A reactionary post, I guess.

[JWeinCom]

DonFerrari said:

JWeinCom said:

Why does it matter that we've been wearing clothes for a while? There still should be a rational basis for the law, right? If I want to free willy, why should the government be able to tell me not to? If we can't mandate masks during a pandemic, what is the justification for other clothing? Is seeing penises, vaginas, and breasts really more dangerous to society than Covid? 

Drafts don't necessarily make another form of restriction more justified, but at the same time it questions why when we've put up with so many more extreme restrictions, we should suddenly be enraged by this one. It would suggest that government overreach isn't exactly the point.

Whether you vaccinate or wear a mask has an impact on other people. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and not everybody can vaccinate. Just like we send people to wars to defend our citizens, we implement mask mandates to do the same. It is in our collective best interest to contain the virus, and that can't be done if the government has no authority. 

This isn't about the government telling everything people can do. It's them telling them to do one thing, cover their face. It is a very mild restriction in the face of something that has killed millions. So, yeah. If you argue that's not a legitimate use of government power, then I really do question what authority the government actually has.

Let's assume that mandating masks in public areas during a pandemic is too extreme. In that case, what can the government legitimately do? Can they enforce speed limits? Make me wear pants? Take 30%ish of my salary? Tell me how many deer I can shoot? Tell me what kind of weapons I can or can't use? Control what price I could sell certain crops for? Fine me for littering? Force me to recylce? These are all things that most people agree the government can do that I see as more restrictive and that would cause less harm if they were not enforced. So, if mask wearing is too extreme, how can those actions be justified?

If you want my opinion there shouldn't have any law regarding you being mandated to use clothes. Again I don't know why you want to use people accepting government having power to control your life as justification to control even more.

The reason people accept laws regarding clothing and drafting but don't like the one about mask is because the first two they are already used to the other is change (which people usually don't like). The other reason may be the infamous the needle that broke the cammel back.

One of the justifications people use to not being mandated to vaccinate is just what you gave, it isn't 100% effective and worse it can have adverse effect (which includes possible death in sure very rare cases). Most don't complain about the mask as most as they complain about the vaccine and being mandated to take it.  And not to forget that much isn't know about the vaccines and colateral yet. Unfortunately in the end the government have to much autorithy already.

Don't know how serious you are on your last paragraph, but on my opinion government shouldn't really have law for any of those you listed.

I actually didn't make any argument for mandatory vaccination. Forcing a vaccine is more extreme than masks, so I'd have to think of the range of situations that might be acceptable. I think vaccine mandates for people working with vulnerable populations would be appropriate. For other situations, I would probably prefer a vaccination or negative test policy.

I was serious about the last paragraph... And your position essentially seems to be advocating anarchy. Particularly in regards to mandating speed limits and taxing. Speed limits are a case where the benefit of having everyone drive the same speed seems to vastly outweigh the imposition on personal freedom. Without taxes governments would mostly be completely gone, although income tax isn't necessarily the only way.

So I guess then, yeah, what do you think the government could legitimately demand of people?