> I for one am generally speaking against both that and coercive forms of vaccination against any current diseases, even though I mostly consider it an irrational bet to skip vaccination.
Hopefully you're also speaking out against seatbelt laws, helmet laws, laws requiring women to wear tops places men aren't required, and second hand smoke laws?
Generally any laws where one person's freedom of choices for safety, apparel, and air polluting activities bump into other people's rights to not be annoyed by you and not cover your health expenses. In principle, they're all the same principles...
For instance, it's unclear how to rationalize against mandates for triangles of cloth on one's face in a public venue when folks are fine with mandates for triangles of cloth on one's chest at the beach. In only one of those is the lack of fabric known to kill people, but that's not the mandate we're fine with.
This whole "my freedoms!" thing needs to go back to first principles, build it back up across all domains to what we think it should be, with consistency.
An issue in fact is being revealed in these times with organized mutual assistance, "covering each other's health expenses", as a burden. Because it can go off the limits of good sense. As in: if one were mandated to eating salad and exercising, and to only use the car under emergency to minimize the risk of crashes, then mutual assistance would be a "shoved service" instead of a welcome feature.
> people's rights to not be annoyed by you and not cover your health expenses
The principle of "not damaging others" ("do not smoke in my face") cannot be simply mixed with "not being a burden to society" in matters that show less trivial tradeoffs.
Hopefully you're also speaking out against seatbelt laws, helmet laws, laws requiring women to wear tops places men aren't required, and second hand smoke laws?
Generally any laws where one person's freedom of choices for safety, apparel, and air polluting activities bump into other people's rights to not be annoyed by you and not cover your health expenses. In principle, they're all the same principles...
For instance, it's unclear how to rationalize against mandates for triangles of cloth on one's face in a public venue when folks are fine with mandates for triangles of cloth on one's chest at the beach. In only one of those is the lack of fabric known to kill people, but that's not the mandate we're fine with.
This whole "my freedoms!" thing needs to go back to first principles, build it back up across all domains to what we think it should be, with consistency.