Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, this is a really tricky policy decision. One in which "appeal to authority" looms large.

Because science.

I kinda liked where we were as a culture pre-pandemic. I don't think we are "there" any more, though.

Even appeals to "science" can lead to some pretty silly results.

For example, the science on peanut allergies is pretty clear. Using their construct (which I disagree with), the act of making a PBJ sandwich to take with you for lunch is "swinging at another's nose" with potentially deadly consequences should it connect.

Can a libertarian argument be made for banning the manufacture, sale and possession of peanut butter?

It appears Reason (the magazine) thinks so, but reason (the thought process) most assuredly does not.

 

[Ingomike]

There will likely never be a federal vaccine mandate for residents. They are farming it out to their corporate partners.

I remember being appalled that the Feds were buying data from the credit reporting agencies that most 1995 Americans would have thought unconstitutional if the Feds themselves collected it. It resulted in a big meh by the public and here we are.

No one could have foreseen the rise of corporations that are bigger than most countries, and how government would use them to control the people.

 

[JettaKnight]

Time to push work aside, grab some , and start at page 1.

 

[phylodog]

Have they figured out that they need to lie about the vaccine preventing someone from hosting and spreading the virus yet? It doesn't and so just like the seasonal flu vaccine, getting it only benefits the recipient to any appreciable measure. They can keep it, I don't need it, don't want it, and won't be getting it.

IF "they" honestly believe the virus is safe and effective they wouldn't need to push it as strongly as they have been. If someone or some thing I don't trust is trying really hard to convince me of something it's only going to make me less receptive to the idea. I don't trust our government, the WHO, Fauci, the media or anyone else at this point.

It's an individual decision and any attempts to try to compel me to feel some sort of obligation to get it are going to fail.

 

[Magyars]

Have they figured out that they need to lie about the vaccine preventing someone from hosting and spreading the virus yet? It doesn't and so just like the seasonal flu vaccine, getting it only benefits the recipient to any appreciable measure. They can keep it, I don't need it, don't want it, and won't be getting it.

IF "they" honestly believe the virus is safe and effective they wouldn't need to push it as strongly as they have been. If someone or some thing I don't trust is trying really hard to convince me of something it's only going to make me less receptive to the idea. I don't trust our government, the WHO, Fauci, the media or anyone else at this point.

It's an individual decision and any attempts to try to compel me to feel some sort of obligation to get it are going to fail.

IF it was as safe as TPTB claim, they wouldn't need to protect the "vaccine" manufacturers from lawsuits.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

IF it was as safe as TPTB claim, they wouldn't need to protect the "vaccine" manufacturers from lawsuits.

Now do firearm manufacturers

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Have they figured out that they need to lie about the vaccine preventing someone from hosting and spreading the virus yet? It doesn't and so just like the seasonal flu vaccine, getting it only benefits the recipient to any appreciable measure. They can keep it, I don't need it, don't want it, and won't be getting it.

IF "they" honestly believe the virus is safe and effective they wouldn't need to push it as strongly as they have been. If someone or some thing I don't trust is trying really hard to convince me of something it's only going to make me less receptive to the idea. I don't trust our government, the WHO, Fauci, the media or anyone else at this point.

It's an individual decision and any attempts to try to compel me to feel some sort of obligation to get it are going to fail.

Personally, I agree... and philosophically I agree that allowing the state to mandate a vaccine grants it unacceptable power over individual liberty... even for a vaccine I am scheduled to take, by my own choice.

If the state can force a person to unwillingly take a vaccine, what can it not force them to do? It's the slippery slope to limitless, and therefore inherently evil, powers.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Now do firearm manufacturers

Either/both could be solved by allowing for equitable (treble?) damages against the plaintiff AND their attorney, if their suit fails.

The problem is "nothing to loose so why not?" lawsuits. Skin in the game solves the majority of lawsuit problems.

 

[phylodog]

Now do firearm manufacturers

I don't see this as a parallel situation. Firearms manufacturers don't market their products as safe and no one from the government is highly recommending that everyone get a firearm or considering making it mandatory.

Pharmaceutical companies are sued all of the time. I don't know how often they lose but it is part of the cost of doing business and one of the reasons some medications are so expensive.

The fact that standard vaccine protocols were abandoned and the government is going to absolve the vaccine manufacturers of responsibility if it turns out they kill millions is reason enough for me to take a pass. Attempts to force the vaccine only reinforces my hesitation and solidifies my refusal.

MY BODY - MY CHOICE

 

[Magyars]

MY BODY - MY CHOICE

Amen Brother...or should I say awomen!?

 

[jamil]

Now do firearm manufacturers

It appears that you have an uniformed understanding. You can indeed sue firearms manufacturers. If you use a firearm in accordance with manufacturers' instructions, and within the confines of the law, and it discharges because of faulty designs or workmanship, you can sue for damages. You can't sue firearms manufacturers if some lunatic uses a gun to shoot up a school. It's not the firearms manufacturer's fault.

If your Toyota Camry has an unintended sudden acceleration event and you end up running over a bunch of people, then people will sue Toyota. If you see a bunch of Trumpers on a boardwalk not wearing masks, and you're very tilted about that, and in a fit of rage you stomp on the accelerator pedal, and you run them all over, regardless of your temporary satisfaction, the families of the victims shouldn't be able to hold Toyota responsible for that. It was all you.

The way Democrats/media frames The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, they make it sound like firearms manufacturers are completely free from any liability. And this is nonsense. It just says you can't hold manufacturers responsible for harm done when using their products unlawfully. You intentionally shoot someone who didn't need shot, that's all you.

 

[jamil]

Either/both could be solved by allowing for equitable (treble?) damages against the plaintiff AND their attorney, if their suit fails.

The problem is "nothing to loose so why not?" lawsuits. Skin in the game solves the majority of lawsuit problems.

The firearms issue isn't even relevant to vaccine damage though.

You can sue firearms manufacturers if their product harmed someone while it was being used properly and within the law. If you are practicing live-fire draws, and you accidentally get your booger plucker caught in the trigger guard as you holster it, and you end up running a 9mm projectile down your leg, and you try to sue Glock, you're probably not going to get far. And rightly so. Manufacturers aren't responsible for ND's. But they may be responsible for AD's.

I'm not sure I'm on board with your solution to frivolous law suits. Who's to say what's frivolous? I guess it's like porn, you know it when you see it. It's a subjective call that I think might result in some legitimate law suits never being filed because if the chances that it could be successful. Often cases are decided in favor of the high priced team of lawyers instead of the one lawyer who has a legitimate case and wants to help his client get justice. The price of leveling out the field of entrants is you get frivolous law suits. Maybe there's a compromise that could work though. Because having to defend against frivolous lawsuits is not justice for the defendant either.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The firearms issue isn't even relevant to vaccine damage though.

You can sue firearms manufacturers if their product harmed someone while it was being used properly and within the law. If you are practicing live-fire draws, and you accidentally get your booger plucker caught in the trigger guard as you holster it, and you end up running a 9mm projectile down your leg, and you try to sue Glock, you're probably not going to get far. And rightly so. Manufacturers aren't responsible for ND's. But they may be responsible for AD's.

I'm not sure I'm on board with your solution to frivolous law suits. Who's to say what's frivolous? I guess it's like porn, you know it when you see it. It's a subjective call that I think might result in some legitimate law suits never being filed because if the chances that it could be successful. Often cases are decided in favor of the high priced team of lawyers instead of the one lawyer who has a legitimate case and wants to help his client get justice. The price of leveling out the field of entrants is you get frivolous law suits. Maybe there's a compromise that could work though. Because having to defend against frivolous lawsuits is not justice for the defendant either.

I guess I’m a hard *** because I wouldn’t cut it off at “frivolous”. If you sue and loose, IMO, you should have to make the other guy whole. Don’t sue unless you’re sure you have a solid case.