Why does the freedom to infect others outweigh the freedom to survive a preventable disease? You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the social compact to follow as it suits you.
It's your choice to leave quarantine or not. It's your choice to get a vaccine or not.
This is a personal responsibility issue.
Not a society wide issue.
It's never been anyone's responsibility to wear a bubble suit to protect immuno-compromised people, or stop eating meat because of people with high cholesterol.. and it's not anyone's responsibility to get a vaccine to protect other people from covid.
Personally Im a hurricane evacuee and we are grateful for the help we don't demand you help us at risk to your livelihood.
How about driving drunk? Fuck everyone else am I right?
So stop whining and putting everyone at risk only because something is mildly inconvenient to you. Grow up already
yes yes it does.
You need to grow up and accept that other people aren't out there to protect you like Mommy and Daddy.
The world does not exist to hold your hand.
Never had been.
Your life, your responsibility, your choices.
That is the essence of freedom and it's beautiful.
It's too bad you would sacrifice freedom for safety.
Rothbard, and I doubt you can find anyone much more libertarian than him, wrote that if you knowingly cause suffering or death of another human being, you must be punished "an eye for an eye". In this case, if you spread covid and somebody dies or gets injured because of it, you should fully restitute the victim, even being executed if the heirs decide so.
From a philosophical point of view, freedom or libertarianism doesn't help you here. I would like to read any libertarian serious author that supports your views.
that doesn't make sense - why would you eating meat harm people with high cholesterol?
> It's never been anyone's responsibility to wear a bubble suit to protect immuno-compromised people
if you're a doctor treating them (or a friend visiting) it is
Permitting individuals to choose to be vaccinated and building owners to choose to forbid vaccinated people seems reasonable to me. Sacrificing individual freedoms for the mutual benefit of the larger group is the very core concept of society.
To a large number of people.... a survivability of 99.99% is an acceptable risk for people to go out in society freely, like you have with most age groups in Covid.
To some people ONE death is too many because the value of a human life is priceless.
What's the correct, scientifically determined, objective scale of people dying, to allow the government to turn things into a medical fascist state?
My argument is that there is no objectively correct 'scale' because it's not a scientific measure therefore doesn't matter.
It's just the news and government yelling scary death numbers until enough kind-hearted but ignorant people are scared enough to sacrifice their freedoms.
2) There are middle grounds between fascist states and passing some regulations
3) The news being a fearmongering whore doesn't invalidate the fact that some of what it reports may be a genuine threat
4) The right of america has historically fond of "if you don't like it, you can go to another country". Surely it's strictly less impactful to say "if you don't like it, you can work from home".