My old hometown newspaper misses the point of objections to mandates. In this OpEd, it argues that "a ban on mandates is still a mandate." I suppose so, if you want to put it that way, but what's wrong with mandates is not just that they're an exercise of power. There's a big difference between a mandate that ties the hands of a government and one that ties the hands of a citizen. The U.S. Constitution is full of mandates that tie the hands of governments, and thank goodness.
No matter how many COVID mandates Gov. Abbott bans, no individual in Texas is any less free to receive all the vaccines he can get his hands on, provided that the FDA doesn't outlaw them and medical staff don't refuse to administer them. The push for COVID mandates can't be contorted into a blow for freedom or autonomy, unless by "freedom and autonomy" one means the freedom of governments to bully their citizens. If someone is breaking no law, the government shouldn't be able to force him to do anything--and we should be careful what laws we pass.
Employers have more discretion, but even they are limited in some of the ways they're entitled to intrude on their employee's religious and medical decisions. In that arena, though, I'm more inclined, first, to prevent the government from leaning on the employer and, second, to let the employees vote with their feet.
5 comments:
Brilliant! Exactly correct and well said. I've been thinking along those lines for quite a while and couldn't put it into words. You did.
Thank you.
Either the author/editor is being willfully disingenuous, or they are an excellent example of why many people are missing the point on the 'mandate' question. The two mandate postulations are woefully dissimilar, as you point out nicely - it would be very difficult to lose that distinction without being dense.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual text of the mandate has not yet been officially created. This is the Emergency Temporary Health Standard, ETS #2, that has been drafted and was put under review by OSHA last week. In the absence of its entry into the Federal Register, there is no actual 'rule'. This may be why we are seeing companies and local governments starting to waffle and even backtrack. They've been arm-twisted into declaring something they cannot defend on their own right, and cannot point to in order to place blame.
I'm still curious to know if employers can he held liable if someone has a reaction to or negative side effect from the vaccine, since they're making people get it. Seems like they should be liable.
We both got Pfizer boosters yesterday. Sore arms but no other ill effects.
Remember o care s promises that you will get to keep your doctor?
This is a level below pfizer s paid media promises.
Post a Comment