So we should mandate everything that saves lives, no matter the cost to freedom or infringing of rights?
This is the issue with technocratic government: zero understanding of anything deeper than “if it works, do it!”
This is the issue with technocratic government: zero understanding of anything deeper than “if it works, do it!”
Australia is the future of the Western world.
If that exists, it existed before COVID, and vaccinations against COVID certainly haven't changed that.
> Social credit system
Are you referring to mandates? These have been a thing, in the U.S., for many decades
> exclude people from doing simple human things
Vaccine mandates have excluded people from things far more important than restaurants, such as education, for many decades. This is not new to COVID.
You seem to be arguing against a system that has existed for many, many years.
Even if they did, it’s pretty obvious that they have been dramatically increased in the last 18 months.
You seem extremely uninformed.
The only difference is there's a new vaccine that needs to be rolled out to everyone, as quickly as possible.
Most people get their mandatory vaccines as children, in a staggered way.
Because of the current situation, it's happening all at once, and the restrictions that enforce the vaccine are also being changed, based on the age of the people required to get the vaccine. What am I missing here?
If anything the restrictions people are putting in place to enforce the vaccine mandate have been less extreme. As workplace mandates get rolled out, this will become more even, as the right to work is comparable to the right to an education.
As I tried to communicate before, curtailing basic rights in order to enforce vaccinations for everyone is not new. The only difference is that these usually happen based on age, instead of happening to everyone, all at once.
"That was a relatively easy no for the court. In a 7-2 ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, it decided that jurisdictions do have the right to require people to get vaccinated. Back then, the government was much more forceful about it, knocking down people’s doors to get them vaccinated, the New York Times says."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/republica...
Denying access to restaurants seems....timid? At least, in comparison.
I’m sure the argument falls apart in many other ways. You can probably find the counter arguments in the same Twitter thread where you found your talking points – just make sure to unhide the tweets containing them.
1. Is OSHA legal?
2. Is the mandate within OSHA's scope?
In terms of state level mandates, the Jacobson vs. Massachusetts ruling clearly applies.
Australia is taking it to the next level and using covid as an excuse. Do you believe that they will end their programs in 5 years when all of this is over?
>Are you referring to mandates? These have been a thing, in the U.S., for many decades
Vaccine passports are starting to be required to go to concerts, grocery stores, ball games, etc. If you do not do what the state wants you to do you will become a second class citizen with restrictions. This is similar to the social credit system in China.
>Vaccine mandates have excluded people from things far more important than restaurants, such as education, for many decades. This is not new to COVID.
No one is restricted from education. You can go to a private school or get an exemption.
Time to roll up sleeves for your civic duty.
since everybody has their own opinion on where that balance is, there will always be individuals unhappy with what decision makers decide
it is, of course, totally okay to have an opinion on that, but an opinion does not necessarily grant decision power, or even veto power, so ultimately you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a right, and you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a violation or an infringement of a right
I'm not trying to slam you here, because I am also not the one who gets to decide that -- I'm just one of hundreds of millions of Americans, the majority of which do not have a problem with this move
now, of course, if someone/you believes this move is an unconstitutional violation of rights, they/you can bring it to SCOTUS, who will let them/you know if they/you are right
and if SCOTUS does ultimately say that this specific mandate is unconstitutional, then of course I agree with you that such a decision should be respected unless and until We The People change the constitution, which would be okay, too
that framing does not reflect reality
if and when a SCOTUS ruling says that this specific mandate is a violation of constitutional rights, you will be correct
until then, you are not correct, by default
otherwise any random dude on the internet could just declare _anything_ a "right" and declare _anything_ an "infringement"
I still respect you as a person, though -- have a great day
I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over again
Just to be clear, it absolutely does establish such rights in law and thereby grant them as legal rights. It may be that some of authors and ratifiers (and some current constituents) of the Constitution have a (quasi- or literally) religious belief about the metaphysical preexistence of and/or independent ethical universal necessity of exactly such rights (or a super- or subset of them) against any legitimate government, but that's...largely immaterial except in terms of arguments between people sharing such views as to what rights should be established in law, or social science analysis of why the particular rights chosen were established in the Constitution.
I think you'll find that most people who are okay with the laws you are referencing likewise disagree that those laws infringe free speech rights, rather, they view them as operating in a space outside of the proper conception of the right to free speech; the complexity isn't as much in the operation of rights as in the parameters of rights.
an alternate interpretation with the exact same implications might be "that right isn't absolute", which, yeah, I am okay with
ultimately it's just semantics that fails to meaningfully address GP's comment
If, as real property analogy, I have fee simple title to a parcel part of which is subject to utility easement, the utility company’s access within the scope of the easement is not an infringement of my right of exclusive control, it is outside of the scope of that right.
Similarly, most people who support laws that you see as “infringing” on the right of free speech who agree that a right with that name exists view the definition of the scope of that right more narrowly than the people who see the law as an infringement.
yet here I am, one of those people, telling you that yes, I do indeed view it as one
No, I haven't.
In fact, I’ve said nothing in this thread about that analogy (and nothing at all about it, IIRC, on HN except [in summary form] that it has fuck-all to do with the actual law, either now or when it originally appeared as dicta in an abomination of a decision.)
Nor have I said anything about what “most people” view as a “limitation” on a right. What I’ve said is about that most people who support a given law that others characterize as an “infringement” of the right do bot view it as an infringement, but as an act outside the scope of the meaning of the right.
> yet here I am, one of those people
Even if literally everything you said preceding this wasn't false, “one” ≠ “most”, except in a particular degenerate case where it is also “all”.
if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying there is a difference between society viewing something as outside the boundaries of a right, versus society viewing something as an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on a right
if we assume that is true, then what are the implications to OP's post?
e.g. the vaccination mandate can be presented as either "outside the boundaries of the right" for whatever right those protesting the mandate cite, or an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on that right
so what's the difference?
The whole idea of rights is that they cannot be violated, period. There's no reason to even have for example a UN Declaration on Human Rights if they can just be violated for Good Reasons™. Rights are absolute or they don't exist.
Rights are things reserved for individuals to hold unilaterally, sovereign over them, no democratic process or other consideration can take them away. That's the whole idea. That's at the core of the definition of the concept. Without that, the concept of rights doesn't exist.