Freedom, Responsibility, and Coronavirus Policy
Plus: The Reason Roundtable makes talking about taxes interesting.

Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie discuss the thorny relationship between individual freedom and coronavirus policy. Plus some tax talk and reconciliation bill updates, all on this Monday's Reason Roundtable.
Discussed in the show:
0:32: Is refusing the vaccine equivalent to "exercising the freedom to kill people"? What at this point is the relationship between freedom and COVID-19 policy?
26:57: Weekly Listener Question: An argument against sales and value-added taxes is that they lead to higher costs of goods that low-income workers rely on. A simplistic viewpoint of taxes and economics dictates that all taxes are eventually paid by consumers. This view implies product prices are adjusted to maintain profitability regardless of whether the tax burden paid to the government is a multiplier on the compensation of labor, value added to the goods, or total sales cost. If that understanding is true, am I missing the argument that any of the taxes are more progressive or regressive on the basis of causing a higher cost of goods? A counterargument could be made that income taxes weigh compensation of labor more heavily against the value of materials when viewed as the total tax burden passed on to consumers. Since the ultra-wealthy don't rely on wages but rather on the growth in value of their businesses and investments, income taxes should affect the wealthy the least. Are these arguments wrong, and are there better arguments out there to help steer the left parties away from income taxes?
36:30: A tax on unrealized capital gains in the reconciliation bill? What could go wrong?
45:59: Media recommendations for the week.
This week's links:
- "Media Try To Cancel In-N-Out Burger Over Refusal To Enforce San Francisco's Vaccine Passports," by Christian Britschgi
- "KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: September 2021," by Liz Hamel, Lunna Lopes, Grace Sparks, Ashley Kirzinger, Audrey Kearney, Mellisha, Stokes, and Mollyann Brodie
- "No, Biden, This Is About Freedom and Personal Choice," by Nick Gillespie
- "When It Comes to Coronavirus, Nobody Knows Anything" (video)
- "Dems plan billionaires' unrealized gains tax to help fund $2T spending bill," by Patrick Reilly
- "Dems Try To Pass Off $10,000 IRS Reporting Threshold as Merely Going After the 1 Percent," by Matt Welch
- "The tax on unrealized capital gains," by Tyler Cowen
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today's sponsors:
- Living in a digital age where your personal data are always under attack, your online privacy seems to be a thing of the past. Did you know there is a way to protect your information and privacy without worrying about Big Tech mining and stealing your private data? Introducing Sekur—an encrypted instant messaging and secure email service hosted in Switzerland, where the world's strictest data privacy laws are applied. Take back your privacy and online security with Sekur, by going to Sekur.com.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail …. Visit Here
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FRh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE
Let's Go Brandon
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $1850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.MYa You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here................ Pays 24
If you can still pass on the virus after being vaccinated, then no, refusal to submit is not freedom to kill people.
I decided to listen to this segment of the podcast to see what they would say and unfortunately they still miss it. The analogy they use to reason through it is not one that I believe accurately reflects the role of each participant (They use walking around throwing your fist through the air then punching someone). If this is the analogy they use, then I am not surprised they come to the conclusion that no vaccine means harming other people. My analogy that I think more accurately parallels the pathogen/vaccination discussion is:
You and I are neighbors living in an area where bears are known to exist and you do not have a fence. A bear walks across your property to get to my property. Did you exhibit any aggression toward me by not having a fence to stop that bear from crossing your property to get onto mine? The answer is obviously no. That bear may even come onto my property and cause damage, but you still did not infringe upon my rights. We begin to have a different discussion if you are raising bears then release them into the neighborhood or if you intentionally chase the bear onto my property. Barring those situations, you do not have a responsibility to stop that bear from crossing your property and coming onto my property.
Person was previously infected with COVID so has >13x the resistance than the vaccine.
Analogy: Previously infected person has 14' high concrete, rebar reinforced fence with barbed wire around the top. Vaccinated neighbor has 2.5' picket fence. Because the bear can't get rhough the 14' high concrete wall, he skips to neighbors house with easy fence to jump over.
Press: If you hadn't had your 14' concrete, rebar reinforced fence, the bear wouldn't have skipped you and attacked the other neighbor's dog. You're to blame for your neighbor's dog being eaten.
That made me laugh. You are right that the analogy can be extended to the size and construction of the fence.
Here is a better bear-themed analogy.
A bear wanders onto your property and sneaks into the trunk of your car. You don't realize the bear is in your trunk - or maybe you do, but you don't care - and you drive around town doing your normal errands. Every time you stop, the bear gets out and mauls people, then gets back in your trunk. So, do you have any responsibility for the bear that's in your trunk?
no.
Dumbest analogy yet. I have a bear in my trunk, you mind if I stop by?
That is a horrible analogy even for a jeffy. First, it is fallacious, the situation is absurd. Second, it is a conflation of being infected and being unvaccinated. Third, it is not an attempt to engage in honest discussion.
Third, it is not an attempt to engage in honest discussion.
Like when you called me an "insufferable cunt"? That's 'honest discussion', right? Fuck off. You don't want honest discussion, you want to call people names.
He was being honest when he said that.
You don’t want honest discussion, you want to call people names.
Actually, that is exactly what I want. You get called names when you refuse to engage in non-fallacious discourse. 'There's a bear in your trunk' is too ridiculous to dignify with anything but criticism and scorn. Wake the fuck up, buttercup.
Here’s a tongue twister. A Mormon discriminates against a non-Mormon Gay guy. He his taught by his church to do that? Who’s at fault?
According to the Mormon the gay is at fault.
You know, critical thinking skills would really improve your bullying. You should take a class or something.
You know what’s really ridiculous? Belonging to and financially supporting a church who’s scriptures have been discredited.
Quite the contrary, Mormons are very credible. Here's a start:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon
God bless.
"There's a bear in your trunk" is no more meant to be literal than "There's a bear in your backyard". YOU wake up and understand what an ANALOGY is. You shit all over my analogy while saying nothing about bears wandering all around Stonebraker's supposed yards. Gee I wonder why. It's because you don't care about bears or analogies, only about shitting on people and trolling them. You are no better than the right-wing morons around here like Jesse.
There’s a bear in your yard doesn’t have to be literal for there’s a bear riding around in your trunk to be ridiculous Lying Jeffy.
I have relatives in Alaska. They, on occasion, have bears in their yards. The situation regularly occurs and the idea that one might be accused of creating a situation that facilitates bears traveling through to a neighbor's property is plausible. It is readily related to facilitating a virus. It is a strong analogy.
I understand what an analogy is, and I understand the fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum. You deservedly got called out for derailing the conversation with an absurd analogy. Your argument that there is culpability for being unvaccinated is weak and indefensible except through absurd applications.
Here is an analogy CTSP will accept:
A bear wanders onto Joe Biden's property and mauls him. Is Joe Biden still senile? Discuss!
Youre really struggling today.
Here is an analogy CTSP will accept:
You confuse me with someone who takes pity when you shart TDS and it is dribbling down your leg.
At least he doesn’t believe a bunch of discredited nonsense and go to a church who’s members are overwhelmingly terrible human beings.
Old and stale observations. Smells like desperation.
On the contrary, Mormons are credible and very happy:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2012/06/30/mormon-fair-cast-94-gay-mormon-finds-happiness-in-churchs-teachings
Enjoy, and God bless.
Here's another analogy. A senile bare assed Joe Biden wanders onto your property. Fuck Joe Biden?
Jeff, you are truly retarded.
Oh oh, here's another analogy that the Chuckys and the Jesses will love.
A bear wanders into the Capitol on Jan. 6 and mauls Nancy Pelosi. Are Democrats still evil? Discuss!
Still struggling jeff.
Did Lying Jeffy get hacked by poor sarc?
Here's another one that Chucky might appreciate.
Democrats are evil and Democrats are evil and Democrats are evil and Democrats are evil. Are Democrats still evil?
And you went full retard. Good work.
Haha Lying Jeffy IS broke like sarc!
His AI is stuck in loop.
Take your meds.
That could be the stupidest thing you've ever said and that takes a lot.
I got a kick out of this one. Quite fanciful but a fun read nonetheless.
You are conflating unvaccinated with being sick in this analogy, which is a massive misrepresentation of being unvaccinated. Plus I believe that my "intentionally chasing a bear onto a neighbor's property" covers the situation where you are sick (regardless of vaccination status) but intentionally spread the disease to others.
No, not getting vaccinated is not the same as being actively sick. Although the likelihood increases if you're not vaccinated.
Plus I believe that my “intentionally chasing a bear onto a neighbor’s property” covers the situation where you are sick (regardless of vaccination status) but intentionally spread the disease to others.
So how is this different, in principle, than intentionally dumping pollution onto your neighbor's property? Wouldn't any good libertarian regard that as a violation of your neighbor's property rights? Why wouldn't this be the same?
Yes. I agree. That is why I started that sentence in my original post with “we begin to have a different discussion when…”.
Obviously there are some pretty big differences between the bear and pollution, but I agree that generally speaking if you intentionally chase the bear onto someone’s property, it would be akin to dumping pollution on their property. It somewhat muddies the water that you don’t truly have full control over the the bear.
Well, if dumping pollution on your neighbor's property is, at a minimum, a violation of the NAP, then wouldn't going in public while *knowingly* sick also be a violation of the NAP to the same extent?
Poor Lying Jeffy doesn’t know how pollution works.
Maybe I should have been more clear. I don’t necessarily disagree that going out into public while knowingly sick can be a violation of the NAP. That is why i listed the chasing the bear example as separate from my analogy.
However, I definitely see pollution as quite a bit different than bears/viruses. The pollution analogy does not recognize that there are three separate independent parties at work. I think it is an ok approximation for going out into public knowingly sick. In the pollution example, it is very clear that if I start a bonfire in my yard and the smoke goes into your house, I am an aggressor. However, the third independent party (virus/bear) does change things a little for me. The pollution analogy overstates the agression of the action, if that makes sense.
I hate getting into semantics discussions because I feel like it distracts from substantive discussion, but what constitutes going out into public? Obviously riding on a train full of people would be. But taking a walk in my neighborhood where I won’t see many people and can give them a wide berth if I do may not be even though I am out of the house. What about going to the hospital to receive treatment while sick? You are out in public while knowingly sick. Is that an agression? Maybe it is but to a lesser degree than going to a rave while sick. This is where I think my bear analogy can be extended even further. Going to the hospital for treatment could be like knowingly chasing a bear onto someone else’s property to protect your property from imminent danger. Going to the rave would be more like intentionally chasing a bear onto some else’s property when no danger is present.
Sorry if this is a bit rambling I am doing this on my phone in between doing other things. So my thought process is getting broken up.
I definitely see pollution as quite a bit different than bears/viruses.
Which is why jeffy moved those goalposts. If he can't argue against your strong analogy, he will try to confuse you into defending a weak one.
“So how is this different, in principle, than intentionally dumping pollution onto your neighbor’s property?”
The bear analogy really went soaring over poor Lying Jeffy’s head completely, didn’t it?
The likelihood only increases assuming you have not already had COVID, which a great deal of people have already had, ESPECIALLY people who work in the medical industry. You know, the ones that those wannabe fascists in New York fired. Not that surprising though considering Cuomo did his damnedest to kill off as many old people as possible, along with our 1st trans admiral in her position in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile if you have had COVID, you are significantly less likely to transmit the virus than someone who got the vaccine.
If they used the fist example then they would need to add tying everyone's arms to their sides whether or not they are throwing fists around. They are simply justifying/rationalizing their anti libertarian stances.
That could be the stupidest thing you’ve ever said and that takes a lot.
Except it is actually accurate since they are asking uninfectex people to wear masks idiot.
But I thought masks didn't work, Jesse? How could making people wear masks be "tying everyone's arms to their sides"?
Your non sequitur makes no fucking sense jeff. Are you even trying?
Oof.
Yeah. Their analogy doesn't hold up well to any scrutiny. First off, it is still conflating unvaccinated with being actively sick. Massive misrepresentation.
Also, you are right. In their example, the only mitigating "action" that could occur is deciding to have your arms tied down if you go out into public. I guess they would argue that deciding to not throw your fists around is the mitigating "action", but that does not account for the existence of a third independent actor, the virus.
Nor the visible requirements government requires with masks in various locals. They aren't trusting people to not just be sick and wear masks only when so.
If refusing a vaccine for something with a miniscule death rate amongst the majority of the population is exercising the right to kill people, you better get ready to give up most freedoms. The really stupid part of it is the fact that if the vaccines work as sold, nobody should give a shit who else is vaccinated.
>>What at this point is the relationship between freedom and COVID-19 policy?
acrimonious divorce. War of the Roses.
That implies that there was a relationship between freedom and COVID-19 policy to begin with.
figured most people think government dispenses both.
0:32: Is refusing the vaccine equivalent to "exercising the freedom to kill people"? What at this point is the relationship between freedom and COVID-19 policy?
Why would this even be a question? We have a flu season every year, people who didn't get the regular flu vaccine weren't vilified for "killing people"? We have a disease with a >99% survivability (confirmed by press reports which literally DENY there's a >99% survivability) and we're supposed to turn ourselves into a literal police state where papers are required to navigate every aspect of public life? And we call this issue "thorny"?
It's a travesty of western liberal values (racist!) and human rights.
I could fully get behind some restrictions to traditional liberty if we had a plague that was killing 1/3rd of the population, regardless of age or infirmity, or we were struck by some Hollywood virus that turned you into a raving zombie within 60 seconds of exposure. But that's not what we have here. What we have is a disease (likely released from a lab via Dr. Fauci's illegal shenanigans) that is very nasty for old, infirm people. Can be nasty for people in their 50s with poorly managed comorbidities, but becomes damned near benign for everyone else, almost reduced to a fractional rounding error for children.
>>if we had a plague that was killing 1/3rd of the population
stop giving them ideas lol
Not even one!
*ignores 16k dead from the vaccines*
If a plague was killing 1/3 of people, Karen wouldn't be ducking out for Starbucks twice a day.
The last I read 70% of the people dying in the U.K. are fully vaccinated. Just a thought, but what if the experimental vaccines are killing people? Originally these mrna vaccines would kill the animal subjects the more they were exposed to similar wild viruses that were related to the viral vectors in the vaccines. These tests were done on primates and ferrets.
A lot of people are questioning exactly that. Is there something that makes your immune system worse off once you have the jab? The vax only 'protects' against a specific section of the virus, meaning that it may ignore the virus all the way up until that point, at which it may be too late because the virus has already taken hold.
It's going to be an interesting winter.
The last I read 70% of the people dying in the U.K. are fully vaccinated.
What is your source for this claim?
The UK government.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf
You know he won't read the link not admit in future threads it was provided right?
Of course, but now it's there for us to refer to and point how he's ignoring it 😉
Your link does not validate the claim.
It really really does, but obviously you weren't actually going to look.
I read the link. I did not see anywhere that it said that "70% of the people dying in the U.K. are fully vaccinated". But perhaps you can point to the specific location where you claim that it does, and I'll take another look.
Page 22. It's a sample. 30% unvaccinated; 61% fully vaxxed; 9% partially vaxxed.
0:32: Is refusing the vaccine equivalent to “exercising the freedom to kill people”? What at this point is the relationship between freedom and COVID-19 policy?
That depends, should the issue be approached from a deontological perspective or a utilitarian perspective?
From a utilitarian point of view, it depends on the cost/benefit analysis. If COVID is not very harmful, then it doesn't really matter whether it represents a "freedom to kill people" or not. The cost associated with trying to stop people from killing people by spreading COVID is larger than the cost associated with the people who die from COVID. At least under this analysis.
But if we approach this from a deontological perspective, then it doesn't matter how deadly (or not) COVID or any disease is, what matters is the principle of the matter. This is the more interesting discussion IMO. If a person is sick, knows he/she is sick, but nevertheless goes in public and spreads the disease to others, which causes them some measure of tangible harm, then I think a case can be made that this activity represents a type of negligent behavior.
Looking at this definition of negligence (in the sense of a tort, not criminal negligence):
Four things together determine negligence. A negligence lawsuit will succeed only if the plaintiff proves all four of the following elements:
Duty of Care: The duty of care requires the use of ordinary care to prevent injury to others. It’s determined on a case by case basis.
Breach: The duty of care is breached when the defendant fails to exercise reasonable care. It can be an act or omission that is not compatible with the standard of care exercised by an ordinary prudent person.
Defendant Caused the Plaintiff’s Loss: The breach must be the legal cause of harm suffered by the plaintiff, that is both the actual cause and the proximate cause. Actual cause exists when but for the breach, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury. Proximate cause exists when the type and extent of the injuries suffered where reasonably related to the breach.
Plaintiff suffered Damages: The plaintiff must suffer damages that can be remedied by monetary compensation. The mere breach of duty is not enough. The damages cannot be contingent or speculative.
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/intentional-vs-negligent-torts.html
I think a reasonable argument can be made that if a person knows he/she is sick with a contagious disease but goes out in public anyway, and causes someone else harm by spreading that disease, then that person has "failed to exercise reasonable care" to prevent harm to others.
If a person is sick, knows he/she is sick, but nevertheless goes in public and spreads the disease to others
The question you referenced was: "Is refusing the vaccine equivalent to “exercising the freedom to kill people?" That is not the question you answered.
Refusal to vaccinate and refusal to quarantine are two completely independent issues. Are you conflating them purposefully, or do you not understand the difference?
The question you referenced was: “Is refusing the vaccine equivalent to “exercising the freedom to kill people?” That is not the question you answered.
---------
So weird he answered a totally different question!
Yeah, based on his 'there is a bear in your trunk' analogy above, the conflation is deliberate.
But if we approach this from a deontological perspective, then it doesn’t matter if it is deliberate or not, what matters is that jeffy is an insufferable cunt regarding the matter.
Right so the only reason you responded was to call people names. How typical.
You can admit bears in a trunk is fucking stupid if you wish to have an honest conversation.
I asked an honest question. Which I notice you still didn't answer. In the meantime, I saw your bear analogy above and figured you were intent on continuing to conflate quarantine and vaccination.
How typical.
Bullshit. You are being your usual dishonest self.
From above:
Me:
You don’t want honest discussion, you want to call people names.
You:
Actually, that is exactly what I want.
You want to troll, just like the Jesses around here.
Is this whole victim signaling thing the go to for you leftists now?
From above:
Me:
You don’t want honest discussion, you want to call people names.
You:
Actually, that is exactly what I want.
You have to ignore the context to get an admission of trolling out of that. From above the above:
"Third, it is not an attempt to engage in honest discussion."
In context, 'exactly what I want' is clearly honest discussion, not to call names. You can't find an example of me being dishonest, because none exist.
And notice that you still didn't answer the question. Quelle surprise.
Refusing to vaccinate and refusing to quarantine ARE two different issues but they are not completely independent. They are related by the same idea, at least as far as the negligence discussion goes - what is the proper 'duty of care' here?
I'm sure you'll have a thoughtful and logical response to this question right after you're done calling me a few more names, right?
You dont deserve logical thoughts jeff. You aren't even positing libertarian ideals. Youre simply rationalizing your demands and preferences as requirements.
Not even close. I just got over covid (it was a cold). I isolated because that's what people do. I don't need the jab's protection from the virus because I already have protection from the virus.
In fact, I'm far more protected than the people who have only gotten jabbed. When are they going to stop being so selfish and do what's best for the community, which is catching the virus and getting over it so they can't spread it further?
but they are not completely independent. They are related by the same idea, at least as far as the negligence discussion goes – what is the proper ‘duty of care’ here?
Whoa. If you want to have an honest discussion, you have to make a sound logical argument for that. That was not part of your original post and I have already asserted that they are independent. There is no 'duty of care' required and no negligence if I am not known to be infectious.
Perhaps one reason you get preemptively called names is for completely disregarding the other person's position by leapfrogging over valid points instead of engaging them.
I have already asserted that they are independent.
Your assertion is false.
And no, your trollish behavior is not my fault. It is your own character flaw.
Your assertion is false.
LOL! Given a chance to engage in honest discourse, you refuse. You can't defend your premise so you pout and stomp like a child telling me I am being mean.
Please, continue to embarrass yourself.
All that effort, when you could have just said. "Derp!"
Weird how you condition it on people knowingly being sick when you demand mask usage for even the non infected. Almost like you're a dishonest cunt.
Weird how you continually insert words into other people's mouths because your only purpose here is to troll.
You cannot argue against me the person, so you invent a stereotype and try to shove it in my mouth.
We can't argue against the person because the person keeps ducking the questions and bringing up irrelevant shit. I'm done with you.
What questions?
Ask questions of me, and not of some caricature, and I'll answer.
Ask questions of me, and not of some caricature, and I’ll answer.
You just demonstrated above that you won't. Your ego protective behavior is on display for all to see today.
You have supported masks one everybody have you not? Let's see if you can be honest.
Covid is much much much more based on seasonality than whatever stupid NPIs we dream up. You can see the side-by-side comparisons for yourself!
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/seasonality-a-story-in-pictures
If resistance to childhood vaccines - required to attend public schools in even the reddest of states - reached the level of the resistance to Covid vaccines, there would rightly be similar governmental actions to enforce them. Mandates followed this idiotic behavior, just like the high number of deaths and ICU suffering did.
How some libertarians have decided an issue concerning public health is really about their "freedom" shows pretty clearly they are drama queen snowflakes, not serious persons.
I absolutely agree with the libertarian position that vaccines should be optional and not mandatory. You absolutely own your body, and that holds just as true for drugs as well as for vaccines. The state should not forbid you from taking drugs, and the state should not mandate you to take drugs either. It entirely ought to be one's own choice.
And the justification for this position rests in no small part on the idea that each individual's own enlightened self-interest will be enough to convince him/her to take a vaccine willingly rather than risk a terrible illness. JUST AS, a person's own enlightened self-interest will be enough to convince him/her to refrain from starting a heroin habit willingly rather than risk a terrible addiction. Obviously that is not true of everyone, but it should be true of most people.
The problem occurs when individuals are genuinely unsure about what one's true enlightened self-interest is. In the current age, there is so much information, so much of it contradictory, and furthermore so many demagogues willing to seize on every bit of contradiction in order to push narratives and agendas, it can be very difficult for individuals to know what the proper course of action is. So they just default to their natural instincts or "gut feelings". It isn't a big surprise why so many Republicans have rejected the vaccine - it's because they don't think they can trust the messengers, and so they rely on their anti-government instincts. If the government recommends something then it must be a bad idea! That has been conservative orthodoxy for the past 40 years now.
The proper course of action is twofold: 1. persuasion, as best as possible; and 2. elimination of the 'commons', or in other words, that individuals who make a choice bear full responsibility for both the privileges and benefits, as well as the consequences, of that choice.
The problem chemjeff is that the consequences of some choices fall on others and any society which values and practices self preservation will rightly not tolerate those which seriously impact the survival of it's members. I am not a Libertarian, though I thought I understood the principals, but maybe not. It it includes a respect for reason - the name of this magazine, so I guess so - it cannot then advocate for clearly irrational acts, such as leaving societal and individual survival up to the free will of some members, who will certainly never all be rational. I don't get the impulse toward purity I witness here and which is the only justification for such a radical interpretation. It borders on the religious, not the rational, and so "faith" would be the more relevant aspiration, not "reason" of such beliefs.
You spend the entire thread demanding vaccination for everyone then you "agree" they should be voluntary? Galactic levels of dishonesty there, but par for you I guess.
I think you misunderstand what I wrote social, but I would point out vaccines are voluntary. No one is being hog tied to get their shot.
"Taking a man's livelihood is akin to killing him."
'No one is being hog tied to get their shot.'
you don't follow current events very closely, do you...?
Meanwhile Joe wants to keep piling lockdown deaths on top of covid deaths and tut tut us about how we're not helping.
When are you going to get the virus so you give your community max protection? Stop being selfish.
Oh look at you, with Biden Derangement Syndrome.
Who cares what Joe Biden wants. He is irrelevant as far as the virus is concerned.
No one should want to get the virus. While it has a high survival rate among those who are not very old, it also has side-effects and potentially long-lasting effects. No one should want that.
Oh look at you hurt by any criticism of Biden or the left.
Jeff to be fair you can't talk about long lasting effects like others can't talk about long term vaccine effects. Long has not happened yet and if it does you can definitely bring it up in 5-10 years and state your hypothesis was right but framing an unfounded fact to make folks agree is disingenuous.
And those vaccines were not required until all testing, including long term effects was completed, and FULL approval was given.
A subtle but distinct difference from the Communist Chinese Virus.
Yeah, I think Fauci was alive when Washington required his troops to get smallpox innoculated.
You are a fucking idiot. First, Washington's troops were inoculated using live virus, not a vaccine, and second, it was done in direct defiance of a proclamation from the Continental Congress.
Don't let me stop you from promoting tyranny.
It's not everyone else's responsibility to protect YOU from Nature.
YOU can get vaccinated; YOU can choose to isolate.
The difference between tyranny and individual freedom sits right there. FORCING others to protect you or TAKING individual responsibility for yourself.
tjj2000, it is everyone else's responsibility to not undermine the health and safety of fellow social members. That's what being a human in society means - there are no humans outside of social groups and never have been.
Paraphrased, "There's no thing as an individual outside of the [WE] foundation." -- You're Nazi(National Socialist) indoctrination is on over-drive.
You do not belong in the USA (founded on Individual Freedom and Liberty). Please move to a communist of socialist society of your 'desires' and stop trying to destroy this nation.
TJJ, I'm sorry your ideology is based on an entirely false premise of human nature the possibilities of our existence and that you think fealty to those without whom you would not exist as a human is a form of slavery. Not a thing or a being in this entire universe will understand or love you like fellow humans, including your dog, and yes we owe something to those from whom we come. Fortunately most of us know this innately if not intellectually.
There's nothing "FALSE" about the USA being based on Individual Liberty and Justice. Like I said --- YOU do not belong in the USA.
Go practice your Nazi-Intellect in a nation where the people haven't strictly forbidden it; instead of trying to conquer and consume this one.
it is everyone else's responsibility to not undermine the health and safety of fellow social members.
you're making the ridiculous assumption that every single person represents the possibility of transmitting a deadly viral infection; I can think of nothing more disruptive to the civic fabric than assuming your 'fellow social members' are lepers of the highest order while knowing nothing whatsoever about them...
TJJ, individual liberty has it's limits and does not mean you do not owe loyalty to the USA and the common good of it's citizens, or else it would not still exist. Millions in the past understood that and it is almost shocking that you don't.
In the USA, "the common good" is outlined in the SUPREME LAW (i.e. The U.S. Constitution) ---- Now; Please show us USA citizens exactly where we gave the Federal Government Authority to FORCE vaccination?
*Pretending* a nation is something it is not has it's limits. Millions in the past would call that a take-over and it is almost shocking that you don't.
TJJ -
""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..."
In the past in the common defense the federal government forcefully put guys in landing craft to make a beachhead while being shot at by Germans on the shore. You think you can handle getting a f..king shot no one is forcing you to get unless you work certain jobs?
LMAO.... Typical lefty...
Trying to write-in their own Constitution using but just the preamble (introduction/overview) and it's stated purpose.
We the People of the United States, !! -In Order to form - !!! (the reason for it) ........ do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do yourself a favor and ACTUALLY READ the Law instead of just picking phrases and filling in the rest to your hearts desire. After all; It is the very law that instills USA citizens freedom from tyrannical dictatorships. Or it was suppose to anyways before a massive portions of the population/politicians/justices decided [WE] mob Nazi-Democracy would rule instead of "The Peoples" law over them that Democrats willfully and purposely neglect at their peril and the peril of the USA.
I m agree with this but the problem is, How we can get rid of?
One thing the tax proposal is raising is a most fascinating question never taken up by the media: "WHAT, exactly, is INCOME". Because, of course, the point is, rich people experience significant changes in net worth that aren't considered to be income.
Interesting questions, though are, why not tax muni bond interest? That's a huge tax break for the rich. Why not put limits on charitable deductions?
Or when we think of taxing things we don't want:
Why not tax campaign contributions at say 50 or 65%? The cool thing about this is, rich people would mostly pay it, it would reduce the dollars available for politicking and it would force one side to fund the other's priorities, effectively.
What about taxing policy foundations (those advocating socialism or neo-Marxism, or what have you could come in for special rates).
For that matter, why not tax politicians, as a special class? Include in this, of course, ex politicians.
Or for that matter, why not have politicians indemnify us against errors in their estimates of future cost of programs. If they say that it will cost $X or they vote for it, and it in fact costs more than that, they and their heirs and assigns must make up the difference in perpetuity until such policy is repealed.
buy CAS 329187-86-2
https://rna.bocsci.com/product/5-o-dmt-n6-benzoyl-2-fluoro-2-arabinofuranosyl-cas-329187-86-2-291985.html
N6-Benzoyl-9-(2'-deoxy-5'-O-DMT-2'-fluoro-b-D-arabinofuranosyl)adenine 3'-CE-phosphoramidite - CAS 329187-86-2
where to order Hela Transfection Reagent
https://transfection.bocsci.com/product/hela-transfection-reagent-338850.html
The Hela cell line was, the first immortal human cell with indefinite viability in vitro established from cervical cancer cells, and contributed to major medical breakthroughs, including the opening of polio vaccines,