A Sense of Doubt blog post #2352 - No shirt, no shoes, no VACCINE, no service: Care about Others; Do the Right Thing
GET VACCINATED!
This issue is not rocket science.
And yet, the misinformation devils and the power-hungry politicians have set up their own echo chambers, promoting vaccination untruths, outright lying about the Covid-19 vaccine, and promoting smoke screens of "personal liberty" and HIPAA misunderstanding. They play to a base of people who have never believed the pandemic was as severe as it clearly is or even believed it to be a complete hoax.
Thank you, Mr. Spock.
Here's some content about businesses requiring masks and/or proof of vaccination.
Why is the common sense of this so hard for 100 million Americans?
https://studentsforliberty.org/north-america/blog/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-vaccine-no-service/
PANDEMICS
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Vaccine, No Service
Published on May 5, 2021
Proof of vaccination may become commonplace if you want to do much in the post-COVID world. Businesses are already rolling out services that will only be available to those who have been vaccinated.
Ticketmaster has already been developing a system to verify that ticket holders have been vaccinated or have tested negative for COVID-19 before they can attend events. Royal Caribbean will only be accepting vaccinated cruise passengers once they resume operations, and some gyms are restricting use of facilities solely to those who are vaccinated.
Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against those who are unvaccinated? If so, what gives them the right? To these two questions, the answers are “yes” and “the right of property”.
Property rights and the right of exclusion
According to legal theorist J.E. Penner, “The currently prevailing understanding of property in what might be called mainstream Anglo-American legal philosophy is that property is best understood as a ‘bundle of rights.’” What is included in this bundle of rights for libertarians?
Property rights, whether referring to places or goods, involve an individual having the exclusive right to use or modify their places or goods however they please, so long as this does not physically alter the property of others.
As such, property rights give an individual the right to use some resource without it being physically violated by others. This implies a right to exclude others from using, walking on, moving, destroying, consuming, or otherwise physically altering one’s property without the property owner’s permission.
This right of exclusion gives property owners the right to decide who, when, and how others are allowed to use their property. They have the right to create criteria for inclusion in the use of their property.
For instance, a homeowner may limit the use of his house only to explicitly invited guests, a women’s shelter owner may limit the use of their resources solely to women, and business owners may limit the use of their store to paying customers only. These exclusionary practices are part and parcel of the libertarian understanding of property rights.
Following this logic, business owners also have a right to exclude those who are unvaccinated from using their property. This includes the right to exclude the unvaccinated from entering brick-and-mortar stores, from receiving services, or from buying their products at all.
If the government were to force businesses to allow the unvaccinated to use their property, this would be a violation of the property rights of business owners. Instead of using their property as they see fit, allowing some and excluding others from using their property, property owners are forced, by threat of violence from the state, to use their property in some other way which they themselves would not have voluntarily chosen.
By forcing business owners to serve unvaccinated individuals, the government is essentially telling property owners, “Your determination of the best use of your property does not matter, instead, you must use it as you are told. You must allow those whom you would otherwise prefer not use your property to use it. If you do not, we will use force to strip you of your property and, if need be, imprison you.”
Bodily autonomy and the right to goods and services
In his blog post, Vaccinating Against Corporate Tyranny, Preston Neives argues that “Because private businesses control many of the necessary goods and services for the day to day function of society, a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would make it such that relinquishing one’s ownership of their own body becomes necessary to participate as a full member of society.”
Nieves suggests that a vaccine is different from other requirements for admission into businesses because it is “permanent in its effects, and carries the possibility of side-effects.” For Nieves, doing this constitutes giving up ownership over one’s own body. But permanent bodily mutilation is necessary for inclusion in many of the institutions we take for granted as having a right to exclude.
For example, Tattoo Clubs require that one have permanent tattoos and Jewish sects require that members be circumcised. Property rights gives these organizations the right to refuse others the use of their tattooing equipment and synagogues. The same is true of business owners whose rights over their property gives them the right to only include those who have properly modified their body, by getting a vaccination, in the use of that property.
Further, Nieves’ thesis proves far too much for the libertarian. If one needs access to whatever “necessary goods” referred to by Nieves in order to become a full member of society, then businesses must do much more than merely allow the unvaccinated to enter their store. They must make these goods available without obstacle. No longer should businesses be free to discriminate based on those who can pay for their products and who cannot, but should have to give these products away for free! After all, we wouldn’t want some people to not be full members of society!
It is easy for the libertarian to recognize that this is a clear violation of the property rights of business owners. They should be free to determine who and for what price others may purchase their products and services. If businesses should be free to deny citizens such “necessary goods” for not having enough money, then surely they should be free to deny them those goods on the grounds that they make other patrons and employees unsafe, which is a threat that the unvaccinated pose.
Conspiracy theories and central planning
Nieves is also concerned that conspiracy theories will be fueled by businesses which ascribe to vaccination mandates. But why would a decentralized business-by-business decision on whether or not to allow the unvaccinated to use their property fuel conspiracy theories?
The top-down central planning of a governmental mandate is quite literally conspiratorial. A small minority of the populations – those who lobby for, write, and pass laws –get together and decide how the rest of the public must use their own property. However, a property rights approach, in which many thousands of individual decisions by individual business owners would determine a variety of criteria for admission and exclusion from the use of their property has no such conspiratorial element.
A solution to mandatory vaccines
Let me conclude by arguing that a property rights approach to vaccination offers us the best of both worlds, allowing us to respect the bodily autonomy of others while retaining concern for public health.
Property rights exist not only over external objects, but over one’s body as well. John Locke’s dictum that “every man has a property in his own person” is one which should be taken seriously by those who value individual rights. Each individual’s property right over their own body gives them the right to use their body as they see fit. This means that they have the right to refuse vaccination, regardless of the public or personal health benefits which vaccines bring.
But some will object that there is too great of a public health risk that arises when we allow people to go unvaccinated. They argue that many people will then contract the virus and spread it to others. But to this problem, property rights offer a perfect solution. They offer both bodily autonomy and public health!
If someone is a public health threat to those around them, property rights offer a way to exclude that person from interaction with others. Property rights give us the freedom to not associate with those who pose health threats to us without infringing on their bodily autonomy.
Property rights are good for bodily autonomy and public health
Property rights give business owners the right to exclude specific individuals from using their property. This right extends to the right to deny the unvaccinated from purchasing their products or services. The property rights approach to vaccination is the one solution which offers both bodily autonomy and public health. It should be the approach favored by all, and especially by libertarians.
After a long period of decline in frequency and impact, widespread pandemics have, in recent years, started to become more commonplace. Global pandemics pose a threat which is an increasingly relevant topic of political discourse, particularly in light of the crisis surrounding the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
Scope of government intervention
Various policies implemented by governments during pandemics include the prohibition of large gatherings, social distancing measures, restrictions on travel, and even full lockdowns. Measures such as these can vary greatly in terms of how effective they are in the effort to stop or slow down the spread of a virus. This depends on a number of factors, although the most crucial would appear to be the timing of implementation and the level of preparation, with early testing being vitally important in any containment effort. Other important aspects in determining the likelihood of a successful response include the amount of information available to the public, as well as the willingness of individuals to act responsibly and take guidelines into account.
In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these requirements for a chance at an effective early response were not met, with the unavailability of tests in many countries being particularly problematic. To compound this, at a time of emergency when any available help should be welcome, government regulations have in many cases prevented the private sector from contributing to the development of tests, preferring instead to ensure the monopoly of government agencies.
Impact on personal and economic freedom
Occurrences that pose a major public health risk must certainly be seen as times of emergency. However, it is important that the legitimate fears surrounding health crises are not abused as opportunities for governments to expand their powers at the expense of individuals. This is especially important when considering the extraordinary value contributed by individual and economic liberties to the global ability to respond to such crises.
It is also worth considering the human cost of any economic collapse brought about through extended periods of lockdown, where economic activity in many sectors is brought to a complete halt. Governments must be careful in implementing measures that would have devastating long-term consequences, and need to ensure that any efforts made to combat a pandemic also take into account people’s livelihoods. Given the health implications of an economic downturn, decisions surrounding any legislation which impacts the functioning of the economy must not be taken lightly.
Why appropriate government response to pandemics matters to SFL
At Students For Liberty, we believe that protecting the rights of individuals and their futures should form an important part of the response to a crisis. Individuals must also ensure they behave responsibly, in a way that does not endanger others, and therefore some time-limited measures of harm prevention can be appropriate during extraordinary times. However, a crisis must never be used as a means for governments to expand their power and turn in the direction of authoritarianism, as is sadly often the case. We believe that, ultimately, a pandemic also warrants a reevaluation of burdensome regulations which, during times of crisis, only exacerbate the problem.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/ZSIODW4SORDCFL6NMK5K5Q4VPA.jpg)
https://www.live5news.com/2021/05/15/louisville-bar-owner-asks-fully-vaccinated-customers-show-proof-go-maskless/
The bar owner and staff decided to require proof of being fully vaccinated if someone does not want to wear a mask. Johnson told WAVE 3 News he’s tired of fighting people.
“With some of the issues we’ve had with guests you know getting in our face and being rude,” he said. “And it’s not all guests, it’s just a few, but it’s enough that we’re on edge and to make a big change like that at the last minute was a difficult change to weather.”
The signs on the door outside Meta on Friday afternoon were clear about mask-wearing: face masks were required to enter the building. Johnson said he will be replacing the signs with another clear message: “no shirt, no shoes, no vax card, no dice.”
Now, a whole lifetime later, we buckle up as soon as we sit in a vehicle, we make sure that our kids are wearing helmets, and do not dare drive without insurance. We would not even think about walking into a store with bare feet and no shirt. All of these have become second nature. No personal liberties have been affected and no one has been hurt by following the rules.
Until the pandemic, we gave little thought to “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” The same should be for masks. Businesses have the right to refuse service to those that refuse to enter without masks. Although it is understandable that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t entirely prepared to wear masks, unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common ¬— it has been almost a year since the pandemic paralyzed the nation and wearing a mask should be second nature. Yet, we still are having this debate.
Mask compliance has become a political issue instead of a health issue despite the evidence. According to Dr. David Abrams or New York University’s School of Global Public Health, “This is a life-and-death issue. Masks, physical distance and handwashing are the three things we have to reduce the spread of the virus in the absence of a vaccine.”
Overnight, the whole premise has displaced the mask as the leading flashpoint in our national culture war. If you’re for vaccine passports, you’re a liberal fascist. If you’re against them, you’re a selfish anti-vax Luddite.
“Is there anything more Orwellian than a ‘vaccine passport’ that Americans would need to travel within America?” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, who is vying to become the new Trump.
I don’t know, I just had to give a proof of vaccination against measles and other diseases so that my kids could be admitted into college. So it’s hardly a new concept.
But the idea that a vaccination profile might be required at everything from the corner bar to symphony hall is a new one — and something we seem to be racing toward without setting up any ground rules first.
Analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University, California ranked No. 1 among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis. Still protests over wearing masks are now commonplace. As Dr. Abrams pointed out “There’s a certain bravado of being angry and defying requirements to wear a mask.”
- “Costco Karen,” for instance, staged a sit-in in a Costco entrance after she refused to wear a mask, yelling “I am an American … I have rights.”
- An unruly crew marched through Target yelling “Take off your masks, we are not going to take it anymore.”
- “Burn the Mask” protestors blocked the entrance of Trader Joe’s in Fresno to causing the store to close early.
- A protestor at a Ralph’s in Los Angeles called a shopper wearing a mask a “mask Nazi.”
- In a mall in Century City, anti-mask protesters tried to force their way into several stores causing workers to be barricade themselves inside stores to keep out protesters.
Despite the protestations, wearing a mask just like wearing seat belts, shoes and a shirt, does not violate your rights. The government has a right to enact laws to protect the health and safety of the public. That is the quintessential role of the government.
To the extent that protestors object that masks violate their right to liberty (“my body, my choice”), they should direct their attention to Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s smallpox vaccination requirement. The case has not been overturned. The case clearly explains why mask mandates do not violate any constitutional right to privacy, health, or bodily integrity. The court ruled that the requirement didn’t violate Jacobsen’s right to liberty or “the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.” The court added that “[t]here are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.”
The case makes it clear that the ideals of limited government do not absolve us of our social obligation to protect each other. Simply put, we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.
For now, masks are necessary. Common sense suggests that If there is no choice, we will wear masks. We all will be safer if businesses work together to make “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Masks, No Service” the norm in California.
 |
| After getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on May 6, 2021, at the Kennedy Center's outdoor cafe in Washington, DC, George Ripley, 72, holds up his free beer. Jacquelyn Martin/AP |
CDC recommendations
Forty-four percent of employers say they would require vaccinations of workers reentering offices. And there's at least some contemplation by businesses of requiring proof of vaccination from customers, most notably the cruise industry, which saw its ships turn into floating petri dishes or worse as the coronavirus took hold last year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-shots-no-service/618487/
Podcast: No Shirt. No Shoes. No Shots. No Service.
Vaccine passports, explained
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-shots-no-service/618487/
The restaurant is asking customers to bring their vaccination card or a photo of it.
"Until you have vaccinated, please do not enter our establishment. If you are fully vaccinated, welcome! We are excited to hang out with you," the restaurant wrote in the announcement on Instagram.
That post now has thousands of comments from people who support and disagree about the policy.
The restaurant says it instituted the policy after several staff members tested positive a few weeks ago, forcing it to close, and say they can't afford to shut down again.
"We weren't setting out to offend anyone. We aren't by any stretch promoting mandatory vaccinations. We feel very strongly that this is no different from a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy," Argosy co-owner Armando Celentano said. "It's something that public health science shows lowers our chances of contracting and spreading the coronavirus."
Since putting the sign up in the window, Celentano says they have been flooded with angry comments and death threats on social media.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2107.27 - 10:10
- Days ago = 2216 days ago
- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.
No comments:
Post a Comment