Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ greediron said:
#1 is good enough for me. If you need more, have at it.
Hi Greed: I hope you haven't taken anything I have posted as a personal attack, I don't mean it as one. I am interested in understanding your thought pattern here. For instance, do you believe people have the right to refuse immunization? Do you believe people have the right to refuse to wear clothing? Again, I am not trying to be a smart ass, I am truly interested in where people draw the line as to where personal freedom trumps societal requirements.
Quick story. I am old enough to recall when a seat belt law was first considered in my home state. I grew up in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die state). I can remember the huge uproar over this. One day my best friend's brother was in a car accident (as a passenger) and he was not wearing his seatbelt. He went through the front window and lived. The driver was wearing a seat belt and she died. A group of people harassed my friend's brothers for weeks (while he was in the hospital) to make him a poster boy of why people should be able to decide whether they want to wear a seat belt or not. Now NHTSA estimates that between 1975 and 2010 seat belt usage saved society $1.6 trillion in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related economic costs. So, do you believe that seat belt laws should be repealed?
Again, I am always curious as to where libertarians (which I assume you are) draw the line.
I appreciate your questions and your honesty. I have always admired your approach and thoughtfulness here.
I am not a classic libertarian, but do have a streak.
I do believe people have the right to refuse immunizations. I don't believe we can be compelled into medical treatment, that is personal choice each person has to make. Decency laws are what compel clothes, but nudist colonies and such are perfectly fine. I think that local decisions are better. Seat belts are a good thing, but I don't believe we should be fined $100s of dollars if we choose not to wear them. A seatbelt could have saved my son a nasty concussion in a minor accident. So they are life saving in most instances, but again, that is a free choice IMO. Just like driving a car is a free choice, but a potentially dangerous one. I saw early on that the seat belt laws got politicized. I believe lobbyists for auto makers were part of the push so they wouldn't be required to install airbags in all cars. Even as a kid I could see the manipulation of data, the political push behind the seat belt laws. But I am thankful for them and use them.
As to masks, if they work, they are a medical device. And if so, then blanket policies mandating medical devices without considering the impact, the person and their choice is wrong. I personally see that they don't work, based on the science of the mask and virus, but also because I watch people wear them. As I have stated, I see people wearing the well made thicker types constantly pulling on them because they are suffocating. Surgical masks are not designed for viral protection. many thin cloth masks make the spread of water droplets worse. So, given that, tell me why I should be forced to wear one?
Quote: @greediron said:
@ VikingOracle said:
@ greediron said:
#1 is good enough for me. If you need more, have at it.
Hi Greed: I hope you haven't taken anything I have posted as a personal attack, I don't mean it as one. I am interested in understanding your thought pattern here. For instance, do you believe people have the right to refuse immunization? Do you believe people have the right to refuse to wear clothing? Again, I am not trying to be a smart ass, I am truly interested in where people draw the line as to where personal freedom trumps societal requirements.
Quick story. I am old enough to recall when a seat belt law was first considered in my home state. I grew up in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die state). I can remember the huge uproar over this. One day my best friend's brother was in a car accident (as a passenger) and he was not wearing his seatbelt. He went through the front window and lived. The driver was wearing a seat belt and she died. A group of people harassed my friend's brothers for weeks (while he was in the hospital) to make him a poster boy of why people should be able to decide whether they want to wear a seat belt or not. Now NHTSA estimates that between 1975 and 2010 seat belt usage saved society $1.6 trillion in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related economic costs. So, do you believe that seat belt laws should be repealed?
Again, I am always curious as to where libertarians (which I assume you are) draw the line.
I appreciate your questions and your honesty. I have always admired your approach and thoughtfulness here.
I am not a classic libertarian, but do have a streak.
I do believe people have the right to refuse immunizations. I don't believe we can be compelled into medical treatment, that is personal choice each person has to make. Decency laws are what compel clothes, but nudist colonies and such are perfectly fine. I think that local decisions are better. Seat belts are a good thing, but I don't believe we should be fined $100s of dollars if we choose not to wear them. A seatbelt could have saved my son a nasty concussion in a minor accident. So they are life saving in most instances, but again, that is a free choice IMO. Just like driving a car is a free choice, but a potentially dangerous one. I saw early on that the seat belt laws got politicized. I believe lobbyists for auto makers were part of the push so they wouldn't be required to install airbags in all cars. Even as a kid I could see the manipulation of data, the political push behind the seat belt laws. But I am thankful for them and use them.
As to masks, if they work, they are a medical device. And if so, then blanket policies mandating medical devices without considering the impact, the person and their choice is wrong. I personally see that they don't work, based on the science of the mask and virus, but also because I watch people wear them. As I have stated, I see people wearing the well made thicker types constantly pulling on them because they are suffocating. Surgical masks are not designed for viral protection. many thin cloth masks make the spread of water droplets worse. So, given that, tell me why I should be forced to wear one?
See, I come out differently, and I think we can appreciate if not agree with our differences. As I have said in prior posting, I don't think the conservative and liberals are 180 degrees different -- it is how we weigh things and where we draw lines.
For, instance, let's take immunization. Immunization, to a certain extent, relies on herd immunity (something I know you are familiar with from a prior post). "Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 70% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity." https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html. Let's assume for the sake of argument that immunization will have a small % of bad reactions (my daughter is autistic so I have heard this argument and I worked for an INTA group years ago involved in DPT litigation). So, if 10% of the people choose not to get immunization, they get the benefit of herd immunity without taking the very small risk of a bad reaction. To me, to a certain extent, that is free loading. -- they are not taking any risk but gaining the advantage of herd immunity.
With seat belts, there is no doubt that seat belt saves lives and money: between 1975 and 2010 seat belt usage saved society $1.6 trillion in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related economic costs. I was rear ended a few years ago and my daughter and I would be dead or severely injured if we had not been wearing seat belts. Now, it is a small measure to wear a seat belt and it becomes automatic. Now, assume someone does not wear a seat belt from choice and ends up so injured they end up on welfare, etc. You and I are now paying for their refusal to do something which is easy and conforms with common sense.
So, for me the line depends upon the burden on the individual weighed against the risk and cost to society if there is a bad outcome.
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ greediron said:
I appreciate your questions and your honesty. I have always admired your approach and thoughtfulness here.
I am not a classic libertarian, but do have a streak.
I do believe people have the right to refuse immunizations. I don't believe we can be compelled into medical treatment, that is personal choice each person has to make. Decency laws are what compel clothes, but nudist colonies and such are perfectly fine. I think that local decisions are better. Seat belts are a good thing, but I don't believe we should be fined $100s of dollars if we choose not to wear them. A seatbelt could have saved my son a nasty concussion in a minor accident. So they are life saving in most instances, but again, that is a free choice IMO. Just like driving a car is a free choice, but a potentially dangerous one. I saw early on that the seat belt laws got politicized. I believe lobbyists for auto makers were part of the push so they wouldn't be required to install airbags in all cars. Even as a kid I could see the manipulation of data, the political push behind the seat belt laws. But I am thankful for them and use them.
As to masks, if they work, they are a medical device. And if so, then blanket policies mandating medical devices without considering the impact, the person and their choice is wrong. I personally see that they don't work, based on the science of the mask and virus, but also because I watch people wear them. As I have stated, I see people wearing the well made thicker types constantly pulling on them because they are suffocating. Surgical masks are not designed for viral protection. many thin cloth masks make the spread of water droplets worse. So, given that, tell me why I should be forced to wear one?
See, I come out differently, and I think we can appreciate if not agree with our differences. As I have said in prior posting, I don't think the conservative and liberals are 180 degrees different -- it is how we weigh things and where we draw lines.
For, instance, let's take immunization. Immunization, to a certain extent, relies on herd immunity (something I know you are familiar with from a prior post). "Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 70% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity." https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html. Let's assume for the sake of argument that immunization will have a small % of bad reactions (my daughter is autistic so I have heard this argument and I worked for an INTA group years ago involved in DPT litigation). So, if 10% of the people choose not to get immunization, they get the benefit of herd immunity without taking the very small risk of a bad reaction. To me, to a certain extent, that is free loading. -- they are not taking any risk but gaining the advantage of herd immunity.
With seat belts, there is no doubt that seat belt saves lives and money: between 1975 and 2010 seat belt usage saved society $1.6 trillion in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related economic costs. I was rear ended a few years ago and my daughter and I would be dead or severely injured if we had not been wearing seat belts. Now, it is a small measure to wear a seat belt and it becomes automatic. Now, assume someone does not wear a seat belt from choice and ends up so injured they end up on welfare, etc. You and I are now paying for their refusal to do something which is easy and conforms with common sense.
So, for me the line depends upon the burden on the individual weighed against the risk and cost to society if there is a bad outcome.
I am not sure why you assume that, or why that is even an argument. Many people are on welfare and the working people are already paying for them? Many are on because of bad choices they have made, healthwise, careerwise or whatever. So how does the seatbelt decision transcend those choices?
As to vaccines, I do understand the herd immunity and don't disagree that vaccines can be helpful. The big issue is vaccine choice. The FDA limits which vaccines can be used and many times there is only 1 option. If we disagree with that option, say because they used aborted fetal cells in the creation of it, we can only refuse the vaccine, not chose a different one. The second issue is the number of vaccines has increase dramatically. And the vaccine load for a newborn is rather extreme. Vaccine manufactures are not liable for vaccine injury. The fed gov is liable, leaving the mfg with little reason for quality control.
Much of my skepticism on many of these topics comes from following the money. When I see money driving a crisis, I get libertarian about it. The continued Covid emergency is exactly that, if the state of emergency is stopped, the federal money stops. So states have every reason to keep the state of emergency going.
and folks, this is how you can have a reasonable discussion even though we disagree.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ VikingOracle said:
I am not sure why you assume that, or why that is even an argument. Many people are on welfare and the working people are already paying for them? Many are on because of bad choices they have made, healthwise, careerwise or whatever. So how does the seatbelt decision transcend those choices?
As to vaccines, I do understand the herd immunity and don't disagree that vaccines can be helpful. The big issue is vaccine choice. The FDA limits which vaccines can be used and many times there is only 1 option. If we disagree with that option, say because they used aborted fetal cells in the creation of it, we can only refuse the vaccine, not chose a different one. The second issue is the number of vaccines has increase dramatically. And the vaccine load for a newborn is rather extreme. Vaccine manufactures are not liable for vaccine injury. The fed gov is liable, leaving the mfg with little reason for quality control.
Much of my skepticism on many of these topics comes from following the money. When I see money driving a crisis, I get libertarian about it. The continued Covid emergency is exactly that, if the state of emergency is stopped, the federal money stops. So states have every reason to keep the state of emergency going.
As for the seat belt, again I see this as case of line drawing -- what the social safety net should and should not cover. I would consider failure to wear a seat belt as a clear and easy case of gross negligence.
Your vaccine position I find very interesting as I did not realize that certain vaccines were formed using fetal embryo fibroblast cells.
I think one bit of common ground is the amount of influence corporations have in our political system. As you point out, vaccine manufacturers have been able convince our government to give them a monopoly for certain vaccines and to also shield them from liability. Too much corporate money in politics. Frankly, I think Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) is a horrible decision. Corporation are an artificial construct created by the states and we should be able to limit their political participation (because the states wrote the rules that created corporations they should be able to limit how they corporations are involved politically).
|
![[Image: minard%2B02.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TvJmy6Rg_hQ/XxLl6UHcWxI/AAAAAAACxHI/H1EtMMkKITk6mnTX4KoKThLhYxdRNQEiACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/minard%2B02.jpg)
