1. Yep. The people who don’t want to control other people have no interest in elective office.

      2. It’s almost as if protecting people’s medical privacy and ensuring that they can’t be forced to take a non-FDA approved drug as a condition of participating in society is not in any way shape or form authoritarian, while placing people on a 2 year long house arrest because of a respiratory virus with a 1 in 10,000 fatality rate actually is authoritarian and you’re just a bootlicking sack of shit who supports the latter but not the former because you’re a ignorant, brainless, impotent little pussy bitch who thirsts for control to compensate.

  11. “No business or government entity can require a person to provide a vaccine passport, or any other vaccine information, as a condition of receiving any service, or entering any place.”

    Any vaccine? I’ve lived in Texas since Nixon was president, and all of my kids were required, every year, to show that their vaccination status was up to date as a condition of being able to attend school. Including college.

    Have we cancelled that now and we’re going to go easy on stuff like the measles as well, or are we just going to go easy on vaccination for the virus that’s currently the most prevalent in the population. Because doing that would be, you know, really fucking stupid.

    But at least some of the most zealous idiots supporting Abbott get a little red meat.

    1. Any chance at all that there is a difference between a government propaganda facility and a ‘private’ business?

      1. The statement treats both equally.

    2. Government should never have mandated vaccines in the first place. My body, my choice.

      1. What are you talking about. Government hasn’t mandated vaccination.

        1. So what you said two posts up from here about your kids being mandated to have vaccines was a lie?

    3. Do you have to show proof that you have received a measles vaccine before you go into the grocery store? Or, in the alternative, should you be forced to show proof of receiving a chicken pox vaccine, even though you had the virus as a child and have natural immunity? Private businesses attempting to use vaccine passports is a gross violation of our personal liberties and privacy rights. We regulate businesses all of the time and keep them from invading our privacy (HIPAA).

      1. Kaye,
        They are following the advice of their lawyers. Through out this entire mess no Government entity has given businesses any protection from liability. This is why you see the airlines going above and beyond when it comes to passengers wearing masks. Work all of your life to build a business just to have a trial lawyer take it all away over a bullshit lawsuit.

    4. The MMR vaccine has been fully FDA approved for decades and has a lengthy safety and efficacy record. The COVID-19 vaccine is not FDA approved and was trialed for 3 months in healthy adult individuals only.

      Measles, mumps and rubella also cause death in children, albeit at a very low rate. The number of childhood deaths caused by COVID-19 expressed as a percentage is 0.

      But at least you got to virtue signal and run your brain dead mouth about shit you do not understand at even the most rudimentary level and get your little clit-dick all swole for “papers, please”.

  12. I have to agree that a business requiring that you provide medical information in order to receive service is appalling. As much as I hate to say it, we do need government regulation preventing it to prevent non-government agencies from forcing it. What would happen if Visa and Mastercard refused to take cards from any business who did not mandate vaccine passports? Given that these companies have used their banking power as political leverage in the past year, I do not believe this fear is unreasonable.

    That being said, I do think that there should be an allowance for situations where there is a special reason. Notable planes, cruises, and any medical office (due to prolonged exposure and vulnerability respectively). There should also be some form of backup (if you cannot get a vaccine, you must wear a mask. That sort of thing).

    1. There should also be some form of backup (if you cannot get a vaccine, you must wear a mask. That sort of thing).

      How about: if you prefer not to provide your medical information, you must contribute $5 toward gain-of-function research. That sort of thing.

      1. For the children…

    2. That being said, I do think that there should be an allowance for situations where there is a special reason. Notable planes, cruises, and any medical office

      Yeah we wouldn’t want those unvaccinated swine passing the virus to the vaccinated people who are, supposedly, immune to the virus as a result of the vaccine…

      If you abject fucking retards actually believe that vaccines work, what the fuck are you on about?

      1. Medical offices often have vulnerable people with weakened immune systems.

        The enclosed spaces of airplanes also greatly enhance the spread of disease in anyone who is vulnerable, such as the elderly.

        Vaccines aren’t magic. They rely on the patient’s immune system. There are situations where that’s not reliable.

        1. “The enclosed spaces of airplanes also greatly enhance the spread of disease…”

          Except in this case they actually don’t.

          Or don’t you believe the science?

          We now know that household transmission was the primary means of transmission.

  13. I do get the butthurt in this thread. But still, principles matter. If we’re going to seriously reflect on a legit Conservative/Libertarian response to the totalitarian shitshow of the last year, the focus of efforts should be on constitutional amendments and other restraints that prevent these open ended authority grabs that allow for the insane micromanagement we saw.

    1. If we’re going to seriously reflect on a legit Conservative/Libertarian response to the totalitarian shitshow of the last year

      Reason, Cato, Niskanen, and every other Koch-sucking libertarian organization in the United States full-throatedly supported “the totalitarian shitshow of the last year”.

    2. If the governments job is to protect our individual rights, wouldn’t this law be doing that? Personally, it’s nobody’s fucking business what vaccines I’ve gotten.

  14. Oh, nonsense. A ‘vaccine passport’ (Papieren, shnell!) is a private medical document that most private businesses have no entitlement to. Governments perhaps have that authority (when travelling, verifying you have your yellow fever vaccination) but a coffee shop does not.

    If business wants to limit themselves to only those vaccinated, its free to do so – but without government complicity via private medical records.

  15. God forbid they require a business to serve the unvaccinated. Next thing you know they will be required to serve colored people. Slippery slope.

    1. Damn right. People who choose not to get vaccinated should be treated by business exactly the same as people who choose to be colored.

      1. We call them “Skin Lightening Surgery Hesitant”.

        1. They just aren’t self-quarantining indoors hard enough.

      2. I know right?

      3. What the fuck to does a lack of “choice” have to do with any of it?

        If you think those things matter then you surely must be in favor of Civil Rights law, and public accommodation law.

        And if you are in favor of those then you accept that it is entirely within government purview to dictate upon these matters.

        Meaning, while you can disagree with their action, you cannot argue they have no ability to act.

        So, eat it.

        Or, you really don’t think that “choice” or lack thereof really has any bearing. In which case you were just making a cheap shot for political gain.

        So, eat it.

      4. Yeah those fuckers who refuse to take a non-FDA approved drug deserve to be separated from society so that they don’t spread their cooties to vaccinated people who are immune to the cooties.

        I wish you actually had a daughter so I could wish she got raped and murdered in front of you.

  16. So, every private business in Texas has to do the government’s bidding. Who the hell does Texas think it is — California?

  17. Since the government WILL pressure businesses to implement this atrocious depopulation scheme, businesses will need cover – say a prohibition from the state – to avoid getting trapped in our Nazi-reminiscent massive medical experimentation rollout.

    Saying that companies should have the right to set conditions for employment in the face of such state-sponsored terrorism is disingenuous at best.

  18. By reason’s logic, ANY requirement on private business by the civil rights act of 1964 would be just as illegal as this prohibition on asking for vaccine passports in Texas. But reason is more work than libertarian today, so they’re not gonna go there because minorities are involved.

    1. ugg, woke, not work

      1. Are you claiming you know more than the squirrels?

    2. The Civil Rights act, and following legislation, state very specifically what it covers. For those things not covered, I would leave it up to the individual businesses and their patrons. I don’t see any difference between expecting businesses to enforce a law requiring their patrons to wear a mask, or forcing them, under threat of law, not to be able to ask their patrons to wear a mask, or at least answer a question re their vaccination status. Both are an overreach of government.

    3. This.

      Bake the Cake ‘libertarians’ really have no credibility when it comes to state ‘imposition’ on private enterprise.

      1. I tend to agree with that. But, to be technical, it isn’t about baking a cake — it’s about how the baker is asked to decorate it. Is decorating a cake art, and therefore protected speech? I tend to think so. SCOTUS found a clever way to dodge that question.

        1. I think that’s angels on the heads of pins level horseshit.

          Or, if you prefer something less spicy, pure sophistry.

          1. Except the gay couple were free to purchase any existing cake in the bakery.

            So the argument is about special cake which ultimately is about decoration.

            1. It’s about compelling speech from a business.

              Trying to pretend that any sort of characterization or classification of the type or manner of speech matters one iota IS sophistry.

              They asked him to do something he didn’t want to do. It should end there. But it doesn’t because “civil rights” and “public accommodation” say the state can get involved in private contracts and private associations.

        2. Ahh yes, the artistic expression clause in the first amendment. We can’t just go around giving protection to mere commercial speech.

          1. Thomas Jefferson clearly understood this. Must be someone else’s ghost here.

  19. How would you feel about private businesses requiring their customers to have annual flu shots or HPV vaccinations? Any difference beyond that they would lose business with those whereas the public has been scared into submitting to “COVID” regulations?

    1. I guess proof of HPV vaccination of potential patrons might be a good idea for houses of prostitution……

      1. I’ve been assured you can get herpes from a toilet seat. So any place with a public restroom should demand proof of HPV vaccination.

  20. The bill only bans them for businesses with state contracts I believe…so very few. This is just Republican shitposting masquerading as policy.

    1. PLEASE at least read the above article before lying about what is going on!

      From the article which you apparently did NOT read!

      The legislation uses several different state levers to strong-arm businesses into compliance. It weaponizes governmental occupational licensing requirements—something Abbott has rightly railed against in other contexts—and threatens to withhold “a license, permit, or other state authorization necessary for conducting business in this state” should a company run afoul of the law.

      1. Or, you know, you could actually read the text of the bill without the scare quotes and ellipses and find out that it actually says:

        Those that violate the ban may not contract with the state, and state agencies that oversee various sectors of business may decide to make compliance with the state law a condition of getting licensed or permitted.

        But hey, you wouldn’t be sarcasmic if you weren’t ignorant and arrogant in equal measure. Now go cash your welfare check, pick up another bottle of jack, and tug your shriveled clit-dick to the memory of fucking your underage daughter you sadsack piece of shit pedophile.

        1. “…and state agencies that oversee various sectors of business may decide to make compliance with the state law a condition of getting licensed or permitted.”

          Same as what the article said. brady949 read neither the article above, or the raw law-words, and LIED to us, about how SMALL the new Government Almighty power-grab is here. Now hyper-partisan Alfred The Evil feels compelled to hurl stupid insults at one who corrects the lying!

          The below web page describes YOU, and why you feel that you must insult people who are more honest, ethical, and moral than you are!

          1. eye roll

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

  21. It should also be noted that the passport is just a proxy and has nothing to do with other infectious diseases. That is to say, if the businesses were banning people for oozing mucus and excessive coughing we might be talking about a conscious or concerted effort to avoid the spread of infection. They aren’t, they’re requiring a piece of paper that, in no way, guarantees immunity or inability to transmit anything.

    1. Voter ID is Nazism. Immigration visas are Nazism. Vaccine passports are the glorious future. Papers, please.

  22. This may be a good start.
    Next we save Medicare/Medicaid millions by mandating all gay bars to require a negative HIV result for admission.
    Then we can move on to checking BMI at the restaurant door, to save Medicare.

    1. It only seems fair, if you have the privilege of dictating who must provide you your baked confections then other accommodations surely have the right to know your health status.

  23. Your Canasta club, gun club, membership only wholesaler or Costco canindeed set their own rules and standards. No one HAS to join that entity to survive.
    Nearly every business is a “public accomodation”, and as such can be forced to abide by certain standards when it comes to who may/mayn’t enter their premises. Restaurants deny service to no shirt no shoes folks, most times, as those are universal health laws. Same reasons grocery stores and restaurants are SUPPOSED to keep dogs out but many don’t enforce this.
    Public accomodations ARE subject to laws, and what Gov Abbott in Texas is doing is 100% right.. NO one in texas may be denied entry to a public accomodation based on injection status, thus none can require any proof of such status one way or the other. That informatioin is between myself and my health care providers.

    If I, as a customer, am not “comfortable’ entering George’s Bar because I see they are not verifying status on injections, I can do one of several things: I can go elsewhere, somewhere where I will “feel safe” (perhaps my own basement back home with its HEPA air circ system, UV biocide device, electrosonic noise generator etc, and do whatever there. Ir I can slap the mug nappie accross my face to “assure” my fraidycat self that none of those ” unwashed unvaccinated uncaring selfish” cretins are able to “share” the virus they cannot share anyway.
    You further assume, wrongly, that the “vaccine” actually confers immunity and/or prevents transmission from the injected party. The manufacturers clearly state the shots do not do this. READ their own brochures. I will leave the discussion on the safety of those injections for another time, but my decision is based purely on those risks/dangers. And for you to think I will allow MY liberties to be curtailed and/or threatened on these bases, guess again.

    Governor Abbott is doing the ONLY right thing.. placing government between those who would deny liberties to others on the flimsy bases they now attempt to do that, and those whose liberties are in need of protection. MY health decisions are MINE alone to make. I musst not be penalised because of which choices I make, and no business owner has the authority to dictate to ME how I make those choices. THAT is why federal laws are VERY clear that public accomodations may NOT deny or restrict services to anyone they choose to deny on whatever basis the public accomodation might decide. Study the statistics revealing the effectiveness of things like masks, sociual distancing” plastic sheilds, staying home, closing bars at midnight (or was it ten PM?) keeping crowds below fourteen in number (or was it twelve, I forget) slapping a nappie accross yer mug… most of which are worse than useless anyway, IF properly worn , and my MY personal observation I can say with authority that lfewer than five perceint, probabaly more like less than two prcent, of mask-wearers out in publkc are well outside the estalbished protocol for fitting, wearing, changing, which types, etc, thus rendering what was only moslty useless worse than useless, actually causing signficant harm to the wearer. Nor does that take into account the ones for whom those wretched devices cause actual measurable pysical harm.
    No, Abbott has it dead right.

  24. Who knew Boehm was such a staunch opponent of Civil Rights laws?

    You do oppose them Boehm, don’t you?

    Because otherwise your selectivity here would be a tremendous display of rank hypocrisy.

  25. Should private companies be allowed to demand customer’s health information as a condition of service? Can a Christian bookstore ask for drug tests against contraceptives? Can a gym require its members to take an aspirin when they enter? Can a daycare require children take an experimental sedative that has not been approved by the FDA but is not legally prohibited?

    This is not a simple freedom versus pointless regulation debate. There is a cost to allowing all of this.

  26. Seems like a lot of folks get it here. Denying the dem left the chance at implementing papers to buy or travel is sound legislation.

    This is all about 2022. Get elected or go home, GOP. Don’t listen to pedo faggot lincoln project asswipes.

  27. Maybe I’ve missed it here, or in the roundup discussion this am on the same topic. But I’ve yet to hear a good response to the fact that it was government (mostly Democrats) that has been forcing/coercing businesses to implement these restrictions in the first place, and the threat of future actions by government would probably impact decisions of a prudent business owner.

    I made a comparison to the private property argument for big tech censorship, which I also haven’t heard a good response to. When CEOs of big tech companies are brought before congressional hearings, and the Democrat politicians on the committees berate them for not censoring certain speech, their decisions to censor the exact same speech should be questioned as to whether it’s being compelled, if not directly forced, by government.

    1. The writers here are not interested in a discussion, much less entertaining the possibility of any alternative.

      This is all about narrative and nothing but narrative.

      1. I get that. I also get that the usual squawking birds aren’t capable of a legitimate discussion on the topic. But there are some commentators, particularly in the thread this am, that I think are generally capable of understanding this concept, that are ignoring it for some reason.

    2. And there were several other commentators that made the same point, also with no real response.

    3. It depends on your definition of coercion.

      If your definition of coercion is so loose as to mean that bloviating politicians making statements only, without any formal government action, can be considered to be *coercive*, then you are treading dangerously near the “speech is violence” crowd in terms of attributing power to mere words that they don’t deserve.

      And if that’s what you really mean, then just say so.

      IMO, genuine coercion has to involve one’s loss of free will. A person may fairly be considered to be coerced if that person may no longer be reasonably responsible for the decisions that he/she makes, due to the external forces coercing him/her.

      All of us make decisions that are not completely independent of our environment. If my dog continues to bark and bark, I will eventually let him out. Did my dog “coerce” me to interrupt my work and open the back door? No, but my dog’s behavior influenced my decision-making and persuaded me to let him out. So of course companies, or anyone else, are going to make decisions that are influenced by what government does, because government has a great deal of influence over everything nowadays. But as long as individuals retain their free will, and are free to either accede to, or reject, any particular influence, and be totally responsible for that decision, then it’s not coercion.

      1. So based on that metric, government is not coercing Big Tech firms to censor anyone. Government is of course attempting to influence the behavior of Big Tech. But government tries to influence the behavior of EVERYONE. They cross a line when the influence is transformed into coercion. That hasn’t happened.

      2. “It depends on your definition of coercion.”

        Thanks for leading off with this. Saved me some time.

      3. If your definition of coercion is so loose as to mean that bloviating politicians making statements only, without any formal government action, can be considered to be *coercive*, then you are treading dangerously near the “speech is violence” crowd in terms of attributing power to mere words that they don’t deserve.

        This is beyond hilarious coming from you after 4 years of histrionic pants shitting at every utterance of president Trump. Remember how Trump told people to inject bleach???!?!?!?!?!?!???!!!!!????!!!!!

      4. Oh also, remember how you spent a year and a half advocating for mask mandates because you were deathly afraid of the coof because of your lardass morbid obesity? Remember how you said the government has to step in if people are not responsible enough to wear the face mask voluntarily? I guess that wasn’t coercion either.

  28. CRA of 1964 Scott. It was there that Congress and later the SC decided that yes Govt had an interest in forcing economic transactions where one party disagreed. How do you feel about section 2 and 8 if I recall which had govt enter the private sphere? Once that Rubicon was crossed we have the confusion to this day from Christian Bakers to this. Govt should never discriminate or force people to..but it should end there. If you agree then you have to proclaim the CRA of 64 was flawed…ready to do that Mr. Libertarian?

  29. the flaw of the CRA 0f 64 was govt deciding they had the right to get in the act of forced economic transactions. Govt should not discriminate or pass laws forcing people to but beyond that it was about “social outcomes” and not liberty and that in a nutshell has led to the wokeness and tribalism we have today…those sections are inherently anti-liberty…libertarians are alwasys queasy when faced with these facts it seems.

  30. This is a misleading article, I agreed at first, but subsection C states that any business that fails to comply (require passports) simply are not eligible to receive grants or enter state funded contracts. Honestly no business should get state funded anything, so this is not as punitive as the article implies.

  31. Thanks, reason for talking on this topic no one else was talking about this.

  32. All right. Binion has a point here and you can make a libertarian argument for it. On the other hand it’s not an argument for individual liberty. Gotta wonder why every writer at Reason is determined to die on this hill. Out here in flyover country a lot of us don’t mind if government protects our individual liberty. I always thought that was it’s only legitimate function. And I’ve been a business owner for over thirty years.

  33. Bunion is either incapable of reading between the lines, or willfully stupid, or a partisan hack.

  34. Today, this method of attracting users is becoming more popular and the main reason for this is the rapid achievement of the desired results. If everything is set up correctly, you can feel the result of launching contextual advertising in the first day, which is what captivates many business owners and marketers.

  35. Just another day where reason commenter fascists ignore anything libertarian about the situation and show their love for authoritarianism, so long as it’s there side putting the boot down.

  36. Thank you for sharing this information with us. In fact, you can look at this situation from different angles and find pluses in the opinions of either side. And this is logical. On the one hand, the ban on clarification regarding the certificate of vaccination can provoke the development of new outbreaks of infection. On the other hand, of course, this already looks like an encroachment on a person’s personal will and a violent push for vaccination. Supporters of both one and the second opinion can be perfectly understood. But the main thing is that this does not lead to serious consequences, as it seems to me. Therefore, I am in favor of a peaceful solution to this issue.

  37. Where was Billy when a baker needed his property rights defended because he didn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding? Come on Billy, you can’t have it both ways.

  38. I disagree with the author on this point. I’m very pro vaccine but against discrimination through vaccine requirements such as passports – both by private companies or the government. Vaccine requirements essentially discriminate against somebody based on their health status, an extremely dangerous policy which can limit basic individual freedom. Moreover, it’s a violation of privacy. As a libertarian, I have a problem with that.

    There are so many complicated issues here. Many people are at low risk from Covid and reasonably choose not to take the vaccine which still has unknown risks. Some people may have a contraindication to the vaccine such as a history of an allergic reaction to vaccines. Others already have natural immunity from a Covid infection and rationally choose not to take the vaccine.

    Moreover, companies are private actors but often act as proxies for the government. And we also have reasonably decided as a society that discrimination against certain individuals based on health status, race, etc. should be illegal since it deprives that individual of basic freedoms necessary for life. In this case, it would deprive somebody of their livelihood. There are certain specialized employment situations where it might be reasonable – for instance, if somebody is in healthcare and caring for somebody who has a compromised immune system.

  39. Are any businesses doing this even in states where they theoretically could? I’ve only seen the “honor system” method, where they say you don’t need to mask if you’re vaccinated but don’t bother to ask for any proof

    My understanding is the only reason Texas and Florida are doing this is due to the cruise lines requiring proof of vaccination, and the only reason the cruise lines are requiring it is because the CDC says they have a 95% vaccination rate among passengers in order to leave port. Relax that requirement and the whole thing becomes moot

  40. using the author’s logic a business should be able to not allow black people into their business. after all they have freedom of association, right? of course this is offensive and ridiculous. take the vaccine passport argument to the extreme and imagine living in a city/town where all grocery stores required a vaccine passport. in that place you could not eat unless you’re vaccinated. the business is exercising it’s rights and in the process removing my ability to feed myself. these passports are a bad idea for so many reasons, but primarily because they are as unnecessary as the vaccine itself. this push for everyone to take an experimental drug for a disease that has a 99+% survival rate is beyond unnecessary. requiring citizens to take this vaccine so they can “get back to normal” is wrong on every level.

  41. Now do the same argument but use race… libertarians are just a bunch of lefty pussies.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.