It is not the employers that are demanding these people be vaccinated, They just want their products delivered. The government wont allow drivers to cross an imaginary line without submitting to vaccination: an even more egregious trespass of an individuals liberty than their usual practice of extortion and/or delay.
This is incorrect, it is an appeal to false authority, the "Nuremberg" defense.
If you, as an individual, take by force the property of a person that has not demonstrably harmed another, you are a thief.
If you kick in the door of another human being, that has not demonstrably harmed another's person, or by extension, property, you are an armed home invader.
"The law" does not change your moral obligations.
"the law" is historically speaking, a very poor measure of morality.
You have every right to extract a lethal price
from those that would trespass your person or property at gunpoint, as is happening here. They are armed robbers, and will continue to be until it is no longer worth "the cost".
This is flat wrong, Crypto is one of the hardest places to launder money.
This comment betrays a lack of understanding of how it works at even the most basic level..
reddit's conspiracy channel is groupthink (or, the lacking of critical thought?) at it's absolute worst. Point out the obvious flaws in their reasoning, get banned, just as fast as any other subreddit.
In short, reddit is cancerous no matter the forum.
The chief promise of this technology is to take back the power of money from the governments, a great advance in human rights. Regulation is antithetical to their initial purpose. There is simply no need for it, it is a power grab, to continue the status quo, nothing more.
Semantics. Do you have a right to threaten a group of people voluntarily exercising together? Of course not.
Since you do not have that right, You cannot delegate that right to another, which makes any claims of "democratically" derived law, invalid.
You cannot use the desalinated water in this way, because the excess salt will build up in and destroy the soils fertility. Sounds just like the kind of thing government would mandate, further destroying the environment.
This is a terrible idea, From the perspective of someone who knows nothing about agriculture, and the water cycle.
Trees encourage the retention of water in the ground, Their roots penetrate the clay soils, which on a microscopic level appeal as layers of paper: pour water on a pile of newspaper and it sheds off, allow water to penetrate and that clay can hold 1/3 of it's volume in water. The removal of beaver dams, building of fences and roadways, is what has caused your environmental damage. Before people began to manage the land in this way, It was rich with water and fertile. When you think to take water from farmers, so that you can take a long shower or grow a landscape in your yard, you are part of the problem.
Denying large swaths of agriculture just so that you can grow a yard, or take a long shower, is the kind of stupidity that has landed California where it is in the first place.
It doesn't really matter what their justification might be, Threats of violence against people for listening to music is a trespass of basic human rights.
Patents kill innovation, certainly, and at an ever increasing rate. The government acts as the enforcers for monopolies, as it always has been.
It is based on an appeal to violence, like everything government does. It is, and has always been the principal enabler of every genocide, war, and mass abuse of human rights in history: educating people to recognize the claims of government authority as logically invalid (appeals to the populace, appeals to violence, etc. etc ) is needed.
Government has always been the principal enabler of every war, genocide, and mass abuse of human rights through history. Divorcing them from control of money is a massive human rights advancement, and most people recognize this.
People don't know what they want, or rather, they know what they don't want, and it is what we currently have. "most" Americans would like a reasonably priced open market for healthcare, not the currently entrenched healthcare monopolies. Going any control over healthcare to this government is foolish, has already resulted in what we have today.