Ahh, I am glad I live in the United States, where that sort of response is clearly illegal as it is a violation of multiple rights recognized as natural rights. Rights not granted by the government, but recognized as inherent to being human.
Private parties can discriminate like this, and for better or worse air travel is essentially a private party allowing someone onto their private property, but no law can or should be enacted by the federal government allowing discrimination based off vaccination.
If such a state does enact a law (similar to some states prohibiting religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements), I would be surprised if it didn’t end up being heard in front of the Supreme Court. The one now with a solid majority of constitution originalists.
So, if we were in a situation where a virus was 90% lethal and could spread easily, you wouldn't mind people walking around spreading it because otherwise we would be infringing on their natural rights?
And by my example you don't see the flaw in your logic?
Plus, you are now switching to free speech. That is a false equivalent because your speech cannot inherently harm someone (we aren't talking about hurt feelings here, I mean physically injuring/killing someone).
To sum: supporting 100% free speech no matter what is "fine" because it does not affect anyone else (aside from hurt feelings, so let's ignore that). Supporting 100% free movement no matter what cannot be compared to freedom of speech because you can literally harm/kill other people by your actions.
Ok, the right of assembly, or the right of privacy. They all work equally well to push back against government mandated widespread medical intervention.
Let's just be perfectly clear- if there was a virus that is 90% lethal and easily air-borne transmittable.. you are OK with infected people having "the right" to go anywhere they want in public and transmit the virus to others?
It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down.
The virus we are talking about, COVID-19, is incredibly low risk for 90+ percent of the population. I don't think we should enact policy that infringe on freedoms, so that vulnerable people can move around freely. Or rather, it's important to balance the two. Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise, but an immunization mandate isn't. Focus policy making on vulnerable people - give them wage replacement to not go out in public or to their job if they are overweight, have diabetes, if they are elderly, immunocompromised, etc. But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety, do not build the social will and legal foundation for future erosions of liberty, regardless of the purity of the motive today.
Edited to clarify mask vs immunization mandate above.
>It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down.
No, it's not a silly question. You are making the ASSUMPTION that people will make the best decisions for everyone (including themselves). I don't think you have been paying attention this year.
And you didn't even answer the question- would you be for forced lockdown if it was that lethal? Saying "it's not even a question" is skirting the issue. Because what about 70% lethal, or 60%, or 50%.. maybe even down to 10%. If your view is there is NO level that liberty can be sacrificed- then prove it by thinking about this simple situation and saying it.
I do agree with your general sentiment. However you are acting as if there is NO situation in which limiting liberty is the right choice. And I am arguing that is simply not true by giving you some extreme examples.
>Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise
Yeah, and people can't even follow THAT. It's arguments like yours that people are like "A mask!? what about MY FREEDOM!". Your freedom becomes less relevant when it DIRECTLY IMPOSES ON THE SAFETY OF OTHERS.
>But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety
Buzz. Wrong. Your natural rights don't give you the right to harm others.
Think of risk vs response to that risk as a sliding scale. Right now with COVID, the risk is low, so we don't have anywhere near a universal response to that risk. But, as you slide right along the risk scale toward "really risky", you'll see more and more of the population self-selecting to not play the risky game. I am merely proposing that people be able to choose their responses based off their risk tolerance. The problem with doing anything else, is that you make policy that will have winners and losers. A good example is the current school shutdown. We have millions of families with two working adults that rely on the school system in the United States to both educate and to supervise their kids while they are working. Those kids are now self-educating using remote learning techniques while parents are at work. When viewed in aggregate, that cohort of kids are just about guaranteed to have a lower overall outcome in life compared to the cohort where the family earned enough income to have one parent stay home.
Rushing school closures is one thing (it's a policy that when made early in a pandemic with unknown risks, can be reversed once risk factors are more understood). Rushing novel vaccines out is another, it's not something that can be reversed.
Life is risky. I am not trying to argue that COVID isn't real, that masks infringe on my liberties, etc etc. I am just trying to say that there are direct and indirect consequences to policies, and a general rule of thumb that I and millions of your fellow citizens use when developing our opinions on topics, is that personal liberties are a fantastic tiebreaker.
Private parties can discriminate like this, and for better or worse air travel is essentially a private party allowing someone onto their private property, but no law can or should be enacted by the federal government allowing discrimination based off vaccination.
If such a state does enact a law (similar to some states prohibiting religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements), I would be surprised if it didn’t end up being heard in front of the Supreme Court. The one now with a solid majority of constitution originalists.