Can Vaccine Mandates Be Justified? A Soho Forum Debate
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin debates Libertarian Party activist Angela McArdle
HD DownloadIs there a libertarian case for vaccine mandates?
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin supports vaccine mandates in certain cases because he believes they're a relatively "small infringement on freedom" and are preferable to harm reduction strategies like mask mandates and lockdowns, which he sees as posing a greater threat to our liberties.
Angela McArdle, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, says she'll "actively work to destroy any institution that tries to enforce a vaccine passport," and is currently launching legal challenges to overturn vaccine mandates in California and New York.
On September 8, Somin and McArdle went head-to-head at the Soho Forum in New York City. Somin took the affirmative, and McArdle the negative, on the resolution: While vaccine mandates are an infringement on freedom, some are justified due to their big payoff in lives saved.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Intro edited by John Osterhoudt.
Photos: Brett Raney; Debra L. Rothenberg/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; gotpap/starmaxinc.com/Newscom
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
While
vaccine mandatesabortion restrictions are an infringement on freedom, some are justified due to their big payoff in lives saved.Too spicy, I guess.
When is your body not your body?
When it's somebody elses body and you put them there.
Where was the fetus before it was in the mother's body?
Who put it there? The fetus fairy? Or maybe the kid crawled into her womb all by itself?
Wouldn't it be weird if she'd knowingly participated in some sort of activity whose sole biological purpose was sticking children in wombs.
The stork did it. And was the stork vaccinated and wearing a mask?
My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information..
Visit this website.................. Visit Here
The point, moron, is that if it was never outside the woman's body, it was never "put there" by anyone.
Right, the sperm and the egg that fused were always located in the uterus. This is some stunning new biology. Better inform Harvard.
In-more-depth response to the Oh-so-Righteous MammaryBahnFuhrers of the world...
Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya- Love-ya- Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So as I have said before, abortion is “veto power” against scum-bucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying, and fighting off the other men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.
So, they want to “capitally punish” the “offenders”, while they have never been in the above-described shoes! Self-righteousness, basically…
Or maybe some of the anti-abotion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the harem of 40, under the new scheme of things?
I am glad that SOME of you oppose theft (unlike MammaryFuhrer, who engages in ID theft). Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no long wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father"!
Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT there biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put their money where their mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms! DON't be a hypocrite like MammaryFuhrer!
Do you understand what you wrote?
Because nobody else does.
That's some Grade A retard babbling, Sqrlsy.
Because YOU are willfully too stubborn to READ and comprehend is NOT the fault of my supposedly poor writing, self-righteous twat!
I tried to read it but I don't think you're using English syntax in your babblings.
Does anyone else understand this nutbags gibbering?
Sqrls type only know
Ctrl- C Ctrl - V
50 cents per.
Uncle Soros throws quarters to them to buy crack.
MammaryFuhrer, for simplistic morons like YOU: Don't be a self-righteous bitch, judging and condemning people whose shoes you have NEVER taken a SINGLE STEP in!
I'm self-righteous compared to you because you're an evil moron.
A sperm and an egg are not an embryo.
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? If you stick water and flour in a bowl and deliberately mix them, you can't pretend to be shocked that you have dough.
It's little rhetorical games like this that demonstrate the irreality of the abortionist position.
What I'm doing is calmly stating self-evident facts, while you blather about fairies and flour with your hair on fire.
Lol what. I don't get how people don't understand the argument of pro lifers. Sperm and egg combine into new living organism with its own unique DNA very shortly after conception. Otherwise known as a human life. Some people think ending innocent human life is wrong. It's very simple.
Well BobbyJ, a lot of us pro-choice types scratch our heads nearly bald at the sheer busy-bodyishness of the womb micro-managers!
Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya- Love-ya- Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So as I have said before, abortion is “veto power” against scum-bucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying, and fighting off the other men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.
So, they want to “capitally punish” the “offenders”, while they have never been in the above-described shoes! Self-righteousness, basically…
Or maybe some of the anti-abortion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the baby-making powers of a harem of 40 lied-to women, under the new scheme of things?
I am glad that SOME you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no longer wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father"!
Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT their biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put their money where their mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms!
And pro-lifers seem to have a hard time understanding why that argument doesn't change many minds. Everyone understands the argument. It's trivially obvious. It just doesn't get to the real matters under debate.
The only question that matters is whose rights come out on top when you pit the right of a woman to control her own body against that of a distinct but undeveloped human organism to exist.
Just because nobody ever heard of or mentioned The Baby Jesus until a century after his alleged raising of Lazarus from the maggots (in Aramaic) does not mean (S)He never existed. Anyone who believes translators correctly relate stuff for which there is NO historic record whatsoever, and that The Truth was written in a language humanity has since shunned, ought to pick up a gun and force those beliefs on others--especially others of the weaker sex. That's what altruism is all about!
And that just about sums up your understanding of religion, history, and sociology. Are you like five years old?
What the fuck?!
Are you really this ignorant? 14-year-olds on Youtube aren't really the best place to learn Levantine history and first century archaeology from, Hank.
It's hard to correct your statement because every single thing you said is demonstrably wrong even from a secular perspective.
Your body is still your body.
When it’s no body?
Mon Corps, Mon Choix.
Or in Obamas case, " Corpse".
Not at all. 'They're a relatively "small infringement on freedom" and are preferable to harm reduction strategies like personal responsibility and accountability versus having tax-payer funded elective health procedures, which Somin certainly wouldn't see as posing a greater threat to our liberties.'
Killing people isn't a "harm reduction strategy" no matter how the try to define it.
Killing innocent bacteria (to include those who dwell on your teeth) isn't a "harm reduction strategy" no matter how the try to define it.
DO NOT brush yer toofers, ye mass-murdering MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits!!!!!
So a human being and Sqrlsy's tooth goo are the same thing in his mind. This explains a fuck of a lot.
So an independently motile human being and a fertilized HUMAN egg cell are likewise utterly precious in the mind of MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits! Wow! Ideological idiocy can take us to strange places!
How about the fertilized egg of a gorilla, or a whale, MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits? How do THOSE rank, and why?
Tell me Sqrlsy, when does a human become a human other than at conception? Unlike your tooth goo and a shot of spunk, a fetus has a full and unique human genetic code.
Does a Birth Canal Fairy magically bless you with personhood as you're squeezed through her halls?
Maybe you don't become a person until you register as a Democrat? Is that what you think?
It's hard to make out from you're babbling, but you've never given this a lick of thought, have you?
Retarded old troll.
Only God and MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits, know whether a fertilized human egg cell has a soul, and whether the fertilized egg cells of whales, apes, monkeys, donkeys, frogs, and insects have souls. I personally do NOT get a "punishment boner" from punishing ALL of the beings who I suppose are NOT as ethical as MEEEE The High and Mighty! I mind my own business!
So you have no clue then.
I mind my own business, because I have a CLUE that I do NOT know HOW to run the details of the lives of millions or billions of others!
I mind my own business, because I have a CLUE
That was your view on holocaust and slavery too, huh.
Evil nutbag.
Authoritarians and totalitarians have ALWAYS believed that they know HOW to run the details of the lives of millions or billions of others! And MammaryFuhrer will LEAD them ALL, as QUEEN of the Internet cesspools, keeping them CLEAN from the cooties of politically incorrect folks! By sheer name-calling, without reason, logic, or links! Ego knows no bounds!
Through years of debate here and with my wife, I have personally come around to the point that it’s nobody’s business but the woman’s, the doctor’s and whatever higher power you ascribe to. All contraception should be readily available OTC. And men should be able to abort all financial responsibilities.
Unfortunately both sides seem intractable at this point and we’re either going to end up with abortion up to a day after birth or no abortion at all, even if the vast majority of people think it should be legal until after 20 weeks.
But for the love of science, could pro-abortion people stop with their unscientific bullshit? A fertilized egg is unquestionably a human being at the earliest stages of development. It is not a fucking parasite. It is not trespassing on the mother’s property.
could pro-abortion people stop with their unscientific bullshit?
This is what gets me the most. The pro-abortion crowd postures like they're all about Science!, but their arguments are purely emotional and they refuse to address serious scientific and biological issues with their stance.
The "clump of cells" bit is particularly retarded as that's exactly what everyone is.
So WHERE does the exclusive sacredness of the HUMAN "clump of cells" come from? Once again, how about the fertilized egg cells of whales, apes, monkeys, donkeys, frogs, and insects? WHERE does THIS "science of souls" come from? Show me the math, Oh Wise One!
Who said anything about souls?
We're talking about when does someone become a unique human being replete with the same basic human rights as the rest of us. And biologically it's obvious that an individual's humanity starts at conception.
I know you left school in 1923 or something, but our understanding of gestation and genetics has advanced light years since. Perhaps one day when you've taken your pills you could read up on the subject.
The fact that you won't discern between a human and other animals certainly explains why you're a fascist and a slaver.
I'm still waiting for the math that shows some magic "rights" differences between humans v/s whales and apes... Or salamanders and insects, etc. There ARE no "facts" here, other than what people have made up! And imposed on others, with regards to these "rights"! Some sets of "rights" lead to more humane and decent outcomes than others, is all. Micro-managing everyone in sight by yelling at them and threatening force and violence, over (among other things) the intimate details of their reproductive decisions, is NOT going to get us to Paradise! Minding our own business, except in CLEAR cases of the other party becoming intolerant authoritarians, assholes, and totalitarians, is going to work MUCH better!
A 1-party state (even when run by MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits) is NOT going to out-perform (provide long-lasting peace and prosperity) states with political freedom! Get over Yourself and Your Unquenchable Thirst for Endless Political Power, power pig!
I'm still waiting for the math that shows some magic "rights" differences between humans v/s whales and apes...
It's hard to make out in all you're crazy babble, but are you saying that people should have no more rights than farm animals and fish?
Because that's what you seem to be saying here.
No wonder you want to kill babies, when you don't assign a person greater value than your steak dinner.
You're completely evil.
"We" (whoever the "we" are in any given case) have the "rights" that we have earned and defended for ourselves. If fertilized egg cells (of ANY species!) want some "rights", they need to...
'A) Go out and get themselves a JOB (and also a haircut, but that one's just a nice-to-have side option), selling goods and services to willing customers!
...and...
'B) Buy themselves some up-to-date and tastefully-designed weapons with the proceeds of said job! It is NOT all that hard to do!!! (Unless you're a slacker).
So wait, are you saying children don’t have rights if they can’t defend themselves?
Their parents, and the cops, have the rights to defend children. "Rights" talk isn't very productive, though, in general. "Rights", to most people, seems to mean "a privilege that I, the All-Important MEEEE, thinks that you should have". It can range all of the way to my "right" to have the money that YOU have earned, to my "right" to defend endangered species, even hypothetical MIGHT-be species, of bacteria on YOUR property.
A better way to think about MANY things, IMHO, is to think of "enlightened self-interest". It isn't in my "enlightened self-interest" to be a self-righteous power pig, or to micro-manage the reproductive minutia about the reproductive choices that other people make. Splitting hairs about who or what clump of cells may have "rights" really isn't in my "enlightened self-interest", as far as I can tell... Unless I have to LIE convincingly about my beliefs, to spare my life or my freedoms from micro-managing power pigs!
A job and a haircut for the fertilized egg cells is just hyperbole, of course...
But for the love of science, could pro-abortion people stop with their unscientific bullshit? A fertilized egg is unquestionably a human being at the earliest stages of development. It is not a fucking parasite. It is not trespassing on the mother’s property.
None of those things are scientific questions, except the trivial fact that a fertilized egg is in fact a genetically unique living entity. You can't answer moral questions with science and I wish both sides of the abortion debate would see that better.
For me it comes down to the question of do you have the absolute right to control what goes on in your own body or not. I fully accept that reasonable people can disagree on that question. But it rests entirely on axiomatic moral assumptions and will never be settled through pure reason or scientific matters of fact.
So, you are saying you want anti-abortion laws AND vaccine mandates?
No. He wasn't saying that at all, Sealion Man. It's always interesting to watch you try and redefine somebody's statement into something completely different, just to suit your argument.
Soo…. What sound does a sea lion make?
Caw caw
Well that simplifies things.
I’d be lion if I told you I knew.
Well that seals it (at least it otter!)
But what if it's not on porpoise? I'd feel bad about whaling on the blubbery lubber so often.
One should tread lightly when comparing mRNA therapy mandates to abortion. Yes, it is hypocritical to uphold the current abortion stance and allow vaccine mandates for obvious reasons, however it would not be hypocritical to ban both abortions and vaccine mandates. The reason being is that applying the "my body" argument to an unborn child essentially presumes a mothers ownership of another human being, which is already deemed illegal by the precedence set by the abolition of slavery.
If Donald Trump says that vaccine mandates are justified, then they are GREAT and WONDERFUL!
If Donald Trump says that they're BAD, then they are EVIL!!!
All Hail Donald Trump, the Great and the Wise!
Sqrlsy knows that Trump's own supporters booed him several months ago when he touted the vaccine:
Trump booed at Alabama rally after telling supporters to get vaccinated
"But I recommend take the vaccines," Trump said. "I did it. It's good. Take the vaccines."
So why is Sqrlscasmic the mammaryfuhrer lying about it?
Because he's a liar and that's what he does.
Now watch him paste a 300 line copypasta shitpost in order to bury this.
If anyone DARES to slander Dear Leader (by even SUGGESTING that they might disagree with Him, even upon the most trivial of matters, Blessed Be His Name!), they should be shot by anti-aircraft artillery! https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/27/report-n-korea-executes-officials-enraging-kim-jong-un/98468748/
And also... All GOOD Trumplings KNOW damned well, that His Votes were STOLEN by Der Bider-Grunch!
The Bider-Grunch has stolen Trumpsmas!!! Get a grip, people, and focus on the BIGGLY problems around here!!! Man the battle stations, full speed ahead, DAMN the Lizard People AND their mind-controlled vote thieves!!!
How the Bider-Grunch Stole Trumpsmas
‘Twas the night before Trumpsmas,
And all through the lands,
Patriotic feelings were stirring our glands!
The voters ALL firmly fixed to vote RED!
Vote BLUE?!? They’d rather be dead!
Visions of Eternal Redness danced in their heads!
The Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpin-Father would soon be there!
All one-party Republican states would soon be square!
While every You Down in Youville Liked Trumpsmas a lot...
But the Bider-Grunch, who lived just north of Youville, Did NOT!
The Bider-Grunch hated Trumpsmas! The whole Trumpsmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
Whatever the reason, His heart or his shoes,
He stood there on Trumpsmas Eve, hating the Yous,
Staring down from his cave with a sour, Grunchy frown,
At the warm lighted windows below in their town.
For he knew every You would vote Trump,
THIS, biggly, made the Grunch a real grump!.
"And they're preparing ballots!" he snarled with a sneer,
"Tomorrow is Trumpsmas! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his Grunch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find some way to stop Trumpsmas from coming!"
For Tomorrow, he knew, all the You girls and boys,
Would wake bright and early. They'd rush for their toys!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the Noise!
Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing he hated! The NOISE!
NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!
Then the Yous, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast! And they'd FEAST!
FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would feast on You-pudding, and rare You-roast beast.
Which was something the Bider-Grunch couldn't stand in the least!
And THEN They'd do something He liked least of all!
Every You down in Youville, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Trumpsmas bells ringing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And the Yous would start singing!
They'd sing! And they'd sing! And they'd SING!
SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Grunch thought of this You TrumpsmasSing,
The more the Grunch thought, "I must stop this whole thing!"
"Why, for four years I've put up with it now!"
"I MUST stop this Trumpsmas from coming! But HOW?"
Then he got an idea! An awful idea!
THE GRUNCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!
"I know just what to do!" The Bider-Grunch laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick MAGA hat and a coat.
And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a great Grunchy trick!"
"With this coat and this hat, I look just like Saint Prick!"
"All I need is a Proud Boy..." The Bider-Grunch looked around.
But, since Proud Boys are scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grunch? No! The Grunch simply said,
"If I can't find a Proud Boy, I'll make one instead!"
So he called his cat, Chairman Meow. Then he took some red thread,
And he tied a big MAGA hat on the top of his head.
Then he loaded many bags and sacks, made ‘em all fit somehow,
On a ramshackle sleigh, and he hitched up Chairman Meow..
Then the Grunch said, "Giddap!" And the sleigh started down,
Toward the homes where the Whos Lay asnooze in their town.
All their windows were dark. Quiet snow filled the air.
All the Whos were all dreaming sweet dreams without care.
When he came to the first little house on the square.
"This is stop number one," the Grunchy fake-Trump hissed,
And he climbed to the roof, empty bags in his fist.
Then he slid down the chimney. To his fat gut, a punch.
But, if Trump could do it, then so could the Grunch.
He got stuck only once, for a moment or two.
Then he stuck his head out of the fireplace flue.
Where the little You ballots all hung in a row.
"These ballots," he grinned, "are the first things to go!"
Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most unpleasant,
Around the whole room, and he took every vote!
This, surely, would get the You’s goat!
And he stuffed them in bags. Then the Grunch, very nimbly,
Stuffed all the bags, one by one, up the chimney!
Then he slunk to the icebox. He took the Yous' feast!
He took the You-pudding! He took the roast beast!
He cleaned out that icebox as quick as a flash.
Why, that Grunch even took their last can of You-hash!
Then he stuffed all the food up the chimney with glee.
"And NOW!" grinned the Bider-Grunch, "I will stuff up the tree!"
And the Bider-Grunch grabbed the tree, and he started to shove,
When he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and he saw a small You!
Little Cindy-Lou You, who was not more than two.
The Grunch had been caught by this tiny You daughter,
Who'd got out of bed for a cup of cold water.
She stared at the Grunch and said, "Lord Trump, why,”
"Why are you taking our Trumpsmas tree? WHY?"
But, you know, that old Grunch was so smart and so slick,
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Lord Trump lied,
"There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side."
"So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear."
"I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here."
And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head,
And he got her a drink and he sent her to bed.
And when CindyLou You went to bed with her cup,
He went to the chimney and stuffed the tree up!
Then the last thing he took Was the log for their fire!
Then he went up the chimney, himself, the old liar.
On their walls he left nothing but hooks and some wire.
And the one speck of food That he left in the house,
Was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.
Then He did the same thing To the other Yous' houses
Leaving crumbs much too small For the other Yous' mouses!
It was quarter past dawn... All the Yous, still a-bed,
All the Yous, still asnooze When he packed up his sled,
Packed it up with all of their ballots… ALL of their votes!
THIS, the fake Lord Trump grumped, will get ALL of their goats!
Three thousand feet up! Up the side of Mt. Crumpit,
He rode with his load to the tiptop to dump it!
"Pooh-Pooh to the Yous!" he was Grunchishly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Trumpsmas is coming!"
"They're just waking up! I know just what they'll do!"
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two,
Then the Yous down in Youville will all cry Boo-Hoo!"
"That's a noise," grinned the Bider-Grunch, "That I simply MUST hear!"
So he paused. And the Bider-Grunch put his hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow.
But the sound wasn't sad! Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so! But it WAS merry! VERY!
He stared down at Youville! The Grunch popped his eyes!
Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise!
Every You down in Youville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any Trump-votes at all!
He HADN'T stopped Trumpsmas from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
And the Grunch, with his Grunch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
The Grunch-light came on! “Yes! Now I know!
The Yous down in Youville, they’re really quite slow!
Their election’s been stolen, but the whole Trumpsmas glow,
Overwhelms EVERYTHING, even democracy!
They’ll lie bigly, and impose mobocracy!”
So the Bider-Grunch whipped out his cell phone,
Called the Lizard People, who send out a drone,
Mind-controlled them ALL, as is Lizard habit,
Now NO ONE could save them, not even Saint Babbitt!
So THAT’s the Sad Story of the bad Bider-Grunch,
Who stole Trumpsmas, the elections, AND your lunch!
See, 300 lines of unfunny retarded shitposting. That's how you know that Sqrlsy knows he lost the argument.
Sure it's juvenile, but nobody's ever accused the old freak of maturity.
Protip for newbies: Finger tired of scrolling past his tantrum? Press the spamflag.
Reason never actually bans anyone unless it's actually illegal, and it hides that particular post so you never have to scroll past it again.
MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits, is envious 'cause she has NO sense of humor OR poetry!
Hey Chthonic Cunt! You know how the "mute" button works? Do you need instructions? MUTE me and QUIT yer bitching about my so-called clutter, stupid bitch!
(And I'll still feel free to challenge your lies and your stupid, brainless comments, when you commit them, to keep open-minded readers from falling for YOUR evil lies! It's just the price you pay, Bitch!)
But NOOOO… QUEEN of the Internet cesspools feels that She MUST (instead of using the “mute” button) convince ALL of the “Cool Kids” the SQRLSY = cooties!!! The “mute” button “silences” me to Your Precious, Sensitive Eyes, Oh Queen… Are ye a pacifist? “Silence is violence” in this context? Or, far more likely… You get OFF on telling ALL of Your Endless Legions of Be-smitten Followers, that SQRLSY = cooties!!!
See. Look at the old tard rage.
Believe it or not folks, Sqrlsy isn't some angry 14-year-old. He's actually a retiree. Kind of like Hihn.
MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits, does NOT deny that She imagines Her Royal Self as QUEEN of the Internet cesspools, keeping them CLEAN from the cooties of politically incorrect folks! Ego knows no bounds!
I hope I'm egotistical compared to you. I'm not a senile, fat old troll who can barely understand what he's trolling.
If I were as big a piece-of-shit as you I'd eat a bullet.
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 ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
Yup, he lost the argument so it's back to burying his shame with irrelevant copypasta shitposting.
Well, that's what the spamflag is for.
Says the man who thinks you can detect witches by weighing them against a duck.
Yes, I AM a man of science! (But I still have to guard against being turned into a newt! Sometimes they'll even try to turn you into a fig newton!)
Mutha Slamming is still schaisstposting on Reason? How tacky...
I finally muted the shit eater.
I EAGERLY look forward to Queen R Mac ***NEVER*** responding to ANYTHING that I write! Life will be measurably sweeter! Less ANNOYING!
It is one thing to color outside of the liens but squirrel just eats the crayons. Also have him muted.
You did such a good job the other day staying on topic and being generally reasonable to read. Sad.
Some idiot somewhere might think like that, but the majority of his voters would turn on him in an instant if he supported a mandate. Fuck, they already booed him for touting the vaccine itself.
Well said. This comment is a mic drop. More often than not, leftists are just projecting their own flaws on others. This thread is no exception.
The same can not be said about democrats. People have short memories. Conservatives have been consistently against mandates for no other reason than their core constitutional values and beliefs. However the same can not be said about democrats. They didn’t trust the vaccine when Trump was in office and now all the sudden think they should be mandated. Why? Because Biden explicitly stated before inauguration that he would never mandate vaccines, then backtracked on it later and the sheep followed.
I pitty those like yourself who are incapeable of thinking for themselves. Just because someone has the same views as Trump on a particular toppic, that doesnt mean they are blindly following Trump or even following Trump at all. Trump's views are not exactly exotic or uncommon.
they're a relatively "small infringement on freedom"
Except for all the blood clotting and heart inflammation. If the mRNA "vaccines" were more effective and less dangerous he might almost have a point, but they aren't and he doesn't. Maybe they aren't as dangerous as Covid itself, but they still have an element of real risk and people have a right to determine what they do with their body.
Stupid authoritarian fuck.
We might also question the utility of these vaccines--when 96% of the NFL is vaccinated and they're postponing games left and right because vaccinated athletes are testing positive for the virus anyway.
IF IF IF there were any justification for vaccine mandates, those justifications would be tied to the unavailability of ventilator beds in the local hospital's ICU. We aren't talking about the vaccines stopping the spread of the virus anymore.
That game is over.
That game is definitely over but look at Somin go. He knows exactly what you know and just said, but he still wants to press ahead anyway.
It's actually immoral and unjustifiable, his stance.
We were always talking about vaccines and mask mandates slowing the spread of covid and possibly stopping it if enough became vaccinated. With the dumb ass anti-vaxxing movement, the latter possibility is probably lost. We still benefit from slowing the spread and minimizing the variant hosts.
When did the not-vaccines ever stop transmission?
Game is up you authoritarian fuckwit.
There are therapies between nothing and on ventilator in an ICU but not officially sanctioned.
If we hadn’t just witnessed the Afghanistan abandonment botch of Biblical proportions by President Biden and his cabal of government apparatchiks, I’d think the covid fumbles were intentional.
Did you see the number that the State Department reported the other day?
If we were playing Jeopardy, and the answer was, "About 62,000"--the correct question would be, "What is, 'how many people Joe Biden left behind in Afghanistan?'"
"More than 60,000 Afghan interpreters and others who have applied for visas to seek shelter in the U.S. after working alongside American forces still remain in Afghanistan, a State Department official said Thursday.
About 33,000 Afghans, including principal applicants and their families, have already cleared the more-onerous vetting requirements and could be eligible for immediate evacuation. This is the first time that the State Department has provided a number on those left behind since the Afghanistan government collapsed this summer.
A total of 62,000 Afghans are believed to have been left behind, the official said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-than-60-000-interpreters-visa-applicants-remain-in-afghanistan-11639689706?
I doubt White Star handed out customer experience surveys when the surviving Titanic passengers arrived in North America. The Biden regime isn’t keen on folks rating his performance either.
Wow, you are pivoting to talking about the Afghanistan withdrawal in the middle of a debate about vaccines.
The mind of a partisan is amazing. Personal health, public health all comes down to Blue Team vs. Red Team politics. Really fucked up.
Totally not a Democratic Party shill, folks. He absolutely swears it.
Mike is however the official Thread Policeman, and stopping people from making connections to patterns of behavior by the administration is totally within his jurisdiction.
It’s actually pretty impressive that he can be so smug with his head so far up his ass.
Do you have a citation for that opinion?
Caw caw goes the sealion.
I guess that's why you got into an abortion discussion above?
Imagine if they’re intentional, but they’re just so incompetent that they fucked up a planned fuck up.
Don’t understand people who feel they need to undermine belief in the efficacy of vaccines as a way of arguing against mandates. Apparently, they cannot grasp the subtlety of admitting vaccines are effective while arguing against mandates.
Anyway, not sure we should base all decisions on whatever the heck the NFL is doing. Even if the vaccines don’t offer much resistance to omicron (which by reports so far is mild), Delta is still out there.
Being on a ventilator is a horrible experience. Getting to the point where you on one, when you could have avoided it with a couple of shots, is a failure of personal health decision making.
Yeah, eliminating that one-in-ten-thousand risk makes the incipient fascism all worthwhile.
Mike Laursen
December.18.2021 at 4:34 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Don’t understand people
We know. Most squawking birds don’t.
White Mike admits poor cawmprehension.
Are you suggesting someone switch magazines to McCAW?
Maybe The Atlantic will begin releasing a comic book version of their periodical.
I can just seaboard Atlantic readers now. (Nothing to Marvel at there!)
I doubt you'll need a whole magazine for Mike, but if you want to spend your lead for fun have at it.
its not the squawking thats the problem.
While squawking theyre shitting all over the fence.
...then eliminate all persons in a subclass..
The Nazi Solution.
Effective at what, exactly?
Yikes. This is an example of just how insidious all this covid bullshit is. People aren't concerned about truth, asking questions and looking for answers. The longer it lasts the worse it gets. When will it end.
Not just the NFL. The NHL and Premier league soccer are shutting down teams/games as well.
If they were attenuated, or even particle vaccines, versus mRNA-emergency use only vaccines, then Somin might have a leg to stand on. But, as it is, given the the efficacy in stopping transmission, he comes across as just another scared putz using his fear to justify why others should do what he believes to be right.
If these mRNA vaccines are so safe, I am sure Pfizer et al would not mind waving their vaccine liability shield? Fact is they have found a way to make vaccines, the one thing they make that was not very profitable if at all into a money maker and as long as they continue to back the Dem’s the Dem’s are going to keep pushing their product.
This. Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon
“Why do you only drink the bottled water? The Safety Department tested the tap water and said it is safe.”
“Because the Safety Department only drinks the bottled water.”
Amazing. The right wing has adopted the left-wings’ traditional obsession with pharmaceutical corporations’ “greedy” profits. I remember when conservatives were pro-business.
I become anti-business when the government starts forcing me to buy that business' products or lose my job. Can't speak for anyone else here.
Forcing me to buy a product I didn't want was enough for me.
Obamacare, anyone?
There's a world of difference between being pro-business and pro-free market and being pro-corporatism or pro-oligarchy, but look at you pretend that they're all same-same.
You're such a despicable troll.
Damn you’re dumb.
Why does anybody respond to Mike. He's clearly a paid troll, Dem shill and he's a dishonest fuck.
Masochism?
Do you have a cite for that?
Ding ding ding!
The drug companies only took the risk because Trump promised to buy millions of doses AND provide immunity from lawsuits. Absent that we would likely be waiting still for a vax. But a traditional vax would likely be MUCH more effective, since it would target the whole bug, not just its dick.
A real vaccine is available from NovaVax. Waiting on use authorization.
If the vaccines worked well at stopping transmission and hospitals were likely to be overwhelmed on any broad scale and if the virus posed a significant danger to most people, there might be an argument for mandates. But none of those things is true. It's absolutely insane that anyone is still pushing mandates.
I'd still oppose mandates in that case, but at least it would make some sense.
It matters not only which vaccines were mandated, but where they are mandated.
Vaccines have historically been required as a condition of employment for professional firefighters.
http://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2020/01/10/us-appeals-court-rebuffs-leander-firefighter-who-was-fired-after-refusing-vaccine/1926696007/
Vaccine mandates in the military predate the Constitution.
This is in sharp contrast to requiring one recently-developed vaccine to patronize a bar or restaurant.
mRNA "vaccines" did not exist "historically". They are a new, untried technology. Equating them with what we previously called "vaccines" is erroneous, and conclusions drawn from that equation are invalid.
Exactly. Not a vaccine at all, merely a leaky therapy.
The employment mandate is BEFORE hiring, not after. That’s quite different.
"George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin supports vaccine mandates in certain cases because he believes they're a relatively "small infringement on freedom" and are preferable to harm reduction strategies like mask mandates and lockdowns, which he sees as posing a greater threat to our liberties."
How many things are a "smaller infringement on freedom" than government coercion to inject us with things against our will? When antivaxx protesters chant, "My body, my choice", they aren't really taking their analogy to its logical conclusion. The government trying to force you to be vaccinated isn't really like the government trying to force you to carry a fetus to term against your will. The government forcing you to be vaccinated is more like the government forcing itself upon a woman to make her pregnant in the first place.
Meanwhile, if we can't choose what is or isn't injected into our bodies--sans government coercion--there are all sorts of important things that would qualify as a "smaller infringement on our freedom" than that. Is the NSA tracking our phone calls and sifting through our emails a greater infringement on our freedom than being injected with something against our will? Are you ready to abandon the argument about the chilling effects of free speech as a relatively small infringement on our freedom, too? What makes these things smaller or greater infringements?
I don't know which freedoms are more important or less important to other people, but if the line on lesser infringements is drawn somewhere north of our freedom to choose what is or isn't injected into our bodies, then you've definitely denigrated other freedoms that are extremely important to someone. The freedom to pray in public--is violating that right a lesser infringement or a greater infringement? The correct answer is that you have no legitimate basis to gauge the relative importance of other people's freedom.
The inability of utilitarian arguments to account for the qualitative preferences of other people has always been their Achilles' heel, and the only way I can see to truly maximize utility--with every individual's conflicting and varied qualitative preferences--is for the government to protect the right of every individuals to make a choice for themselves with their own qualitative preferences in mind. Your qualitative preference for safety has no authoritative basis and no legitimate basis in reason or fact. Utilitarian arguments always end up painting themselves into the same corner--where they try to rationalize their own qualitative preferences--and they always fail.
Yes, denigrating the relative importance of violating some people's rights is an admission of failure out of the starting gate.
As Comrade Yellen said, tracking every bank account with more than 600 dollars in transactions is no big deal, because the information is very easy to obtain.
No where in ken's screed is their recognition of the fact that Covid is highly contagious and the unvaccinated help spread it.
"“This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
From the article:
"SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated)."
In other words, Joe is technically correct that in this study, the vaccine reduced infection rates. Was the difference statistically significant? Doesn't say. But even if it is statistically significant, that 2% decrease in infection rate isn't enough to justify any of the scapegoating going on.
Who's to say that reducing infection rates is more important than freedom and justice anyway?
What is the basis of that assumption?
There are people in this world who care about safety above all other qualitative preferences. They're typically diagnosed with mental health issues like agoraphobia and paranoia. The rest of us compromise our safety for various reasons every time we leave our homes and pull out of the driveway.
Sometimes we compromise our safety because snowboarding on fresh powder is fun! Even IF IF IF the vaccine did reduce infection rates, why is Joe's qualitative preference for reduced infection rates more important than other people's qualitative preference for other things?
joe is free to get as many boosters as his heart desires. And joe is also free to live as the boy in the bubble. Should he feel the need to wear a batting helmet in a wiffleball game, joe can do that too.
Imposing their qualitative preferences on people who don't share them is a big chunk of what populists are talking about when they're talking about elitism, and using the coercive power of government to impose the qualitative preferences of the elite on the rest of us is fat chunk of what we libertarians are talking about when we're talking about authoritarianism.
What the progressive trolls are advocating when they come here is often just elitist authoritarianism, and that's why it's so hilarious when they sometimes claim to be libertarians. Their whole mindset is authoritarian--to the point that they think of authoritarianism as the norm. That doesn't make them so different from average progressives, but it sure as hell means they're a joke from as libertarians.
Ken is trying to obscure the facts of the issue with his shiboleths and boogiemen, as if they were real, and not the facts.
No he isn't, you lying piece-of-shit. Do you somehow imagine we can't read what he wrote?
If that isn't Dee, it's someone who suffers from the same stupid disease.
It might be. They got tired of you ignoring them.
If the devil manufactured shitposting internet trolls, Joe would be the show model.
It's the hivemind
Compelling counter argument there Ken. I'll have to take time to consider a response.
Ok, got it.
Yeah, and you're a bigger one!
Ken, what is the point of discussing the issue while leaving out the critical fact that society has an interest in this "personal" decision?
As to this particular issue, our society long ago decided that it's interest may be legally protected by mandates. 1905 SC for one place.
Authority creep.
Not that you're actually here for discussion, but this is where we point out AGAIN that these vaccines do not stop transmission. And they weren't even vaccines three years ago.
I love that this moron keeps citing that SC case like it proves his point about FEDERAL mandates. For a virus with an IFR at least 10 times that of covid for anyone under the age of 60.
Junk:
"In our cohort of densely sampled household contacts exposed to the delta variant, SAR was 38% in unvaccinated contacts and 25% in fully vaccinated contacts. This finding is consistent with the known protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against infection.8, 9"
So if we take the study at face value, you're slightly less likely (about 1 in 3 chances vs 1 in 4 chances) to become infected when unvaccinated and essentially exactly as likely to pass it on if you do become infected.
That 13% is worth destroying people's livelihoods over?
Destroying people's livelihood is the goal. That 23% is just a rhetorical tool to help achieve that goal.
Junk, 13% of 800,000 dead equals 104,000 lives.
Why would anyone's livelihood be destroyed over getting vaccinated. They're free and the deadlines have been generous.
Oh, so 100% of people who catch covid die?
Try again.
0.002.
0.2% of population.
Pandemic my goddamn ass
Here, I'll help you since you probably won't try again.
The unvaccinated have a 13% higher chance (again, taking this study at face value with it not having been replicated) of catching covid if exposed to it. What's the chance of being exposed to covid in enough of a viral load while within the 3-6 month window of protection offered by the current vaccine? Let's be generous and say it's 20%.
So 100% of the unvaccinated population has a 20% chance of being exposed, in which case they have a 38% chance of catching covid. After catching covid, unless they're over 60 or have severe comorbitities, they have a conservative 1% chance of dying.
100% x 20% x 38% x 1% = .076% chance of dying.
Same math for vaccinated people, with lowering the chance of catching to 25% and the chance of dying to 0.1%:
100% x 20% x 25% x .1% = .005% chance of dying.
Congrats, if you forced every single person in the United States, since the vaccines were introduced, you'd maybe save 400,000 * .07% (the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated chance of dying) = 280 people's lives.
That's not even taking into account the fact that people are making their own risk assessments and decisions, meaning the vast majority of people who are unvaccinated are young, healthy, and at much less risk than 1% dying of the virus.
Junk, your conclusion - no I didn't follow your argument - is ridiculous enough to blow off. Why didn't you save yourself this exercise in not understanding science and just Google relative odds on dying between vaccinated and unvaccinated? (As of Nov 24, unvaccinated were dying at a rate 14 times the vaccinated.)
"no I didn't follow your argument"
Enough said.
Is math too racist, Barbie Jack?
He literally based the entire thing off the study you posted, with a far more generous margin for efficacy than I believe is merited.
Does this mean you don't understand the science and how to search the internet either, because you gave information that undermined your feelings?
Nowhere in any of Joe’s idiotic posts over the last 10 months has he ever recognized the fact that the vaccinated catch, carry, and transmit the virus, instead trying to other anyone who doesn’t do what he thinks they should. Joe is an authoritarian.
Desig, you're not paying attention. Of course the vaccinated can carry and transmit Covid and even the linked study I posted yesterday states that fact.
Then what’s the point of a vaccine mandate? Still won’t get us near herd immunity, if that is, indeed possible with respiratory viruses, which it probably isn’t (due to nearby animal reservoirs).
The point Bruce is the vaccinated are less likely to be infected and then transmit Covid. Few if any medical remedies are perfect.
And this risk reduction is what? Based on what data? What long term studies? What honest assessment of vaccine risk has ever been conducted?
You are making a choice in absolute howling ignorance because you're a pants shitting authoritarian.
You need to learn to stop being a pussy and stop worrying about covid. Have you ever worried this much about the flu? Some years it kills a hundred thousand people. With that perspective covid is not that big of a deal. It's going to be around the rest of our lives and you are likely going to get it multiple times. Once people develop robust natural immunity they likely will have mild symptoms from additional infections. Humans have dealt with much worse diseases. It's really not that bad. But if you're so worried, get a vaccine and shut the fuck up about you just look like a stupid pussy unless you've been on a crusade against all the dangerous diseases that kill tons of people every year, one example is malaria which kills shit tons of kids. But you're too much if a fucking selfish pussy to give a fuck because oh no what if I get covid and have to stay in bed for a couple days.
So is influenza.
Covid is highly contagious and the unvaccinated help spread it.
Yes, they help the vaccinated spread it. And the vaccinated are less likely to be tested and find out that they are spreading it.
I believe the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell noted that hey, we sometimes draft people to die in the army, so why can't we force people to have medical procedures done to them (in that case, sterilization)? After all, that's not as bad as dying.
But I for one do not view rights violations as a ratchet, where if one bad thing is allowed then anything that is slightly less worse than that thing must also be allowed.
+1
Even IF IF IF Japanese internet camps weren't as bad as conscription someone to storm the beaches of France, why is that an appropriate standard?!
It's whataboutism run amok.
Is it really too much to ask for these articles to also report the results of the debate?
Pre Post Change
Yes 15.6% 28.0% 12.2%
No 52.4% 67.1% 14.6%
Undecided 31.7% 4.9% -28.6%
So No won but not by a statistically significant amount.
One suspects there may be a reason, pun intended, that the result was not published. The libertarian magazine has been straying from civil liberties. Somin's argument was weak at the beginning, middle, and conclusion. He does, to his credit, admit that he is not much into individual liberties versus communal rights, to paraphrase from his writings.
"He does, to his credit, admit that he is not much into individual liberties versus communal rights"
Neither is TeenReason, a perfect fit.
(except for hooking and drugs because some things are sacred)
TeenReason. Lol.
"Who won the debate" according to the rules is a judgement about the persuasiveness of the participants; who the f*ck cares about the ego stroking of some blond chick and some law professor?
What matters (a little) as far as the issues are concerned is the final outcome, a judgment by people who are slightly more informed than the population at large.
Actual libertarians trust individuals to make their own choices regarding medical treatment. If COVID-19 were killing 25% of the people who caught it and the vaccines were 90% effective with very few side effects, no one would need to issue any mandate, because people would be lining up on their own to get the shot.
And the pharmaceutical companies would be charging hundreds of dollars for it.
So, less than the cost of your average ER visit regardless of the outcome? Seems pretty fair. Especially if immunity lasts ~10 yrs.
Or did you just faceplant trying to scare us all that they plan to get rich off of corpses?
Are you saying that covid death rates aren’t 25%? The vaccines are not 90+ percent effective?!?!?!
I’m opposed to the OSHA mandate, but … I’m capable of seeing a deeper libertarian argument that knowingly hosting and spreading an airborne virus to others when there is a safe vaccine that reduces the spread can be though of as an act of aggression against others.
Just because someone is unvaccinated doesn’t mean they are “knowingly hosting and spreading an airborne virus” you disingenuous fuck.
And just because someone IS vaccinated does not mean they are NOT spreading any viruses.
About 60% of blacks are not vaxxed. Mandates are racist by Progthink.
Progs pushing mandates are the neoklan.
knowingly hosting and spreading an airborne virus
That's why you stay home if you are sick. Few people, vaccinated or not, are knowingly spreading covid. That is a very dishonest way to characterize it.
+1,000,000
Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner. It's the same with all the force bullshit from our government. If it's so great, why force it? Because communist elitists just cannot help it. Those stupid deplorables will "die on the street" if we don't enslave them and force them into government run, shitty solutions.
Fuck You Somin, White Mike, Joe Friday and all your communist fucks. You clearly cannot win arguments to convince people, so you fall back to the government and it's jack-boot violent force. You are in the same category as Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin.
Ilya Somin's liberty credentials are as suspect as his financial ones. He said he would vote for Biden because Trump spent too much money.
And look how well that worked out for him.
That’s not actually what he argued, but an oversimplification. What he said (which I must say is a dumb, but not un-libertarian argument) is that a Republican Congress would constrain Biden’s spending:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/30/why-biden-is-a-lesser-evil-than-trump/
But not until Jan 22. Until then it’s only Manchin.
110 tips for learn English(s)
Lots of regulars here could use those!
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin is simply put WRONG. The decision to get a vaccine is a personal decision that a person should make for themselves. Personally I believe that they could consult their personal doctor and make their decision using the information they receive from their personal doctor.
There are zero valid reasons for a vaccine mandate to ever be justified. Personally I made the difficult decision to get the vaccine. I got very sick from both shots and will not be getting the booster.
I also am extremely against forcing anyone to get the vaccine. Additionally any entity that mandates a vaccine should be held liable for any complications.
Additionally any entity that mandates a vaccine should be held liable for any complications.
THIS!
Unfortunately governments claim sovereign immunity. But maybe school districts, private employers, NFL, etc.
So you are saying that it is preferable that I get forced to inject myself with an untested vaccine AND on top of that that I am forced to pay for the consequences of a vaccine mandate that I strongly oppose?
That's not particularly remarkable when you look at his history and writings.
Great debates for the future.
The libertarian position supporting high taxes.
The libertarian position supporting rape.
The libertarian position supporting mind control! Don't forget mind control! (It might be our ONLY hope against the evils of the Lizard People!)
https://www.insider.com/lizard-people-conspiracy-theory-origin-nashville-bomber-qanon-2021-1
The bizarre origins of the lizard-people conspiracy theory embraced by the Nashville bomber, and how it's related to QAnon
Interesting. None of the lizards have so far subjected themselves to screening for lizard DNA, so who can say?
"and how it's related to QAnon"
"Witchcraft! They're WITCHES!!"
lol.
MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits, is a PRIME example of a would-be witch-burner!
https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-congressional-candidate-says-audit-all-50-states-execute-all-involved-1632838 Pro-Trump Congressional Candidate Says 'Audit All 50 states' and 'Execute All Involved'… Translation to all of this: “BURN the witches AND the vote-stealing Demon-Craps! Bring ON the 1-party "R" state!”
See CNN poll; 78% of Republicans now say the elections were stolen!
The above is from http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ ... See that site for more details about witch-burners and Jesus-killers like MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer!!!
Look at the old retard now ignore the subject, by copypasting one of his old shitposts.
What a troll you are.
I'd rather be a troll than a witch-burner, self-righteous witch-burning BITCH!
Sqrlsygruppenführer, the QAnon Witchfinder General.
Matthew Hopkins would be so proud of your creepy old ass.
They turned Gingrich into a Newt!
(AFTER an appropriate pregnant pause)...
"I got bettah!!!!" (Subtext, that's why I no longer look like a newt.)
The libertarian position supporting—-YOU KNOW WHO ELSE???
The libertarian position supporting rape.
After all, rape IS ‘only a small infringement on freedom.’ And rather temporary at that.
Involuntary penetration isn't always wrong. -- Ilya Somin (or was it Jeffrey Epstein?)
The libertarian position supporting rape.
The potential victim always has the option of fighting to the death to try to stop the rapist, so being raped is always voluntary.
How's that?
It's a shame that McArdle, who had the most defensible side of the issue to begin with, decided to poison the credibility of the results by asking supporters to register themselves as initially "undecided" so that she could "convince" them to oppose mandates and "win" the debate.
Amusing argument by McArdle boils down to she knows more than the scientists and doctors and 18k deaths - her count - is worse than 80k deaths. Her argument is not principled Libertarianism but paranoid conspiracy theories based on quackery.
Whoops - she says 18k deaths are worse than 800k deaths.
That's not at all what she actually said, but you're here to troll and fifty-cent, so pointing that out isn't going to stop you.
No. She just knows more than the politicians and public health bureaucrats who serve them.
Somin refutes McArdles BS data, so this is not a Libertarian argument, it's the paranoids vs reason. Remember, if it is a conspiracy, there are ten of thousands of researchers and doctors that are part of it.
What was BS about her data?
It didn't comport with what you learned from your University of CNN classes?
McArdle, if you play Russian Roulette, you have a 1 out of 5 chance of dying, as if we had a choice about playing when it comes to Covid.
Not very bright.
Covid has a 1 in 5 chance of killing? FFS Joe.
He’s a little worried that dbruce took over as the biggest idiot here, so he’s upping his credentials.
I know. I accidentally snorted water up my nose when I read that.
Don't be drinking anything when you read a Joe Friday post.
Chumby, I should have posted:
McArdle, "If you play Russian Roulette, you have a 1 out of 5 chance of dying", as if we had a choice about playing when it comes to Covid.
McArsle made the comparison, not me
Not very bright.
No. You aren’t very bright.
You are demanding that people lose their choice of whether to play when it comes to the vaccine.
Odds of dying from the vaccine may be lower than from the virus. But there is some risk of death or injury and you are 100% going to be exposed to that risk from the vaccine.
Maybe the vaccine is the right choice. But you don't get to force me to play Russian Roulette with a 1/10000 chance because you think I should prefer that to possibly having to play at some point with a 1/1000 chance.
So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.
Just the yugest applause: https://youtu.be/621nlm9HVqk
Lol, Slyfield really hurt your bum, huh.
The thing the movie gets wrong is that it is usually the young and pretty people who stand on the central podium and declare a totalitarian state, with people who look like Palpatine observing their folly from the sidelines.
Of course, the movie gets that wrong because the people standing on the central podium are progressives, a reality that the people making and watching the movie don't want to face.
Saturday Night Un-Live (latest greatest Covid reaction out of NYC)
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-entertainment-health-media-new-york-5c4139baf7bca027594f81672483bdcd?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab
F Hanks and Fey.
In a legal sense? Sure. Legal minds like Ilya Somin can justify torture and drone killings of civilians when they put their minds to it.
Just for the sake of argument, playing Devil's advocate, here, I'll make a libertarian argument in favor of some kinds of vaccine mandates. It should start with Adam Smith. Adam Smith had it that our legitimate rights sometimes overlap and conflict with each other. For instance, imagine it's Adam Smith's day in Edinburgh. Smith is walking out the front door of his property towards the gate that lets him onto the sidewalk and to the public street. While still on his own property, mind you, a cinder from his neighbor's chimney lands on his newly laundered shirt and stains it. The libertarian question is, "Who should pay to get the stain out of Smith's shirt?"
On one hand, it was a cinder from his neighbor's property and it landed on Smith's property while he was on his own land. On the other hand, surely his neighbor has a right to burn coal in his home to keep himself warm in the winter. If it were against the law to warm your own home in the winter, for fear that cinders from your chimney might land on other people's property, that would be preposterous. Why should we be legally compelled by the government to freeze in our own home? Shelter from the weather is a home's intended purpose.
Complicated custom and manners evolve to take care of these things, but Adam Smith also saw a legitimate purpose for government in protecting our rights by sorting things out when our rights overlap and conflict with each other. You might apply the same overlapping rights principle to someone who blasts the news so loudly, at 3 o'clock in the morning, that his neighbors can't sleep at night--so his neighbors can't use their homes for their intended purpose. Does someone have a First Amendment right to listen to the news so loudly that his neighbors are deprived of the right to use their own bedrooms for sleep?
A virus is like a cinder from your neighbor's property. It's like a loud noise that might keep you from using your own body the way you want. While we all have a libertarian right to heat our homes with things that might create cinders and listen to whatever news we want, we may be required--by libertarian principles--to ensure that in exercising our rights, we don't violate the rights of other people. Certain vaccine mandates may be defensible in those terms.
There are lots of cases like this--vaccines aren't unique. Take the Second Amendment, for instance. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to violate other people's rights with a gun. It just protects your freedom to exercise your own right own a gun. However, if you violate someone's rights with your gun, you've committed a crime--and the government has a legitimate duty to protect the rights of other people from your criminal use of a gun. Why can't vaccine mandates be viewed in similar terms?
I make this argument not because I buy it entirely. If someone else were to make the same argument, I'd attack it. The reason I'm throwing this argument into the mix is because I wanted to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for libertarians to make these kinds of arguments without resorting to false comparisons about lesser infractions and greater infractions on our rights, and because, furthermore, I wanted to demonstrated that it's entirely possible to make arguments like this without resorting to vile utilitarianism. Everything small state libertarians argue for can be and should be justified in terms of the government's legitimate purpose in protecting our rights. Starting from that standpoint will always give us the strongest possible argument from a libertarian perspective. Utilitarianism lends itself to rationalizations for both socialism and authoritarianism, and it should be avoided by libertarians.
This is a good post.
Because viruses aren't guns or cinders. Most bacteria and viruses (including COVID) are harmless to almost all people. And they are different in many other ways from guns and cinders as well. It's best to view exposure to most viruses as just an integral part of existing as a human, like the weather.
Furthermore, even for diseases like smallpox, when you apply the NAP to the smallpox vaccine and human interaction, you do not end up justifying a policy of "government can tell everybody to be injected with the vaccine, or face fines or imprisonment".
...or if they refuse, prevent them from working along with money and health problems that cone with that.
We do have MORONS in charge.
Even psychopaths act with intelligence.
These retards dont even qualify for that title.
Ken, your example is flawed. Viruses are naturally occurring. This one especially shows to be so. The vaccines do not control for infections nor slow it down based on the data we have over 18 months.
It would be more akin to you buying property on a mountain and then someone buying the parcel above you. Can you require the person who bought their own land above you to install rain barriers to protect your property? Knowing rain is natural and water can create damage on mountains, can you force someone else to provide defense against your own property?
There is no libertarian case to force someone to try and enhance your protection against a naturally occurring event.
Are you allowed to condition a 5 year old child to not play, not interact, not socialize, and stymie their own development to negligible lower your risk from a disease? That is an insane ask of anyone, let alone a libertarian.
Libertarians do not trade liberty for the appearance of safety, ever.
Per my experience in commercial real estate development, you are required to grade your property in such a way that the water drains away from other properties downstream. The city or county won't approve plans that fail to account for that, and even if they make a mistake and approve a plan that drains water onto someone's property, you're responsible if you altered your property in some way that damages other people's property. Hell, I've seen legal arguments about people artificially creating wetlands on other people's undeveloped property--which makes the property more expensive to develop to mitigate for the wetlands.
Other examples include weed abatement. In 2007, fires destroyed 1,500 homes and forced the evacuation of 1 million people in San Diego County.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2007_California_wildfires
One of the biggest reasons was poorly enforced polices on weed abatement. Sometimes they have big rains in the spring or the winter, and the weeds grow six feet high. Over the summer, they all dry up and turn to three feet deep kindling. If you live in a high risk fire zone and fail to clear the weeds off your property, the chances of your property catching fire during a Santa Ana wind is extremely high, and because of the topography, it's not just your property that will burn. Your neighbor's properties are all going up in smoke. There may be an easement on your property title for weed abatement. You'll get a notice to remove the weeds from your property by such and such a date, and if you fail to do so, the local government will send a crew out to clear it for you and add the expense to your property tax bill.
Does the government have a legitimate libertarian interest in protecting the property rights of the home owners around you? I think they do, and I think you're committing something of a crime like negligence if you willfully refuse to stop doing something that will eventually lead to the destruction of other people's property. It's kind of like drunk driving, but the point is that I don't think the argument falls apart because the fire danger is naturally occurring.
My critique of my own argument about viruses would center around the questionability of the enforcement. What exactly are you planning to do to people who defy the mandate? Are we talking about prohibiting the unvaccinated from doing something with other willing parties, be it a restaurant or a movie theater, or are we talking about eligibility for government programs like public schools? Are we talking about throwing people in jail for failing to be vaccinated? Or are we talking about enforcing the policies of private parties like restaurants? If they don't want you there, you have no right to be on their private property. In order for a vaccine mandate to be appropriate under the auspices of the argument I outlined above, the enforcement of the law would need to depend on someone being subjected to the presence of an unvaccinated person against their will--in a place that was their own property. Otherwise, we'd need to talk about public property like schools, buses, and libraries.
Replace 1930s Germany and " Jewish" with 2021 " unvaccinated" ....
Ahem.
Absolute life and death power and control was/ is the goal.
People that are desperate to slaughter babies care about life?
Fuck no.
The rules differ state by state. But in most states, you are not responsible for runoff unless you actually alter the land. Furthermore, these are rules that apply in a civil lawsuit for damages and only apply when there is a case of actual damage with demonstrable causation.
The analogy to vaccination in a water runoff situation would be like forcing every land owner to build drainage systems and retaining walls regardless of what the topography or hydrography is like, and regardless of whether anybody is at risk. That's a level of absurdity that even progressive regulatory states haven't reached yet.
In a libertarian society, property rights are protected through courts and compensation for actual damages, as well as through voluntary contractual agreements (e.g., HOAs). They are not protected through preemptive state-wide or national bureaucratic rule making.
And in a libertarian society, there really is little to no such "public property", which avoids that issue entirely and transfers all the decision making into the hands of private parties, constrained by liability, non-aggression, and courts.
If anyone can point to any actual evidence that vaccines protect anyone other that the person that was vaccinated, then this is worth a discussion. Until then, the only person in jeopardy by not being vaccinated, is the person not vaccinated.
There is indirect benefit.
Its next to impossible to document.
Interesting in all this how their impossible to proves and twisted statistics become Gospel....
Moderna- heart problems
JnJ- blood clots
Yeah gimme summa dat...
Food... Food poisoning!!! Food KILLS, dude!!! Stay ye AWAY from ALL imperfect things!!!!
PS, water causes corrosion, global warming (as water vapor), and causes DEATH via DROWNING!!! Stay ye ALSO away from WATER!!!
If I don't consume food I will certainly die. If I don't take a covid vaccine, I will almost certainly not die from covid.
They clearly protect Pfizer profits and share prices. Does that count?
These bullshit mRNA vaccines don’t even protect the person being vaccinated, they do absolutely nothing at all.
More and more lefties are arguing “at least they are starting to prevent hospitalizations and deaths”, but that’s just another lie. What is actually happening in reality is the virus is rapidly evolving completely on its own to become far less lethal, and the vaccines have nothing at all to do with this process.
The same exact thing happened with the “Spanish fly” 109 years ago. When i first started it was actually far more deadly on a percentage basis than COVID-19, but within two to three years it evolved into a much less deadly form completely on its own.
There is also no proof whatsoever that regular booster shots over an extended period are safe.
Interesting the mounds of False Choices, discussions, Straw Polls and Straw Man arguments....
Not " leaving it to the INDIVIDUAL.
Sign of brainwashing.
FUCK JOE BIDEN
"George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin supports vaccine mandates in certain cases because he believes they're a relatively "small infringement on freedom""
I agree. Vaccines, defines as a dead or weekened form of a virus to prevent the spread of deisease are not a big deal at all, but this is a Red Herring fallacy. mRNA is in fact experimental gene therapy and there are zero studies as to what the effects on the body are after receiving regular booster shots for 5 to 10 years. Forced or coerced participation in drug triqls, which is what this is is highly illegal for good reassons. The UN will have to step in and enforce the Nuremberg Code eventually. When they do I will voluntear to joint their forces.
Sorry about all the typos. The point to reiderate here is that these are not "vaccines"
“The right to health contains freedoms. These freedoms include the right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, such as medical experiments and research or forced sterilization, and to be free form torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”—Fact Sheet No. 31, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet31.pdf
Damn - Was hoping to listen to hear a reasoned, intellectual argument against mandates and the best we could get was a drawn out, overly emotional anecdote about a kid? A lead-in totally meant to play on heartstrings and sympathy and not to inform or debate. Did Angela actually shed a tear? What a disappointment. Is that the best we can do?
Nice one