Vaccine mandates are the new segregation

Vaccine mandates: a new form of ‘institutional segregation’ | Baltimore Sun - Peter Doshi & Aditi Bhagarva:

August 31, 2021 - "Increasingly, vaccination is no longer a matter of choice. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workplaces and schools are instituting COVID-19 vaccine mandates.... But mandating people and their children who have consciously chosen not to get vaccinated — a group that tends to be younger, less educated, Republican, non-white and uninsured — is a recipe for creating new and deeper fractures within our society, the kind of fractures we may profoundly regret in hindsight.

"Let’s not sugarcoat it: This is a new form of institutionalized segregation. Yes, some unvaccinated adults may swallow this bitter pill and comply.... But many will see it — along with requirements that the unvaccinated wear masks or undergo regular COVID testing — as a thinly veiled attempt at public shaming....

"These practices diverge substantially from the historical norm of equal opportunity. For all other required vaccines, religious and philosophical exemptions allow unvaccinated children to enjoy the same educational experience as the vaccinated. This is because exemptions reflect a social value that in the United States, there are valid reasons for refusing treatments or vaccines, and these reasons will be respected. Once exempt, there are no sanctions experienced in everyday life. But with COVID vaccine mandates, even those with exemptions are being sanctioned, sending another clear message: We really don’t care about your reasons.

"And in schools, where a child’s experience will be shaped by their parents’ decisions and those of policymakers, the situation could become tragic. If schools invite vaccinated children to lose their masks, what was once an act of social responsibility could morph into a mark of disease. What should we anticipate? Children of different ages being barred from mingling. Children being bullied, ridiculed and mocked, with taunts using terms like 'covidiot.' Differential treatment toward unvaccinated children by some teachers... Vaccinate-or-mask policies will drive a wedge between children and parents, cause daily psychological harm, carrying long lasting consequences for future generations.

"Some might see mandate resistance as a symptom of vaccine misinformation. But considering most of these individuals have complied with mandates for routine vaccines such as mumps and measles, diseases of far less societal consequence than COVID, is it not worth listening to their objections against COVID vaccine mandates?

"For some, there’s little value in a vaccine against a disease they have already recovered from, even as new variants develop. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that by May, 120 million Americans of all ages (35% of the population) had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. New data shows natural immunity is six to 13 times more protective against emerging variants than vaccines.

"For many, it is a product safety issue. The vaccines were developed and tested in months, not years, before rollout, and they were initially authorized by regulators in the context of an emergency. These people want greater assurances of safety and efficacy — something that requires additional time and data. Yet in response, some public commentators are calling for the FDA to speed its review process and approve all of the coronavirus vaccines.... Considering that the pivotal safety and efficacy trials were designed as two-year trials to finish in mid-2022, an approval this year can be seen as premature.

"Despite hundreds of millions of doses already in bodies, we are still in the learning phase regarding vaccine safety and efficacy, as can be witnessed in the data about “breakthrough infections” and previously unknown side effects like myocarditis and blood clots. Most people may accept this uncertainty and conclude that whatever the risks, they are outweighed by the benefits. But for the minority who desire greater scientific certainty, we should respect these reasons, not respond with mandates."

Read more: https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0901-no-vaccine-mandates-20210831-3f7ljoolbvg4bob76yqlnabqv4-story.html

No right not to cater gay weddings, court rules

Florists Join Bakers, Photographers in Court Ruling Ordering Them to Serve Gay Weddings - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Scott Shackford:

February 17, 2017 - "Florists — at least those in Washington State — can be forced to provide their goods and services for gay weddings. That was the unanimous decision from the state's supreme court....

"The high-profile case ... pitted Baronnelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, against a gay couple who had come to her seeking her flowers for their wedding. She declined, citing her religious opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage.... Washington forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"Stutzman's argument was that she wasn't discriminating on the basis of the men being gay but rather refusing to participate in the wedding (which wasn't even legally recognized by the state when they started planning it in 2013). She argued that government mandating her participation by requiring her to provide flowers violated her constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise, and free association.

"The court roundly rejected all of her claims. The decision noted courts had previously rejected claims that attempted to separate 'status' from 'conduct' in similar ways, that, for example, discriminating against somebody who is pregnant falls under sex discrimination. As for her attempt to invoke her religious freedoms, they noted that the Supreme Court has set the precedent that 'that individuals who engage in commerce necessarily accept some limitations on their conduct as a result.'

"As for her free speech claim, the court [says] Requiring Stutzman to prepare flowers for a same-sex marriage is not actually compelling her to endorse said marriages. This is very similar to how courts have ruled on wedding cakes. They have declined to accept the argument that the creation of a wedding cake is in and of itself expressive speech, but a baker does have the freedom to reject orders to pass along a particular textual message.....

"The Cato Institute submitted an amicus brief defending the florist's right to say no to the couple as a First Amendment issue.... The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the shop (and was just designated a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center) is promising to try to get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/florists-join-bakers-photographers-in-co
'via Blog this'

Town hall shows Johnson/Weld are 'best choice'

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld's CNN Town Hall Last Night | RedState - Brandon Morse:

August 4, 2016 - "Wednesday ... CNN ... hosted both [Gary] Johnson and his VP, Bill Weld, for a Libertarian town hall..... And last night, I'm happy to say he didn't disappoint...too much. Let me begin by saying that this town hall was far and away better than the first one.

"While still maintaining his penchant for avoiding negative campaigning, Johnson tackled Clinton's issues like a pro, citing how she's 'beholden' to many people and groups from all the promises she made. When the subject [of] people finding Clinton untrustworthy came up, Johnson simply responded 'I totally get it.' Weld smartly kept his mouth shut about his friendship with Clinton this time. But he didn't hold back on Trump, calling him 'a showman' and a 'pied piper'.... 'Maybe he should consider another line of work. Anything but the President of the United States,' said Weld to laughter from the audience.

"In terms of Johnson keeping to [his] style of campaigning, he couldn't have performed better in terms of tackling Clinton. He hit all the points that both the right and left can't stand about her, while never resorting to attacking Clinton on a personal level.... Weld's unleashing on Trump, and having a laugh at his expense balanced it out.... Trump's love of below the belt attacks was answered by Weld in kind, causing a moment when the duo really connected with the audience on a personal level. It showed that Weld is not afraid to sling mud, and is not as nice as Johnson is....

"For the most part, Johnson hit all the right chords, especially for people on the right like me. He has zero intention of illegalizing semi-automatic rifles. They're willing to spend money to help combat ISIS at home, but not abroad where we sometimes do more damage than not. He wants to get rid of the Department of Education, and Weld actually has an alternative plan that works. His fiscal conservatism is something that attracts me like a moth to a flame, and both pointing out that they were the most fiscally conservative governors elected, and reelected in blue states is a big draw. And I liked the idea that he acknowledges the issues between police and black communities, pointing toward some attention to criminal justice reform.

"But it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows.... Johnson's stance on religious liberty is remarkably un-Libertarian. Johnson reiterated that he wanted to strike a balance with religious and LGBT peooples, while saying that he doesn't want to allow discrimination....

"That glaring disagreement aside, Johnson did well. He oftentimes came off as rambling, like he was trying to get across three different thoughts at once, but when he was on, he was on. I was particularly impressed with his reasoning as to why Bernie voters should now back him. He was succinct, direct, and truthful about his contrasts and similarities.

"Weld proved to be a more confident speaker. He gave off an air of charm and charisma that his partner lacked from time to time.... Whenever Weld opened his mouth, he sounded like a man who knew what he was doing, even if you disagreed with him.

"This town hall should do some head turning, especially for independents looking for a home.... Is he  perfect? Not at all. Who is?... Johnson and Weld both have some issues that I certainly would like to do without, but with that said, he's the best choice I've seen.

"I'll be casting my vote for him this November."

Read more: http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/08/04/honest-god-thoughts-johnsonweld-last-nights-libertarian-town-hall/
'via Blog this'

Meet the "brutalists" (I): Hans-Hermann Hoppe

A Realistic Libertarianism - LewRockwellLewRockwell.com - Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

September 30, 2014 - "Psychologically or sociologically, the attraction of non-discrimination policies to libertarians can be explained by the fact that an over-proportionally large number of libertarians are misfits or simply odd – or to use Rothbard’s description,  'hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion …., moochers, scamsters, and petty crooks and racketeers' – who became attracted to libertarianism because of its alleged ‘tolerance’ toward misfits and outliers, and who now want to use it as a vehicle to free themselves from all discrimination typically, in everyday life, dished out to their likes....

""From that vantage point, the ‘victim’ groups and their ‘victimizers’ are easily identified. As it turns out, ‘victims’ make up the vast majority of mankind. Everyone and every conceivable group is a ‘victim,’ except that small part of mankind composed of white (including northern Asian) heterosexual males, living traditional, bourgeois family lives....

"While this view of human history strikes one as bizarre in light of the amazing civilizational achievements originating from precisely this minority group of ‘victimizers,’ it coincides almost completely with the victimology also propagated by cultural Marxists....

"You, you small group of ‘victimizers,’ must always be especially ‘nice,’ forgiving, and inclusive vis-a-vis all members of the vast majority of ‘victims,’ i.e., the long and familiar list of everyone except white, heterosexual males! And as for enforcement: All ‘victimizers’ not demonstrating proper respect to some victim-class member, i.e., victimizers who are ‘nasty,’ unforgiving or exclusive or who say ‘nasty’ or disrespectful things about them, must be publicly shunned, humiliated, and shamed into obedience!

"Why should anyone be particularly nice to anyone else – apart from respecting ones’ respective private property rights in certain specified physical means (goods)? To be nice is a deliberate action and takes an effort, like all actions do. There are opportunity costs.... Time devoted to ‘niceness to others’ is time lost to do other, possibly more worthwhile things ... in rewarding the vast majority of ‘victims’ with extra love, care and attention, one accomplishes precisely this: less time and effort is devoted to exhibiting nasty behavior toward those actually most deserving of it. The power of the State will not be weakened by universal ‘niceness,’ then, but strengthened.

"And why is it in particular the small minority of white, heterosexual males, and especially its most successful members that owes some extra-kindness to the vast majority of all other people? Why not the other way around? After all, most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them. All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle – i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns – that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labor? And isn’t it only on account of the success of the traditional white, bourgeois family model also that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time? Do not most of today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living to the achievements of their alleged ‘victimizers?’

"Why not the ‘victims’ giving special respect to their ‘victimizers’? Why not bestow special honor to economic achievement and success instead of failure, and why not give special praise to traditional, ‘normal’ lifestyles and conduct rather than any abnormal alternative that requires, as a necessary condition of its own continued existence, a pre-existing dominant surrounding society of ‘normal’ people with ‘normal’ lifestyles?...

"In effect, by outlawing all discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, race, religion, national origin, etc., etc., a vast number of people are declared State-certified ‘victims.’ Anti-discrimination laws, then, are an official call upon all ‘victims’ to find fault and complain to the State about their own ‘favorite’ ‘oppressors,’ and especially the more wealthy ones among them, and their ‘oppressive’ machinations, i.e., their ‘sexism,’ ‘homophobia,’ ‘chauvinism,’ ‘nativism,’ ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ or whatever, and for the State to respond to such complaints by cutting the ‘oppressors’ down to size, i.e., in successively dispossessing them of their property and authority and correspondingly expanding and strengthening its own monopolistic power vis-a-vis an increasingly weakened, fragmented, fractionalized and de-homogenized society.

"Ironically, then, and contrary to their self-proclaimed goal of wanting to shrink or even eliminate the State, the left-libertarians with their peculiar, egalitarian victimology become accomplices to the State and effectively contribute to the aggrandizement of its power. Indeed, the left-libertarian vision of a discrimination-free multicultural society is, to use Peter Brimelow’s phrase, Viagra to the State."

Read more: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/
'via Blog this'

The above text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) license

Progressives libel libertarians over discrimination laws

Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws - The Washington Post - David Bernstein:

April 2, 2015 - "With the recent and continuing hulabaloo over conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and freedom of religion, the charge inevitably arises that anyone who is opposed to, or even skeptical of, antidiscrimination laws that apply to private parties – which means most people who identify themselves as libertarians – is effectively not pro-liberty, but pro-discrimination.

"The most serious charge has been that libertarian skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private entities reflects, at best, insensitivity to race discrimination.  One blogger, reflecting a significant swath of progressive sentiment, argued that no matter how committed to racial egalitarianism any individual libertarian claims to be, 'Libertarianism is a racist philosophy. Libertarians are racists.'

"This is a rather odd criticism. For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector.  It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination.  It’s hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate the exact same position on antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.

"The progressive libel of libertarians as racial troglodytes for their consistent defense of private-sector autonomy is ironic, given that similar illogic has so frequently been used against modern liberals.  When liberals defended Communists’ free speech and employment rights in the 1950s, their critics accused them of being Communist sympathizers, if not outright Communists.  More recently, progressives have been accused of being American-hating jihadist sympathizers when they stood up for the rights of terrorism suspects.  Critics have even charged civil libertarians with abetting racism for opposing hate speech laws.....

"While minorities can generally find productive economic niches in even highly prejudiced but market-oriented societies, there is no safe haven for minorities if racist ideas dominate politics and lead to harsh discriminatory legislation.

"Also, a free economic market protects minorities from discrimination to some degree because businesspeople have an economic incentive to hire the most productive workers and to obtain the most customers. By contrast, individual voters and political activists have no corresponding incentive to overlook or overcome their personal prejudices. Concern for the financial bottom line mitigates the temptation of economic entrepreneurs to discriminate; concern for the electoral bottom line, meanwhile, often leads politicians to stir up resentment against minorities."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/02/explaining-the-libertarian-position-on-antidiscrimination-laws/
'via Blog this'

Freedom of association victim of new Indiana law

Freedom of Association Is Burned at the Stake in Indiana - Deroy Murdock,  National Review:

April 1, 2015 - "The only identifiable victim of Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association clause. Like Joan of Arc, it has been burned at the stake.... In the name of nondiscrimination, Republican governor Mike Pence has surrendered to the angry mobs....

"Despite RFRA’s similarity to a 22-year-old federal statute and laws in 18 other states, liberal activists and journalists have distorted Indiana’s measure into an alleged anti-gay hit list.

"It never helps that laws like this one focus solely on the rights of religious people. As vital as religious liberty is, what about the rights of the 25 percent of Americans who have no faith?... The sorts of freedoms shielded by Indiana’s new law — and nearly identical pieces of legislation heralded by the ACLU, signed by President Clinton, and supported by Obama in the Illinois state senate — should be protected for all Americans, be they religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, or otherwise. Freedom of Association belongs to all Americans, via the First Amendment, not only those who happen to be religious....

"In the public sector, the government must administer equal justice under the law and treat all Americans equally. Thus, the anti-gay discrimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell deserved to end. Likewise, ... government should not discriminate against gay couples when handing out marriage licenses....

"The private sector, such as it is, is something different. Private individuals on private property should be free to associate with whom and without whom they wish. Just because someone runs a business or is part of a private group or organization does not mean that she surrenders her rights or becomes a mere appendage of government."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416257/freedom-association-burned-stake-indiana-deroy-murdock?target=author&tid=63283
'via Blog this'