I think we've been circling the issue on partial basis and on piece by piece for the past 20 pages, so i'm going to try and synthesize the whole issue in one post for clarity.
From a political theory perspective, the fundamental underlying principle of western democracies is that government should NOT limit individual freedoms other than to reduce or remove harm caused to a third person. From a personal and philosophical perspective, you should have the liberty to do as you please as long as it does not cause harm to others. This permeates our society and laws. You can jump out of a plane if you wish but you can't push a third person out of a plane, etc etc. There are limits to this with respect to an individual's capacity to act in their interest, this is why we regulate children more, but GENERALLY as an adult you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. You can agree with this political theory or you cannot, frankly I think its a fundamental and self-evident principle, but you can disagree. If you, you support authoritarian government systems and sure, you go support that, but i don't.
Another headline concept is choices vs government direction. People have said, can person A require person B to be vaccinated to enter their store. That is different to the government mandating a choice. People are free to do that, and businesses are free to do that, but society will regulate that to determine whether it is appropriate. People will either agree with the decision or not and by taking their business elsewhere or to there they will legitimise or oppose that decision. That is NOT the same with a government mandate. Even if 100% of people agreed, the government decision would maintain until the next election. They are not one in the same. We are talking about GOVERNMENT mandated vaccines here. That is a key distinguishing factor.
So lets step this through. Is a mandatory vaccine conflicted with an individual's liberty. Patently it is. You can argue if there is a legitimate 'choice' not to take the vaccine, but that has been covered ad nauseum, it's coercion and force to require you to get a vaccine or sacrifice your entire professional career. Western law does not allow person A to restrict person B (i.e your former employer (A) and you (B)) from working in their profession without adequate compensation (effectively paying them equivalent amounts not to do so). Requiring mandatory vaccine to work in a particular industry is plainly coercion and not a legitimate choice.
So now we have to consider, can this choice be taken away legitimtely. I.e does it cause harm to another person. Generally speaking, we don't hold person A liable to person B for the communication of disease. You can't sue Joe Bloggs for passing the flu onto you. It was bad luck. For the approach to be different here, there needs to be something critical about the harm caused to justify it. This is the critical point. I concede that there MAY be arguments for mandatory vaccinations in hospitals and public school systems because those are public areas that the public in general needs to be able to attend to receive education and healthcare. If we assume this virus is dangerous and is highly contagious, then there is a potential for vaccines to be mandated in those industries. But for other industries, any person who is concerned about catching the virus does not need to participate in that section of society. If you are so concerned about this virus you can self isolate yourself, you can click and collect, you can work from home. You can also get the vaccine to protect yourself.
Now we need to look at the harm caused by a vaccinated person versus unvaccinated. The common argument is that an unvaccinated person can cause harm to a vaccinated person. That may be true, they can pass it and someone could catch it from them and get sick. If you consider that can be attributed to the person (i.e opposed to our normal standards where flus are not held responsible to another person for transmission), then sure that's your prerogative. BUT you have to hold that standard to a vaccinated person as well. A vaccinated person can STILL pas the virus, to a limited degree, but it still can happen fairly regularly. As such, that person would be as liable for the harm to a third person as an unvaccinated person is. The only difference is you're treating one as a silver bullet to ignore the harm principle because you've taken a vaccine. That isn't logical, that isn't practical.
If you consider an unvaccinated person is responsible for transmission of the virus, you must think a vaccinated person is the same or else you are a hyprocrite.
I don't think either is responsible, as such I don't consider it offends the harm principle and i don't consider mandatory vaccinations are therefore warranted.
If you think otherwise, then you're responsible for your actions whether you are vaccinated or not, and I hope you continue to isolate yourself after getting the vaccine to avoid harming other people.
Finally, ignoring the macro-concepts above. The fact is we are going to get to 85/90% of vaccination rates without mandatory requirements. Surely that is sufficient for the health benefits of societal immunity and prevention of hospital overflow. The free society has addressed the issue, we don't need to impinge upon human rights and political freedoms to achieve that goal.
It's not warranted, and it makes me sick to thing we live in a country that has permitted it and that there are people who so gleefully support such authoritarian principles.
From a political theory perspective, the fundamental underlying principle of western democracies is that government should NOT limit individual freedoms other than to reduce or remove harm caused to a third person. From a personal and philosophical perspective, you should have the liberty to do as you please as long as it does not cause harm to others. This permeates our society and laws. You can jump out of a plane if you wish but you can't push a third person out of a plane, etc etc. There are limits to this with respect to an individual's capacity to act in their interest, this is why we regulate children more, but GENERALLY as an adult you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. You can agree with this political theory or you cannot, frankly I think its a fundamental and self-evident principle, but you can disagree. If you, you support authoritarian government systems and sure, you go support that, but i don't.
Another headline concept is choices vs government direction. People have said, can person A require person B to be vaccinated to enter their store. That is different to the government mandating a choice. People are free to do that, and businesses are free to do that, but society will regulate that to determine whether it is appropriate. People will either agree with the decision or not and by taking their business elsewhere or to there they will legitimise or oppose that decision. That is NOT the same with a government mandate. Even if 100% of people agreed, the government decision would maintain until the next election. They are not one in the same. We are talking about GOVERNMENT mandated vaccines here. That is a key distinguishing factor.
So lets step this through. Is a mandatory vaccine conflicted with an individual's liberty. Patently it is. You can argue if there is a legitimate 'choice' not to take the vaccine, but that has been covered ad nauseum, it's coercion and force to require you to get a vaccine or sacrifice your entire professional career. Western law does not allow person A to restrict person B (i.e your former employer (A) and you (B)) from working in their profession without adequate compensation (effectively paying them equivalent amounts not to do so). Requiring mandatory vaccine to work in a particular industry is plainly coercion and not a legitimate choice.
So now we have to consider, can this choice be taken away legitimtely. I.e does it cause harm to another person. Generally speaking, we don't hold person A liable to person B for the communication of disease. You can't sue Joe Bloggs for passing the flu onto you. It was bad luck. For the approach to be different here, there needs to be something critical about the harm caused to justify it. This is the critical point. I concede that there MAY be arguments for mandatory vaccinations in hospitals and public school systems because those are public areas that the public in general needs to be able to attend to receive education and healthcare. If we assume this virus is dangerous and is highly contagious, then there is a potential for vaccines to be mandated in those industries. But for other industries, any person who is concerned about catching the virus does not need to participate in that section of society. If you are so concerned about this virus you can self isolate yourself, you can click and collect, you can work from home. You can also get the vaccine to protect yourself.
Now we need to look at the harm caused by a vaccinated person versus unvaccinated. The common argument is that an unvaccinated person can cause harm to a vaccinated person. That may be true, they can pass it and someone could catch it from them and get sick. If you consider that can be attributed to the person (i.e opposed to our normal standards where flus are not held responsible to another person for transmission), then sure that's your prerogative. BUT you have to hold that standard to a vaccinated person as well. A vaccinated person can STILL pas the virus, to a limited degree, but it still can happen fairly regularly. As such, that person would be as liable for the harm to a third person as an unvaccinated person is. The only difference is you're treating one as a silver bullet to ignore the harm principle because you've taken a vaccine. That isn't logical, that isn't practical.
If you consider an unvaccinated person is responsible for transmission of the virus, you must think a vaccinated person is the same or else you are a hyprocrite.
I don't think either is responsible, as such I don't consider it offends the harm principle and i don't consider mandatory vaccinations are therefore warranted.
If you think otherwise, then you're responsible for your actions whether you are vaccinated or not, and I hope you continue to isolate yourself after getting the vaccine to avoid harming other people.
Finally, ignoring the macro-concepts above. The fact is we are going to get to 85/90% of vaccination rates without mandatory requirements. Surely that is sufficient for the health benefits of societal immunity and prevention of hospital overflow. The free society has addressed the issue, we don't need to impinge upon human rights and political freedoms to achieve that goal.
It's not warranted, and it makes me sick to thing we live in a country that has permitted it and that there are people who so gleefully support such authoritarian principles.
Last edited:
