A reactionary post, I guess.

[JWeinCom]

DonFerrari said:

JWeinCom said:

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? 

Gotcha. Yes the defense of mandatory mask is easier to defend as really very few people have a legitimate reason to oppose using and really needs to be in crowded spaces. Since I don't leave in anyone else body can't say for sure, but several people put that they really can't breath decently with the mask and I can't say it is a lie just because I breath easily (unless I have sweat a lot or took rain... once I took a lot of rain and the mask was soaked, it was almost a drowing training, was like 1min to reach home so I didn't remove the mask to see the results, well I was very short of breath).

I'm in favor of prohibiting reckless driving not exactly of speed limits, not really because of the prohibition but on what is done (hidden cameras to give you fines instead of very exposed ones and other engineering methods to allow you to see and reduce speed). Forced taxation is something I'm against again because it mostly go to fill out the pockets of politicians and their friends (incoming tax is one that is a little more logical than our very complex variable tax system).

Basic stuff is easily defendable of demanding from people like I put reckless driving, killing, stealing, things that directly harm other (not indirectly or potentially).

I'm not sure what you're advocating for in terms of driving. Setting aside intoxicated driving, how would you define driving recklessly if not by a particular speed.

You are arguing I think for essentially what would be an ultraminimal state. Basically the most extreme version of libertarianism before you hit anarchy. You could read some of the work of the philosopher Nozick who takes a similar view. That being the case, I think we're just really far apart on what we think government should be, and don't think we're going to get to an agreement on this. We have to get to a general agreement on what the purpose of government is before we can really get into any particular situation, and it'd just take too much time.