Good first step, Texas. Next up is the real test that ConInc usually fails: when the Feds take you to court and the Supreme Court throws the Supremacy Clause at you and rules your ban unconstitutional, are you going to cave or tell the Supreme Court/Feds to pound sand?
Is Texas prepared to use the Rangers to arrest OSHA officials who attempt to enforce Federal mandates? Because it may come to that.
'"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should remain voluntary and never forced," said Governor Abbott.'
Abbott is doing this solely for re-election purposes. I believe Dell and Texas Instruments have already done !vax shenanigans. Remember he also supposedly tested positive after supposedly receiving the injections.
Too little, too late, but it is is something more than nothing.
Now apply to this any futures injections or injections of any type (not just the SARS-2 ones). I trust the Texas legislature as a whole slightly more than Abbott.
I trust the Texas legislature as a whole slightly more than Abbott.
I wouldn't, Speaker Dade Phelan is an absolute failure. The only reason the state Dems could stage their superspreader event was because Phelan couldn't manage to pass the election reform bill in regular session.
Even from a Libertarian perspective, I honestly think this is valid because I don't think your employer has the right to demand you receive a specific medical treatment regardless of diagnosis, drug interaction, or religious objection.
Fundamentally, I think that even a private mandate is a violation of self-as-property, which trumps other aspects of amoral economic consideration. You can't impose a medical treatment on someone without their consent until they have been deemed so mentally unfit that they are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. It's the same reason as a Liberal Republic, we must ban slavery: Even if you insist on working for free you can't sell yourself into slavery. As you are your own sovereign, and the sole proprietor of yourself, no one can usurp that authority, as it is effectively a violation of Free Will (which we can assert is an inalienable right). Slavery is a usurpation of your own sovereignty over yourself as property, because it is a usurpation of future consent.
Keep that in mind in case any fucking Cato Cucks come out and whine about how rejection of violations of bodily autonomy is government over reach.
I could argue allowing it with libertarianism, but entirely based off of how I view contracts. In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated. Allow negotiation, though, and it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise). So it would be with consent from the concerned party.
Does that make sense? Not sure I'm presenting the idea well. It just seems really simple to me, that no agreement is really an agreement if only one side can set terms. I'd sooner call it coercion, or dictation. Those digital EULA things got me thinking about it, how it's nonsense to even expect a person to read the thing when it's impossible to negotiate the contents.
I don't expect employment contracts to be truly negotiable in modern society, so I have no problem with this ban.
In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated.
At first glance, maybe, but does that include a simple rejection of the contract?
If someone says: "You may buy my apple for $3", and you say "No, $2.99", and they refuse; they are refusing to negotiate on a contract, but it doesn't make it null. It just makes it rejected.
I think there's an additional measure of complexity that may be involved. Like, literal complexity to a contract. If no reasonable person can expect to understand all of the nuances and complexities of the contract, then it should be null and void because there is a lack of informed consent. Where as, in my apple example, the contract is so dead simple that any half-wit could be informed.
it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise)
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable, I don't think it can be legitimate since it isn't going to be logically valid by definition. How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package?
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.
most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism.
I'd take whichever road led to solving the problem I have with people being unable to found their own society. The systems you describe sound like a possible route for the US to peacefully convert to, but while I might be happy in that society, I think others that are unhappy with it should have the option to go make a little nation off to the side somewhere. How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose? It could also be a source of experimental data to prove what systems can work and what cannot (as if governing bodies actually care).
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability. So while it would permit my goal, it's just temporary.
I'm wasn't arguing against the existence of legal/procedural systems so much as I'm aware that the whole "worker's comp" thing we have is an embarassment. Whatever the fuck went wrong with all that, I want that to not happen more. One of the examples of it I've seen (boomer extended family with nerve damage) made it seem like you basically sign away your medical autonomy in exchange for having procedures paid for that don't help you. They actually hit upon a device that cured it during the process and then took it away because they wanted to do something else. Definitely something wrong with the incentive structure in there somewhere.
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
Sure there's plenty, but I'm talking about a merchant seeing a bunch of different currency from different countries being brought to him in a market for goods, and deciding "How am I going to have the customer pay for this? I don't know what the exchange rate is. Oh wait, gold is gold."
How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose?
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous. They'd rather die than lose power, and if you give them ground they will use it as a launching point for further attacks because expansion of their conquests is absolutely mandatory or their own survival.
As I've said before: I don't accept a "national divorce" because it's like letting go of the gun in an entangled gunfight. All it does is kill you.
The terrible truth is: the Left succumbs to arguments from power. It's why there were almost no third party Leftist voters in 2020. It's why the riots consolidated the Left, it didn't drive them apart.
If you take power, you tell them no, and you break their ability to steal from other people. The useful idiots will sort themselves out when you stop giving them shit, and the predators will destroy themselves by continuing to attack. Just don't ever let any of the predators into a position of power just because they seemingly changed their tune.
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain. This is why Liberal Republicanism is a better choice: it constructs a kind of rigid honeycomb of low-density power, rather than a full vacuum.
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep them isolated in their reservation? Set a border and regulate who can cross that border. Have someone go check on them once in a while, take a report for data. Increase status checks when they make it to certain technological benchmarks, like iron forging or blackpowder. Maybe even confiscate phones and computers when they go in. Basically make Australia 2.0, but for unhappy people instead of criminals.
It might sound a little cruel, but I think it's legit. Keep entry voluntary and allow everyone inside to fail. Possibly don't allow them to come back, but make that stipulation known beforehand.
I doubt the hardcore leftists would really sign up, because that shouldn't sound like any kind of power to them.
And if no one signs up, the space can be used for sociological experiments that can't be done in a university (or on US soil). Though I guess it'd be a "black site" then, because experimenting on humans is seen as cruel.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain.
I don't understand. Isn't stability about the ability to maintain present balances? What makes it stable to you?
I guess I am naïve, but the sheer number of hysterical people to this day surprises me. At some point you have to realize that a virus is a virus and that everyone will most likely get it if you haven't already.
The problem is that they've seemed to construe to the general populace that the facts of life are to be eliminated at all costs.
I got the virus. It hardly did anything, save for fucking up my taste/smell. My taste is still compromised, I can't taste certain things. I accept it (unlike the vaccine). Even if it doesn't ever fully come back, oh well. Someone can swerve into my car on the interstate during my morning commute and turn me into a vegetable. C'est la fucking vie.
They fucked up this thought process for a lot of people. If a risk can be mitigated, it should be to the greatest extent possible, regardless of implications. Obviously that's insane and untenable.. and like, these people still regularly get inside a car, so they're wildly inconsistent as well. But that's what's happened.
I’ve been saying this since April 2020. When we found the R0 (R naught) was about 2, and watching the spread map show it on all continents.
The sheep still don’t realize it’s not a matter of if you get covid, it’s a matter of when. And it’s not even that bad, definitely was never worth crippling the country for.
WHEREAS, I am adding this issue to the agenda for the Third Called Session of the
legislature that is currently convened so that the legislature has the opportunity to
consider this issue through legislation;
EO now, get the bitch codified and let Jao Bai Den cope.
But couldn’t they take it to court? The private business aspect? A lefty could force a business to have a mandate. I like the law but just hope it couldn’t turn on us
"We can't do that, the left might abuse it later!"
Meanwhile, the left completely ignores the constitution and does whatever the hell they feel like. It has never once mattered if "a republican did it first."
It'd be pretty awesome if they took it to court and the courts ruled it was a private business, thus shutting down governmental vaccine mandates entirely.
It won't happen, but that's be kinda cool.
With that said, it's time we stop the "private business" argument. At this point we're being too principled and allowing the other side to mandate private businesses left and right, but we refuse to do it ourselves. If private businesses don't have the right to not hire a black person, then the "private business" argument is moot, imo.
Good first step, Texas. Next up is the real test that ConInc usually fails: when the Feds take you to court and the Supreme Court throws the Supremacy Clause at you and rules your ban unconstitutional, are you going to cave or tell the Supreme Court/Feds to pound sand?
Is Texas prepared to use the Rangers to arrest OSHA officials who attempt to enforce Federal mandates? Because it may come to that.
You bring up good points. I am just glad that a red state governor finally did something to counteract the leftist vaccine mandates.
Texas doesn't even bother to send back illegals at the border so they'd problem just let it happen.
Note for the last sentence:
'"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should remain voluntary and never forced," said Governor Abbott.'
Abbott is doing this solely for re-election purposes. I believe Dell and Texas Instruments have already done !vax shenanigans. Remember he also supposedly tested positive after supposedly receiving the injections.
Too little, too late, but it is is something more than nothing. Now apply to this any futures injections or injections of any type (not just the SARS-2 ones). I trust the Texas legislature as a whole slightly more than Abbott.
When drug companies have advertisements, they have to list side effects, including death, no matter how rare.
But when drug companies have politicians and media do their advertising, they don't need the "fine print."
If the drug company claimed "safe and effective" directly, there'd be an asterisk for sure.
Many such cases.
It's better than nothing, and it ensures people at least keep their jobs.
These motherfuckers can now be sued according to state law for violating their rights.
I wouldn't, Speaker Dade Phelan is an absolute failure. The only reason the state Dems could stage their superspreader event was because Phelan couldn't manage to pass the election reform bill in regular session.
Fair enough. Don't know details about Texas legislature. Just some reports.
Even from a Libertarian perspective, I honestly think this is valid because I don't think your employer has the right to demand you receive a specific medical treatment regardless of diagnosis, drug interaction, or religious objection.
Fundamentally, I think that even a private mandate is a violation of self-as-property, which trumps other aspects of amoral economic consideration. You can't impose a medical treatment on someone without their consent until they have been deemed so mentally unfit that they are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. It's the same reason as a Liberal Republic, we must ban slavery: Even if you insist on working for free you can't sell yourself into slavery. As you are your own sovereign, and the sole proprietor of yourself, no one can usurp that authority, as it is effectively a violation of Free Will (which we can assert is an inalienable right). Slavery is a usurpation of your own sovereignty over yourself as property, because it is a usurpation of future consent.
Keep that in mind in case any fucking Cato Cucks come out and whine about how rejection of violations of bodily autonomy is government over reach.
I could argue allowing it with libertarianism, but entirely based off of how I view contracts. In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated. Allow negotiation, though, and it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise). So it would be with consent from the concerned party.
Does that make sense? Not sure I'm presenting the idea well. It just seems really simple to me, that no agreement is really an agreement if only one side can set terms. I'd sooner call it coercion, or dictation. Those digital EULA things got me thinking about it, how it's nonsense to even expect a person to read the thing when it's impossible to negotiate the contents.
I don't expect employment contracts to be truly negotiable in modern society, so I have no problem with this ban.
At first glance, maybe, but does that include a simple rejection of the contract?
If someone says: "You may buy my apple for $3", and you say "No, $2.99", and they refuse; they are refusing to negotiate on a contract, but it doesn't make it null. It just makes it rejected.
I think there's an additional measure of complexity that may be involved. Like, literal complexity to a contract. If no reasonable person can expect to understand all of the nuances and complexities of the contract, then it should be null and void because there is a lack of informed consent. Where as, in my apple example, the contract is so dead simple that any half-wit could be informed.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable, I don't think it can be legitimate since it isn't going to be logically valid by definition. How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
I'd take whichever road led to solving the problem I have with people being unable to found their own society. The systems you describe sound like a possible route for the US to peacefully convert to, but while I might be happy in that society, I think others that are unhappy with it should have the option to go make a little nation off to the side somewhere. How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose? It could also be a source of experimental data to prove what systems can work and what cannot (as if governing bodies actually care).
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability. So while it would permit my goal, it's just temporary.
I'm wasn't arguing against the existence of legal/procedural systems so much as I'm aware that the whole "worker's comp" thing we have is an embarassment. Whatever the fuck went wrong with all that, I want that to not happen more. One of the examples of it I've seen (boomer extended family with nerve damage) made it seem like you basically sign away your medical autonomy in exchange for having procedures paid for that don't help you. They actually hit upon a device that cured it during the process and then took it away because they wanted to do something else. Definitely something wrong with the incentive structure in there somewhere.
Sure there's plenty, but I'm talking about a merchant seeing a bunch of different currency from different countries being brought to him in a market for goods, and deciding "How am I going to have the customer pay for this? I don't know what the exchange rate is. Oh wait, gold is gold."
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous. They'd rather die than lose power, and if you give them ground they will use it as a launching point for further attacks because expansion of their conquests is absolutely mandatory or their own survival.
As I've said before: I don't accept a "national divorce" because it's like letting go of the gun in an entangled gunfight. All it does is kill you.
The terrible truth is: the Left succumbs to arguments from power. It's why there were almost no third party Leftist voters in 2020. It's why the riots consolidated the Left, it didn't drive them apart.
If you take power, you tell them no, and you break their ability to steal from other people. The useful idiots will sort themselves out when you stop giving them shit, and the predators will destroy themselves by continuing to attack. Just don't ever let any of the predators into a position of power just because they seemingly changed their tune.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain. This is why Liberal Republicanism is a better choice: it constructs a kind of rigid honeycomb of low-density power, rather than a full vacuum.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep them isolated in their reservation? Set a border and regulate who can cross that border. Have someone go check on them once in a while, take a report for data. Increase status checks when they make it to certain technological benchmarks, like iron forging or blackpowder. Maybe even confiscate phones and computers when they go in. Basically make Australia 2.0, but for unhappy people instead of criminals.
It might sound a little cruel, but I think it's legit. Keep entry voluntary and allow everyone inside to fail. Possibly don't allow them to come back, but make that stipulation known beforehand.
I doubt the hardcore leftists would really sign up, because that shouldn't sound like any kind of power to them.
And if no one signs up, the space can be used for sociological experiments that can't be done in a university (or on US soil). Though I guess it'd be a "black site" then, because experimenting on humans is seen as cruel.
I don't understand. Isn't stability about the ability to maintain present balances? What makes it stable to you?
I guess I am naïve, but the sheer number of hysterical people to this day surprises me. At some point you have to realize that a virus is a virus and that everyone will most likely get it if you haven't already.
Endemic.
Very likely, every person you will meet will get Covid in their life.
The problem is that they've seemed to construe to the general populace that the facts of life are to be eliminated at all costs.
I got the virus. It hardly did anything, save for fucking up my taste/smell. My taste is still compromised, I can't taste certain things. I accept it (unlike the vaccine). Even if it doesn't ever fully come back, oh well. Someone can swerve into my car on the interstate during my morning commute and turn me into a vegetable. C'est la fucking vie.
They fucked up this thought process for a lot of people. If a risk can be mitigated, it should be to the greatest extent possible, regardless of implications. Obviously that's insane and untenable.. and like, these people still regularly get inside a car, so they're wildly inconsistent as well. But that's what's happened.
I hear that takes 6 months. TBH, assuming you don't die, that's kind of like the worst of the "more than likely" things that could happen.
It's the classic authoritarian move: present a false choice between freedom and safety, while actually denying both.
I’ve been saying this since April 2020. When we found the R0 (R naught) was about 2, and watching the spread map show it on all continents.
The sheep still don’t realize it’s not a matter of if you get covid, it’s a matter of when. And it’s not even that bad, definitely was never worth crippling the country for.
still waiting on DeSantis to do this.
I love this part of the EO:
WHEREAS, I am adding this issue to the agenda for the Third Called Session of the legislature that is currently convened so that the legislature has the opportunity to consider this issue through legislation;
EO now, get the bitch codified and let Jao Bai Den cope.
Maybe I should move to Texas instead of Kentucky.
Kentucky has based Senator Rand Paul and based House Rep Thomas Massie but Kentucky has a scumbag Democrat Andy Beshear as governor.
Don't forget RINO extraordinaire Cocaine Mitch.
I would never forget that corrupt faggot turtle.
True. Plus Kentucky isn't growing nearly as fast which I find to be a plus.
Texas just went up on the list of states I'm considering moving to.
But couldn’t they take it to court? The private business aspect? A lefty could force a business to have a mandate. I like the law but just hope it couldn’t turn on us
Leftists have been forcing vaccine mandates on us from every angle.
We should not be afraid of potential leftist blowback when using state power to stop their tyranny.
They’ve already pushed to where we wanted to avoid. Playing nice isn’t stopping them from doing what we don’t want them to do by playing nice.
"We can't do that, the left might abuse it later!"
Meanwhile, the left completely ignores the constitution and does whatever the hell they feel like. It has never once mattered if "a republican did it first."
There haven't been "private businesses" in the way you mean since the Civil Rights Act.
Oh yea, I forgot about that detail
It'd be pretty awesome if they took it to court and the courts ruled it was a private business, thus shutting down governmental vaccine mandates entirely.
It won't happen, but that's be kinda cool.
With that said, it's time we stop the "private business" argument. At this point we're being too principled and allowing the other side to mandate private businesses left and right, but we refuse to do it ourselves. If private businesses don't have the right to not hire a black person, then the "private business" argument is moot, imo.
“Private businesses” do not have freedom of association.
It's already legal for a state to have a vaccine mandate under a state's general police powers and has been for a long time. On the other hand, the feds trying the same thing is probably unconstitutional.
Cool. Thanks for clarifying
Still not voting for this prick