Judge denies injunction against vaccine law

[Harshaw]

clearly yes

What makes it so "clear" that the state -- which is to say, other people who claim authority over you -- have a possessory interest in your body?

Please explain. Giving examples of other people CLAIMING authority over you doesn't establish this "interest." Why do other people have the right to own you?

 

[Ikari]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. you have control of your body to an extent, as regulated by the law. and the state has a right, subject to its powers under the law, to regulate conduct that negatively effects everyone else.

you have rights, but they are not unlimited to everyone else's detriment.

You seem to be confused about what a "right" is. "You have control of your body to an extent, as regulated by law" isn't a statement of you having right over your body, but rather privilege. If all you have is privilege, than someone or something else has the right to it.

This is your argument. The basis of which is rooted in that "society" has sovereign right to your body, not yourself. And if it's just legally granted privilege and government enforcement, then by that logic the government CAN conduct scientific experiments on our body without our consent. That is the natural conclusion of that fundamental.

 

[Harshaw]

if that's what it takes to prevent this.


Then I say strap you down and violate you with a vaccine.

Seeing as that "reasoning" can justify anything, you apparently believe the authority of the state is absolute, and that others rightly control your life.

Obviously, you've already said that you view "rights" as privileges allowed by the state.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You seem to be confused about what a "right" is. "You have control of your body to an extent, as regulated by law" isn't a statement of you having right over your body, but rather privilege. If all you have is privilege, than someone or something else has the right to it.

This is your argument. The basis of which is rooted in that "society" has sovereign right to your body, not yourself. And if it's just legally granted privilege and government enforcement, then by that logic the government CAN conduct scientific experiments on our body without our consent. That is the natural conclusion of that fundamental.

Except that we have a system of rights in the constitution, we have social contract.

could the government do such a thing, yes? they have in the past, but it is not currently legal.

 

[Henrin]

Except that we have a system of rights in the constitution, we have social contract.

could the government do such a thing, yes? they have in the past, but it is not currently legal.

Oh for the love of....

What is with leftists falling back on the social contract?

 

[Green Hornet]

I get all of that from EMNofSeattle claiming that one has no sovereign right to their own body. If you're going to butt in, please do keep up.

That is very kind of you to let me participate. She has obviously clarified that point. And no one posting in this thread, is advocating for legislation of "mandatory biological experiments", on human beings. The two are different as night,and day.

 

[Harshaw]

Except that we have a system of rights in the constitution, we have social contract.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about a "social contract." The entire idea was invented specifically to make people beholden to the state, i.e., to other people. It was made up for the express purpose of people claiming power over other people. It has no more validity than that of divine-right kings.

The men who WROTE the Constitution and established the "system of rights" would laugh at your notions of "social contract." That's rather the very opposite of what they were trying to establish.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about a "social contract." The entire idea was invented specifically to make people beholden to the state, i.e., to other people. It was made up for the express purpose of people claiming power over other people. It has no more validity than that of divine-right kings.

The men who WROTE the Constitution and established the "system of rights" would laugh at your notions of "social contract." That's rather the very opposite of what they were trying to establish.

You mean the men who gave congress the powers to enact laws, the executive to enforce them, and immediately used those powers to crush several popular uprisings?

you think the educated men who wrote the constitution would honestly believe you have the god given right to infect other people with dangerous diseases, George Washington mandated vaccination against smallpox in the continental army using a method far more dangerous then any vaccine known today. give me a freaking a break. What you're telling me is how ignorant of history that doesn't your worldview you are.

this whole libertarian nonsense was invented in the 20th century, no one was a libertarian before then, certainly not the founding fathers.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That is very kind of you to let me participate. She has obviously clarified that point. And no one posting in this thread, is advocating for legislation of "mandatory biological experiments", on human beings. The two are different as night,and day.

*He

...

 

[Ikari]

Except that we have a system of rights in the constitution, we have social contract.

could the government do such a thing, yes? they have in the past, but it is not currently legal.

And nothing in your argument would prevent them from doing so again. They merely just have to apply the force. Wherein, arguments based in the rights and liberties of the actions of government are limited and they could not justly experiment on people without their consent.

 

[Ikari]

That is very kind of you to let me participate. She has obviously clarified that point. And no one posting in this thread, is advocating for legislation of "mandatory biological experiments", on human beings. The two are different as night,and day.

The fundamental remains the same, that an individual has no right of ownership, sovereignty, of their own body. It's privilege and law. And in that light, it doesn't matter what he artificially wants to restrict due to not wanting to deal with the ramifications of his base argument, this is what could be possible and considered right and just.

 

[Harshaw]

You mean the men who gave congress the powers to enact laws, the executive to enforce them, and immediately used those powers to crush several popular uprisings?

That's an utter non-sequitur, but that you think it justifies total control of the state over people -- and that's what you think -- is not surprising, given everything else you've said.

you think the educated men who wrote the constitution would honestly believe you have the god given right to infect other people with dangerous diseases,

Well, you see, that's just stupid. That's not the right anyone's claiming, at all, in any way, shape, or form.

George Washington mandated vaccination against smallpox in the continental army using a method far more dangerous then any vaccine known today.

And they were in the service of the state, voluntarily so, subject to martial authority.

Civilians -- the general population, for whom rights are in full force -- are not. You might as well be saying the Framers believed the state owns you because they didn't oppose capital punishment.

give me a freaking a break. What you're telling me is how ignorant of history that doesn't your worldview you are.

No, it certainly does not; it simply goes against the silly leaps you're making directly above.

this whole libertarian nonsense was invented in the 20th century, no one was a libertarian before then, certainly not the founding fathers.

They were Enlightenment liberals, upon which modern "libertarians" base their views. The only reason the term "libertarian" is used is because the word "liberal" was co-opted by those who seek state intervention in many, many things.

Don't presume to lecture me on "ignorance of history" if you don't even know that.

Your totalitarian views are abhorrent. But at least, as a "progressive," you're honest about them, which is more than can be said for others who wear that label.

 

[Green Hornet]

The fundamental remains the same, that an individual has no right of ownership, sovereignty, of their own body. It's privilege and law. And in that light, it doesn't matter what he artificially wants to restrict due to not wanting to deal with the ramifications of his base argument, this is what could be possible and considered right and just.

No it does not, they are worlds apart. A scenario as you laid out would require passage of a law giving the Government unfettered access to use citizens for "Medical Experiment", and upheld by the Courts. And all during this legislatave process, no one or group would complain or raise, argument over such legislation. That is a far cry from the Government given the limited right to ensure public safety through vaccination.

 

[Ikari]

No it does not, they are worlds apart. A scenario as you laid out would require passage of a law giving the Government unfettered access to use citizens for "Medical Experiment", and upheld by the Courts. And all during this legislatave process, no one or group would complain or raise, argument over such legislation. That is a far cry from the Government given the limited right to ensure public safety through vaccination.

Incorrect, the base is the same. If you have no sovereign right over your body, you have no justification for resistance should force be used against it. There is nothing that would prevent the passage of the law giving government unfettered access. There's no natural limit, you have no sovereign right over your body. If society and government, then, deems it proper to use you as an experiment, then that's that. You have no right to resist or refuse. It's a natural consequence of the argument that one has no sovereignty over themselves.

 

[Green Hornet]

Incorrect, the base is the same. If you have no sovereign right over your body, you have no justification for resistance should force be used against it. There is nothing that would prevent the passage of the law giving government unfettered access. There's no natural limit, you have no sovereign right over your body. If society and government, then, deems it proper to use you as an experiment, then that's that. You have no right to resist or refuse. It's a natural consequence of the argument that one has no sovereignty over themselves.

The Government's power (in the United States) is limed not unfettered. Such a law as you are suggesting would have to be introduced as a Bill, the moment such a Bill was presented it would face such overwhelming opposition, that is highly unlikely, that it would move any further than that first step.

 

[Harshaw]

Incorrect, the base is the same. If you have no sovereign right over your body, you have no justification for resistance should force be used against it. There is nothing that would prevent the passage of the law giving government unfettered access. There's no natural limit, you have no sovereign right over your body. If society and government, then, deems it proper to use you as an experiment, then that's that. You have no right to resist or refuse. It's a natural consequence of the argument that one has no sovereignty over themselves.

So many in this thread seem to want it both ways.

 

[Harshaw]

The Government's power (in the United States) is limed not unfettered. Such a law as you are suggesting would have to be introduced as a Bill, the moment such a Bill was presented it would face such overwhelming opposition, that is highly unlikely, that it would move any further than that first step.

But according to you, it CAN move forward, and it would be valid.

 

[Ikari]

The Government's power (in the United States) is limed not unfettered. Such a law as you are suggesting would have to be introduced as a Bill, the moment such a Bill was presented it would face such overwhelming opposition, that is highly unlikely, that it would move any further than that first step.

You're still not addressing the fundamental. You're hiding behind probabilities. When declaring that one has no sovereign right to their body, then anything that the government or "society" deems to be acceptable is acceptable. There's no innate limitation to the force.

Maybe it would be highly unlikely, but the probability is not zero. And if it got through and the government did institute this, then what? If you truly have no sovereign right to your body, you have no place to go from there. There's no justification to resist that force, you had no right over your body in the first place, and everything then gets defined through government force. And should the government say that its force is acceptable, then that's the end of it. The force is acceptable and move on. So, even if unlikely, the US government and "society" were to claim that experiments needed to be conducted, then they are and you have no right or justification to resist.

 

[prometeus]

It's not my fault you proceeded with a deeply-flawed premise.

There was no flawed premise, just your dodge.

Your "question" to me was a mere distraction from that, and irrelevant to the point.

No, it was meant to establish the very notion we were debating, even if we disagreed on it.

Besides, in a recent thread I asked you the same question three times.

No, you did not, you asked someone else and since there was no answer to that I sought one from you, which you clearly did not answer in order not to contradict yourself.

So, really, spare me the sanctimony.

No sanctimony either, just simple facts, which from which you are running.

 

[Green Hornet]

You're still not addressing the fundamental. You're hiding behind probabilities. When declaring that one has no sovereign right to their body, then anything that the government or "society" deems to be acceptable is acceptable. There's no innate limitation to the force.

Maybe it would be highly unlikely, but the probability is not zero. And if it got through and the government did institute this, then what? If you truly have no sovereign right to your body, you have no place to go from there. There's no justification to resist that force, you had no right over your body in the first place, and everything then gets defined through government force. And should the government say that its force is acceptable, then that's the end of it. The force is acceptable and move on. So, even if unlikely, the US government and "society" were to claim that experiments needed to be conducted, then they are and you have no right or justification to resist.

I most certainly am addressing the fundamental point. Certainly any law that is passed is backed up with some punitive action for non-compliance. Anyone that has ever received a parking ticket understands that. Your entire theory revolves around a what if law that does exist. And if such a bill were introduced, no force would be applied to defeat it. You keep talking about the law effecting your body, all laws do that in the end. I get a parking ticket for a $50.00 my body has to come up with $50.00, if I make $25.00 an hour the government has just ordered me to work for them for two hours using my body to do it.

 

[Harshaw]

There was no flawed premise, just your dodge.

I've already pointed out your flawed premise, your ridiculously overbroad notion of "adversely affecting" someone else. I even gave you examples as to why it's flawed. I won't repeat them, because they're already there.

No, it was meant to establish the very notion we were debating, even if we disagreed on it.

Hardly; it simply changed the subject from your overbroad limitations on that notion.

No, you did not, you asked someone else

No. In the other thread, to which I am referring, I specifically quoted YOU and asked YOU. You ignored it Each time. While continuing in the thread.

and since there was no answer to that I sought one from you, which you clearly did not answer in order not to contradict yourself.

This doesn't even make sense.

No sanctimony either, just simple facts, which from which you are running.

What "facts" am I "running" from?

 

[Ikari]

I most certainly am addressing the fundamental point. Certainly any law that is passed is backed up with some punitive action for non-compliance. Anyone that has ever received a parking ticket understands that. Your entire theory revolves around a what if law that does exist. And if such a bill were introduced, no force would be applied to defeat it. You keep talking about the law effecting your body, all laws do that in the end. I get a parking ticket for a $50.00 my body has to come up with $50.00, if I make $25.00 an hour the government has just ordered me to work for them for two hours using my body to do it.

You are not talking about fundamentals, you are talking "can never happen". The fundamental is do you have sovereign right over your body? If yes, then there is a limit to what government or society can justly do. If no, then there is no limit, all is game so long as the force is applied.

 

[Henrin]

I most certainly am addressing the fundamental point. Certainly any law that is passed is backed up with some punitive action for non-compliance. Anyone that has ever received a parking ticket understands that. Your entire theory revolves around a what if law that does exist. And if such a bill were introduced, no force would be applied to defeat it. You keep talking about the law effecting your body, all laws do that in the end. I get a parking ticket for a $50.00 my body has to come up with $50.00, if I make $25.00 an hour the government has just ordered me to work for them for two hours using my body to do it.

You do realize you're arguing philosophy and the logic behind right declarations by appealing to law, right? Do you understand how that argument is invalid?

 

[Harshaw]

I most certainly am addressing the fundamental point. Certainly any law that is passed is backed up with some punitive action for non-compliance. Anyone that has ever received a parking ticket understands that. Your entire theory revolves around a what if law that does exist. And if such a bill were introduced, no force would be applied to defeat it. You keep talking about the law effecting your body, all laws do that in the end. I get a parking ticket for a $50.00 my body has to come up with $50.00, if I make $25.00 an hour the government has just ordered me to work for them for two hours using my body to do it.

You're saying "might makes right." There is no limit to that.

Another totalitarian.

 

[Green Hornet]

You are not talking about fundamentals, you are talking "can never happen". The fundamental is do you have sovereign right over your body? If yes, then there is a limit to what government or society can justly do. If no, then there is no limit, all is game so long as the force is applied.

Obviously there are limits -that is the whole point. You seem to argue that if law is passed to vaccinate, the next step is government imposed medical experiments on the citizenry - not going to happen, way to far fetched.