Excellent, welcome to the collective, comrade BJ.

Well Supreme Court says I have a right to travel

“The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),
(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and
(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh? Where I live those were the only gatherings allowed.

And when was travel between states restricted? I traveled between states every day during covid.

Let us count the maladies.

This is so wrong.

The BLM protests went on all over the country. I didn't go because I was over 65 and before the vaccines came out and before we knew that outside meetings were much safer than indoor meetings, but I did drive my family there.

Nobody ever stopped the anti abortion protests in red states.

The Trump campaign had rallies inside indoor stadiums. I believe Herman Cain died from Covid as a direct result of the Tulsa rally. It wasn't forbidden but it was recommended against.

There was the motorcycle annual gathering in South Dakota which did their thing with over hundreds of thousands of riders from all over the country in 2020, 2021, etc. Covid rates skyrocketed in SD as a result.

Spring breaks in Florida and other southern states were still a thing and college students had Covid surges which it turned out were entirely OK because they were so young.

Luciom,

Are these views specific to what you view as the risks of the COVID vaccine or is this your view on all vaccines?

FWIW, I agree that, historically, some vaccine requirements have been de facto government mandates, even if they were not literal mandates.

Is it an outrage that governments at various times in world history either have mandated, or de facto mandated, smallpox and polio vaccines, for example?

Imagine that a disease came along that, absent vaccination, would kill 60% of the world population in an agonizing way. There is a highly effective and extremely safe vaccine that could be administered very quickly and cheaply to the entire world. Would it be an outrage for the U.S. government to effectively mandate that all U.S. citizens get the vaccine?

Yeah. When did that happen? I traveled between states during COVID and gathered privately with whoever I wanted. I'm sure there were temporary restrictions in some places on large public gatherings, parades, etc., but that's about it.

In Portland pretty much every other kind of large gathering was banned for quite awhile, except for the BLM events, for which the rules were not enforced.

Imagine a disease that comes along and kills less than 5 % of the population and mainly individuals with underlying conditions and has a death rate with children lower than the common flu and you force parents to get their children vaccinated and shut down schools . The vaccine itself weas developed by a pharmaceutical company that has a record of the highest lawsuit awards and in order for them to administer the vaccine you give them full immunity .

The king of whataboutism strikes again.

Bob the Billy Goat strikes again!

please read again, the fascism isn't in the mandate rather in the absolutely disproportionate punishment if you don't take it, that was implemented in various cases.

The mandate can make sense paternalistically ( i disagree with paternalism for adults in all cases, but that isn't fascism, just paternalism) when you vaccinate someone for a disease that's very problematic for him, or technocratic utilitaristic if you vaccinate to protect "other people" (not fascist as well, but much less morally defensible when it's about minors, more morally defensible if it's about healthcare workers).

Paternalism for minors can actually make sense (as you remember i am not in favour of absolute paternal rights, to prevent abuses).

So in case of minors, for diseases deadly for children, just vaccinate them. You don't mandate the parents to do that even, you give the shot for polio at school and are done with all the fuss. No need to punish parents in that cases, you just want the kids vaccinated for their own protection, the situation is very clear, you give them the shot.

In case of adults i would never mandate anything.

But if you have to mandate it has to be exceptionally clear that there is a big danger you are protecting them from (paternalistic reasons). So i would actually have accept (for covid) just mandated vaccination of all nursing home residents by law, in the actual sense of you pass the law and the day the doses are in the nursing home they get them, willingly or not, no need to tell legal tutors if they are mentally incapacitated (that left some elders in NH unvaccinated in italy, because the legal tutor was either an antivaxxer or unreachable). It's an emergency, you are doing it to the best of your collective knowledge for a massive health advantage of the person, it's like doing a blood transfusion to someone who might have objected religiously if conscious, you simply do it and it's not fascism.

For the technocratic utilitarian you can mandate to healthcare workers as well (Except here the science wasn't crystal clear) for "statistical reduction of risk" (which didn't happen, everyone got exposed to covid anyway) for patients. Very flimsy grounds, not at all recommended, kind fascist when you start inventing science that isn't there or when you mandate them even to people that don't front patients but are vaguely in healthcare, or when (like in italy) you suspend unvaccinated psychologists and they can't event have a zoom session with a patient if unvaccinated (that's literal burocratic fascism do you agree?).

But teachers? lol wtf. Students in college? lol wtf. Vaccinating not at risk people is absurd in general. The very close example we already had to covid was the flu. Vaccine doesn't last long, disease per se is not very dangerous for significant portions of society and so on.

Absurd to mandate it to others.

But the punishment for others was the most insane thing. No indoor entertainment venue allowed? completly out of whack.

Then there is the extremely fascist thing of having to show a paper id to live normally. That's exceptionally fascist and by itself, even if the healthcare reasons where crystal clear to do so (and they weren't at all), it shouldn't be done. Setting up a system where you can't live normally without showing papers multiple times per day is literally paving the way to actual totalitarian fascism.

Such a system shouldn't exist, any fascist worldwide is using those examples salivating over how to control a population. The chinese tried several things with the covid excuse and you know how it went. It's horrible beyond belief to have to show papers to enter a restaurant. Your right to a normal life can't be predicated upon your cellphone battery not dying, or the system never glitching, or hackers never being succesful.

Fortunately in Italy, we just didn't care with tourists. Their vaccination passes often weren't recognized , we just let them in anyway all the times. But that's because we have lived through fascism and we know the solution to keep a decent quality of life, when fascism exists, is a widespread disregard for fascist rules. Other countries aren't like that and i can only imagine how many people got their rights annihilated in germany and elsewhere because the cellphone was dead or the data connection didn't work.

If you mandate a vaccine, you can fine people who don't comply. The **** it is severing them off society lol, that's a punishment we don't give to actual sexual offenders.

Treating an unvaccinated 7y old worse than a vaccinated 48y old that spent 15 years in jail because he raped 3 kids is *absolutely insane*. The latter can go have ice cream among kids.

///

As for the 60% lethal disease hypothesis, i don't understand. Taking aside the fact that even if lethality was say 15%, your problem would be how to secure vaccination center from actual invasion and assault by people clamoring to be vaccinated ASAP, not mandating them to come, let's imagine you have this disease at 20% lethality and a working vaccine and some people for whatever reasons don't want to take it.

**** them? let them die. At most you could very reasonably claim they forfeit medical care if they catch the extra-lethal new disease. For adults i really really really don't understand the problem. You have society collapsing because people needed out of home to keep the lights on, and food on the table of everyone, aren't there. You have riots in the streets to secure food when scarce and stuff.

The **** you care about the religious nuts or whatever the reason is that don't want the vaccine? vaccinate the rest asap and good riddance to the antivaxxers.

At most i could see a mandate for their kids as per above, sure, makes sense if you can logistically do it after other priorities to keep society alive are solved

If only we had a thread for Covid and we could keep this thread about where Daddy Trump changes his diapers while at court.

It is a bit odd to see the argument: It's ok to force people to take a vax even if it is someone who is 0% to be negatively effected by covid and even if nobody they are close to is likely to be effected because people they don't know will be ever so slightly better off if they got the vax.

Using this same logic we should ban cars from driving over 25 MPH, knives from being sharp, gasoline must find a way to be non-flammable or it will get banned, rollerblades need better brakes, hot dogs need to stop being served in bunds, pogo sticks need to have less bounce, scissors need to be more dull, pools need to have a max depth of 2.5 feet and ban jumping into the pool, etc. since my grandpa would be less likely to be seriously injured or killed by these things if people would stop thinking of themselves and thinking more of my grandpa.

Well, nobody has banned you from giving financial advice yet.

It isn't really a mandate unless there are consequences. So I would ask the question again, with added detail.

Luciomtopia is facing a new virus. With no vaccinations, the virus is likely to kill 60% of Luciomtopia. 50% of Luciomtopia has an irrational fear of all vaccines and will not take them absent significant coercive pressure from the government. There is a vaccine for the new virus that is safe and effective at preventing infected people from transmitting the virus to uninfected people. The vaccine does nothing to prevent vaccinated people from catching the virus from unvaccinated carriers.

Luciomtopia has minimal taxes of course (it's Luciomtopia after all), but faced with this extraordinary threat, the government of Luciomtopia announces that people who are not vaccinated within 60 days will be forced to pay a one time tax equal to 50% of their assets.

Is that an outrage?

It's an outrage that we have to cut the resident of Luciomtopia into parts just to make this question work.

Rococo the scotus case that clarified that yes, states had a right to impose vaccine mandates, Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), was about a vaccine mandate (for smallpox).

The penalty if you didn't comply was... $5. Yes 1905 dollars, sure, like $200 today more or less.

"it isn't a real mandate if the punishment isn't absurdly high" is actual fascism

Luciomland wouldn't have the resources to enforce a sequester of assets from half the population to begin with, so it wouldn't pass a law it can't enforce.

Luciomland has qualified majorities necessary for significative laws, and extremely qualified majorities necessary for exception to property rights (including any new taxation or rule with fines) and body sacrality especially. So if 50% of the people want something that violates everyone freedom *it doesn't pass in luciomland* (which has full proportional representation in congress), that's one of the core tenents of luciomland.

Luciomland also has no emergency exception that allow any violation of basic constitutional rights.

To pass the law you cite you would need 80-90% of congress depending exactly on how the constitution is written and applied.

All the above said, if i read it correctly the vaccine doesn't protect the vaccinated person right? for some magical property that never applies to any single pathogen in human history, you can prevent the disease from passing without protecting the person? that hypothetical is kind of a big stretch isn't it? it's like saying imagine there is this drug i can inject into you, that does nothing to you, but some random person elsewhere gains X years of life expectancy.

Can you mandate it? well absolutely no in luciomland? you can never mandate something on someone for the statistical benefits of others in luciomland lol (DUI laws are unconstitutional for example in luciomland). You can only intervene to block actual direct violence to other people body and property.

Direct has to be defined and there will be gray areas, but being "potentially a carrier of a deadly disease" isn't direct violence, it's called "being alive"