posted on December 31, 2021 10:20 PM by
u/unknownvar-rotmg
43
u/solastsummer68 pointsat 1640991364.000000
“Not taking drugs is beneficial for a person (and society as well)
and yet we have finally realized how damaging was the criminalization of
drug use. Even the UN had made this mistake and the world is making this
very damaging and costly mistake again with mandatory covid
vaccinations.”
Interesting line of thinking but actually cocaine and Covid vaccines
are not the same thing. I would be opposed to mandatory cocaine but not
vaccination because, and I can’t stress this enough, they aren’t the
same.
I’m having trouble making sense of that. Are they drawing an analogy between a vaccine mandate and a ban on taking drugs, or are they saying that the vaccine is like cocaine?
they're saying that taking drugs is like being unvaccinated. They say both are harmful but should not be criminalized
libertarians got ONE THING right and can't shut up about it
> got ONE THING right
If a major employer like Alphabet (Google) or Walmart made uppers mandatory, the libertarian position on drug use would change overnight.
Pretty sure the libertarian view defaults to anti mandate. Its the mandatory part of that sentence that doesn't fly in all scenarios. Its a common sentiment in those sub reddit to be pro vaccine anti vaccine mandate, or pro drug legalization from people that have never even smoked weed. My body my choice
Libertarians wanting the government to mandate that private businesses cannot implement a vaccine requirement in the name of "anti mandates" is a perfect encapsulation of the logical incoherence of libertarianism.
Nah. People at r/libertarian generally feel Texas saying businesses can't require vaccines to be not cool. I seem to remember a pam can't tell tbe difference meme on vaccine mandates, and mandatory no vaccine mandates. Private businesses can choose to sell to whoever they want for whatever reason they want
Assume a piece of ground. Person A says "I want to stand here". Person B says "No, I want to stand here".
Q: Which outcome is the one that "maximizes personal freedom"?
EDIT Alternative response: Why would anyone want to maximize people's personal freedom to kill others? Do you also think murder should be legal in the name of "personal freedom"?
Do libertarians also believe that driving under the influence of drugs should be legal? Because remaining unvaccinated and interacting with the public is more like driving drunk than a purely individual choice that only affects yourself. That's why we use phrases like "a matter of public health", even in legal texts.
Wanted to watch Plandemic but haven’t had the time? Wondering whether
antivaxx is popular enough to no longer be contrarian? Enjoy this
scintillating comment section, and remember to pick your priors!
They tried this several times and it always fails. There was iirc even a town which turned libertarian and then the bears (the animals not the subculture) took over.
E: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
The rest of what they did also sound horrible btw
> By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a town’s success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.
(They also cut most services, road repair, library etc etc)
Yeah, it's their right to hunker down at home and never trespass on regulated private property like restaurants and grocery stores and workplaces if they choose not to be part of society
I identified as a Libertarian for a long time and still have many
tendencies that lean that way although greater emphasis on socialism
now. However, for me Libertarian would be pro vax as unvaxxed can harm
another, your freedom ends where the next begins. I always felt
Libertarianism was largely Utilitarianism in politics, so help others in
order to help yourself, hence why you wouldn’t need a strong central
government, because people would look out for one another. Young me was
caught up in the virtue and good of people, older me realizes people are
too lost, unconcerned, or caught up in their own messes to be able to
make it work. Point is though true libertarians, least in my mind,
should support vaccines as it is both a moral and civic duty to ensure
quality of life and freedom.
We don’t know the longterm implications of the MRNa vaccines. Should
I risk the impact to myself due to a percentage of scientist saying that
is best and for herd immunity vs another group of scientist starting is
better to get it and let your immune system do its job?
What goes into my body is my choice. I happen to lean towards
vaccines and got the shots. The reality is that a person that doesn’t
get vaccinated because they are concerned about the long term effects is
completely sound in their rationale. Especially, considering how
untrustworthy the for-profits, govt agencies, and world agencies have
proven themselves to be.
It is only stupid to make the decision based on what color a
political party represents.
Since the real discussion is around utalitarian values, where does
doing it for the common good end? Shouldn’t we make foods that
contribute to heart attacks illegal for reducing overall deaths from
heart disease, and impacts to Healthcare costs?
Really, what is my or any group’s right to tell you try to force my
opinion for what do with your body? Any action taken to aggressively
impose morals or values is an offense to the person the aggression is
targeted towards.
Persuasion with facts through changing minds is hard. This is why
groups push for and favor authoritarian methods. Once you give up your
liberty, you surrender your voice.
The fact that we're talking about a deadly virus that kills other people shows the shallowness of this "liberty", "authoritarian", and "aggression" rhetoric.
Not being killed by someone carrying a virus could easily alternatively be construed as a more important "freedom" than whether you can choose not to get a vaccine. And unilaterally deciding to force other people to be exposed to your disease-ridden breath could also be considered "authoritarian" and "aggressive".
"My body my choice" is an extremely dumb phrase that should permanently be retired from our discourse. Why does it not equally apply to the people's bodies who would be involuntary infected by COVID if you don't get the vax? Why are you ignoring their "choice" here?
This type of libertarian framework doesn't actually get you anywhere- it's an empty vessel to rhetorically fill-in for whatever outcome you already want.
>The reality is that a person that doesn't get vaccinated because they are concerned about the long term effects is completely sound in their rationale.
No, they are not. The evidence for the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines is overwhelming. And this MRNa talking point is especially bizarre- even if you irrationally object to MRNa vaccines, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is right there! This can't possibly be anyone's good-faith objection.
>Especially, considering how untrustworthy the for-profits, govt agencies, and world agencies have proven themselves to be.
Do you think scientists and doctors are untrustworthy too? Do you also reject all other modern medicine? That would at least be coherent, but I suspect you do not.
If it was just the US and western Europe supporting vaccines, I would share your skepticism. But every country in the world supports the vaccines. If its a conspiracy, literally every county (even ones that are enemies) are in on it. Whatever level of tinfoil-hattery this is, it's beyond something a reasonable policy should attempt to accommodate.
>Since the real discussion is around utalitarian values, where does doing it for the common good end? Shouldn't we make foods that contribute to heart attacks illegal for reducing overall deaths from heart disease, and impacts to Healthcare costs?
I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the state banning foods that reach a certain level of unhealthiness (trans fat ban was a very good thing). But even if you are queasy about this, it should be obvious that carrying a deadly infectious disease directly impacts other people in society in a magnitude that choosing to be fat/unhealthy does not. I know this is only a measure of difference in degree, and not kind, but in this case the difference in degree is quite extreme.
>Really, what is my or any group's right to tell you try to force my opinion for what do with your body?
The state derives the right to tell you what you can do with your body via democratic legitimacy. What gives you the right to say otherwise? "Everyone just gets to do what they want with their body" is a libertarian fantasy that isn't even physically possible. Just think about this goal in the context of a deadly contagious pandemic, for like ten seconds, please.
>And this MRNa talking point is especially bizarre- even if you irrationally object to MRNa vaccines, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is right there!
People who object to mRNA vaccines but are okay with viral vectors are so fucking weird. The only other vector vaccine that's available on the market is the vaccine for Ebola and I doubt any redditor crying about vaccines has received it. And you have a fuck ton of mRNA in every cell of your body already, while that's not the case with.. a \~genetically modified\~ virus, so you'd think people who object to mRNA vaccines on vaguely naturalistic fallacy grounds would be against it? Biological illiteracy is wild.
Your right to swing your fist around ends at my face.
Your right to be infected by deadly pathogens ends when they can spread to others.
Its not really that hard.
That is a funny comeback! Not “obsessive compulsive.” Just looking
for decent conversation with opposing views. I’m not afraid to have my
mind changed. It’s just never going to happen when silly people like you
are just begging for a fight.
10 - 15% of our medical people take the yearly flu vaccine, even if they work in old folks homes. It is nuts. (the old patients do have a 90% vac rate however, but considering this is at their age quite a risk this is all a bit meh)
You realize that is in insane reaction to asking for mandatory flu vaccines right?
I know this is a thread about libertarians so I expect some leaps of logic, but going from 'mandatory flu vaccines' to '[nazi camp](https://momentmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/JojoRabbiNiceNazi.jpg) guard' is quite nuts.
> are you advocating that we mandate flu vaccines?
It wouldn't be inherently objectionable. Japan did this for like 25 years.
The correct analysis for this sort of thing is to think about the cost/benefits of such a mandate.
The incorrect analysis is to assume that every man is an island making choices that effect himself alone, unless he chooses to interact in a marketplace of voluntary interpersonal transactions. And if something like a communicable disease shows up that blows this whole framework the pieces, we must vigilantly ignore it lest an admission that "reality doesn't actually work like this" forever complicates our libertarian fantasy.
See this is a persuasive argument. Ideology such as libertarianism or socialism shouldn't be so engrained that it becomes dogmatic. There are boundaries where every -ism needs to bend.
The line here would seem to be where harming others becomes calamitous to society as a whole. I know there is a fraction of society that are devastated by this and many other transmittances of illnesses and they need to protect themselves. As there is a fraction of society that experience deadly impacts of getting vaccinated. To both of these low percentage individuals, taking or not taking a vaccine is calamitous, but for society as a whole it is not.
Many dictatorships were formed out of the pretense of public safety.
“Not taking drugs is beneficial for a person (and society as well) and yet we have finally realized how damaging was the criminalization of drug use. Even the UN had made this mistake and the world is making this very damaging and costly mistake again with mandatory covid vaccinations.”
Interesting line of thinking but actually cocaine and Covid vaccines are not the same thing. I would be opposed to mandatory cocaine but not vaccination because, and I can’t stress this enough, they aren’t the same.
Happy new sneer!
Wanted to watch Plandemic but haven’t had the time? Wondering whether antivaxx is popular enough to no longer be contrarian? Enjoy this scintillating comment section, and remember to pick your priors!
it’s so nice not being a libertarian
there are way too many comments in that thread considering what the OP is asking is essentially a yes/no question with an obvious answer
I identified as a Libertarian for a long time and still have many tendencies that lean that way although greater emphasis on socialism now. However, for me Libertarian would be pro vax as unvaxxed can harm another, your freedom ends where the next begins. I always felt Libertarianism was largely Utilitarianism in politics, so help others in order to help yourself, hence why you wouldn’t need a strong central government, because people would look out for one another. Young me was caught up in the virtue and good of people, older me realizes people are too lost, unconcerned, or caught up in their own messes to be able to make it work. Point is though true libertarians, least in my mind, should support vaccines as it is both a moral and civic duty to ensure quality of life and freedom.
I got it out of pure selfishness. I wanted my life back. The benefit to others was an added bonus.
Easiest no-brainer decision of my life.
We don’t know the longterm implications of the MRNa vaccines. Should I risk the impact to myself due to a percentage of scientist saying that is best and for herd immunity vs another group of scientist starting is better to get it and let your immune system do its job?
What goes into my body is my choice. I happen to lean towards vaccines and got the shots. The reality is that a person that doesn’t get vaccinated because they are concerned about the long term effects is completely sound in their rationale. Especially, considering how untrustworthy the for-profits, govt agencies, and world agencies have proven themselves to be.
It is only stupid to make the decision based on what color a political party represents.
Since the real discussion is around utalitarian values, where does doing it for the common good end? Shouldn’t we make foods that contribute to heart attacks illegal for reducing overall deaths from heart disease, and impacts to Healthcare costs?
Really, what is my or any group’s right to tell you try to force my opinion for what do with your body? Any action taken to aggressively impose morals or values is an offense to the person the aggression is targeted towards.
Persuasion with facts through changing minds is hard. This is why groups push for and favor authoritarian methods. Once you give up your liberty, you surrender your voice.
That is a funny comeback! Not “obsessive compulsive.” Just looking for decent conversation with opposing views. I’m not afraid to have my mind changed. It’s just never going to happen when silly people like you are just begging for a fight.
To each his own.
My flu virus can land on you. Are you advocating that we mandate flu vaccines?
Also was the intent with swinging fist to hurt you?
[removed]