Monthly Archives: September 2021

Thiel sat on President Trumps executive transition team; Palantir, Thiels data analytics firm, procured a number of lucrative government contracts. Behind the scenes, Chafkin says, Thiel was pushing for a Republican crackdown on tech companies, and more specifically on Google, his nemesis. (Googles size and reach presented, in Chafkins words, a threat to nearly every company in Thiels portfolio.) You might think that this deployment of government power would go against everything the libertarian Thiel believed in, but you begin to wonder, while reading The Contrarian, whether the Big Government bullying that conservatives warned against before Trump became president was in fact just a projection of the big-footing they would gladly do if given the chance Trumpism as a form of wish fulfillment. In Chafkins summary: Get on the Trump train, or get a visit from the F.T.C.

As it happens, Thiel was bullied as a child a skinny, socially awkward, chess-playing boy, he protected himself by becoming resolutely disdainful. He was born in Germany and moved to the United States as an infant, in 1968. His fathers job at an engineering firm also meant a sojourn in apartheid South Africa, where the younger Thiel attended an elite, all-white prep school. He went to Stanford and started the Stanford Review, a conservative newspaper, staying put to go to law school. An unsatisfying stint as a corporate lawyer ended when he failed to get the Supreme Court clerkship he so desperately wanted. I was devastated, Thiel would later recall, saying it precipitated a quarter-life crisis.

The Contrarian recounts Thiels professional trajectory in full, depicting him stumbling into the tech industry not out of any particular passion but because it presented an opportunity to get rich. Thiel, unlike the fantasy of the American entrepreneur who risks it all for his dream, was always hedging his bets even, at one point, proposing that PayPal turn over its limited cash reserves to his own hedge fund so that he could speculate with the money.

Chafkin portrays Thiels support for Trump on the 2016 campaign trail in similar terms. Chances are, any establishment Republican would have been fine for Thiels business interests, and Thiel had already scandalized Silicon Valley with his criticisms of womens suffrage and immigration. But if Trump won, Thiel was bound to be rewarded by a president who clearly prized demonstrations of loyalty above all else. Not to mention that Thiel by any material measure a master of the universe relished the thought of Trump sticking it to that part of the elite club that wouldnt have him as a member. As one of Thiels investors put it, He wanted to watch Rome burn.

Read more here:
The Contrarian Goes Searching for Peter Thiels Elusive Core - The New York Times

Manifestos regularly promise not to raise income tax, VAT, or NICs because such acts are believed to be politically costly. Proposed tax hikes to major revenue sources make us question: what exactly am I getting for my money, given Im already paying a high rate? But raising the new health and social care levy from just 1.25pc to, say, 1.5pc or even 2pc of earnings? That at least sounds much less of a big deal and is likely to elicit strong support from the key beneficiaries: the elderly. In that sense, the levy relaxes the political constraint against tax hikes.

The revenue-raising potential of softly hypothecated taxes is exemplified at local level. Since 2016-17, councils have been able to charge an adult social care precept, which currently allows them to raise council tax by an extra 3pc in the nameof part-funding social care overtwo years. Its well used of 152authorities with adult social care responsibilities, 148 utilised some, or all, of their precept freedom this year, with 100 authorities opting for the full3pc addition.

So what has happened to overall council tax bills since the precept was invented? The average annual increase in Band D council tax payments was 0.8pc per year between 2010-11 and 2015-16, as central government sought to keep bills frozen. Since then, the average increase has leapt to 4.2pc per year. Yet council tax has, if anything, become a less salient political issue with the separate precept line present. Theres good reason to expect this new levy to be the thin end of the wedge and a catalyst for bigger government.

Read the original here:
Libertarian Tories will rue waving through social care tax trick - Telegraph.co.uk

The Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the People'sParty of Canada are the only federal parties that have nominated full slates of candidates in central and northern Alberta.

The Maverick Party, with 10 candidates running in this halfof the province, has two more candidates running than the Green Party of Canada.

Nearly 30 per cent of the 115 candidates running in 19 ridings are women.

Don't know your riding or where to vote on Sept. 20? Elections Canada's Voter Information Service hasinformation on electoral districts and polling locations.

These are the confirmed candidates for ridings between Red Deer and Alberta's northern border.

This central Alberta riding includes the communities of Camrose, Stettler, Three Hills andWainwright.

Conservative Damien Kurek won the riding in 2019 with 85.5 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 75.4 per cent.

Bordered by the North Saskatchewan River, Yellowhead Trail, 97th Street and 156th Street, this riding includes downtown Edmonton.

Conservative James Cumming won this riding in 2019 with 41.4 per cent of the vote, defeating incumbent Liberal Randy Boissonnault, who received 33 per cent of the vote, and the NDP's Katherine Swampy, who received 20.6 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 64.3 per cent.

This riding includes part of Edmonton's eastern core, between the North Saskatchewan River, YellowheadTrailand 97th Street. Its northern section, north of the Yellowhead, includes neighbourhoodsbetween St. Albert Trail and 66th Street, with 153rd Avenue as its northern border.

Conservative Kerry Diotte won this riding in 2019 with 51.4 per cent of the vote, defeating the NDP's Mark Cherrington and Habiba Mohamud, who received 25.1 per cent and 17.2 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 56.8 per cent the lowest of all the ridings on this list.

This riding includes northeast Edmonton and areas outside the city, both north and south of the North Saskatchewan River. Its southern border is Yellowhead Trail.

Conservative Ziad Aboultaif won this riding in 2019 with 55.9 per cent of the vote, defeating Liberal Kamal Kadri and the NDP's Charmaine St. Germain, who received 21.5 per cent and 17.6 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 60.8 per cent.

This south Edmonton riding is bordered by Whitemud Drive, Anthony Henday Drive, Calgary Trail and Meridian Street.

Conservative Tim Uppal won this riding in 2019 with 50.3 per cent of the vote, defeating incumbent Amarjeet Sohi, who received 33.6 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 68.1 per cent.

Edmonton Riverbend is bordered by the North Saskatchewan River, Ellerslie Drive and Calgary Trail. Its section north of Whitemud Drive includes neighbourhoods between the river and Whitemud Creek.

Conservative Matt Jeneroux won this riding in 2019 with 57.4 per cent of the vote, defeating Tariq Chaudary and the NDP's Audrey Redman, who received 23 per cent and 15.3 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 70.4 per cent.

South of the North Saskatchewan River, this riding has asouthern border ofWhitemud Driveand includes Edmonton neighbourhoods between Whitemud Creek and Sherwood Park.

Heather McPherson was the only non-Conservative candidate to win a federal riding in Alberta in the 2019 election. She received 47.3 per cent of the vote and her closest challenger was Conservative Sam Lilly, who received 37.1 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 72.3 per cent.

This riding includes west Edmonton neighbourhoods between the North Saskatchewan River and Yellowhead Trail.

Conservative Kelly McCauley won the riding in 2019 with 60.9 per cent of the vote, defeating Liberal Kerrie Johnston and the NDP's Patrick Steuber, who received 20.1 per cent and 14.6 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 66 per cent.

This riding includes Edmonton neighbourhoods south of the Henday as well as the communities of Beaumont, Devon, Leduc, Millet and Wetaskiwin.

Conservative Mike Lake won the riding in 2019 with 72.4 per cent of the vote. Liberal Richard Wong and the NDP's Noah Garver were nearly tied behind him, with 12.4 and 11.2 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 70.2 per cent.

This riding covers northeastern Alberta, including the communities of Cold Lake, Fort McMurray and Lac La Biche.

Conservative David Yurdiga won this riding in 2019 with 79.9 per cent of the vote. Yurdiga announced this summer that due to health reasons, he would not be running again.

Turnout was 64.7 per cent.

This riding covers northwestern Alberta, including the communities of Beaverlodge, Grande Prairie, High Level andManning.

Conservative Chris Warkentin won this riding in 2019 with 84 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 70.7 per cent.

This eastern Alberta riding includes the communities ofBonnyville, St. Paul, Vegreville, Vermilion and the Alberta portion of Lloydminster.

Conservative Shannon Stubbs won this riding in 2019 with 83.9 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 71.7 per cent.

Northwest of Edmonton, this riding includes the communities ofBarrhead,Peace River, Slave Lake and Westlock.

Conservative Arnold Viersen won this riding in 2019 with 80.7 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 68.6 per cent.

Blaine Calkins (CON)David Ondieki (LIB)Tanya Heyden-Kaye (NDP)Megan Lim (PPC)Matthew Watson (Libertarian Party of Canada)Harry Joujan (Maverick)Joan Barnes (Independent)

North of the David Thompson Highway, this riding includes parts of Red Deer as well as the communities of Blackfalds, Lacombe, Ponokaand Sylvan Lake.

Conservative Blaine Calkins won this riding in 2019 with 79.8 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 71.3 per cent.

South of the David Thompson Highway, this riding includes parts of Red Deer and the communities of Carstairs, Didsbury, Innisfail andSundre.

Conservative Earl Dreeshen won this riding in 2019 with 80.3 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 75.3 per cent.

East of Edmonton, this riding includes Fort Saskatchewan and Strathcona County.

Conservative Garnett Genuis won this riding in 2019 with 73.4 per cent of the vote. The NDP'sAidan Theroux and Liberal Ron Thiering received 12.1 and 10.1 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 76.3 per cent the highest of all the ridings on this list.

This riding includes St. Albert and neighbourhoods on the northwest edge of Edmonton.

Conservative Michael Cooper won this riding in 2019 with 60.7 per cent of the vote. Liberal Greg Springate and the NDP's Kathleen Mpulubusi received 19.2 and 15.2 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Turnout was 70 per cent.

This riding includes the communities of Gibbons, Morinville, Spruce Grove andStony Plain.

Conservative Dane Lloyd won this riding in 2019 with 77.5 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 73.2 per cent.

Between Edmonton and B.C border, this riding includes the communities of Drayton Valley, Edson, Hinton, Jasper andRocky Mountain House.

Conservative Gerald Soroka won this riding in 2019 with 82.1 per cent of the vote.

Turnout was 73.8 per cent.

More:
Who's running in the federal election in central and northern Alberta's 19 ridings - CBC.ca

Three of the seven federal candidates for the Red Deer-Lacombe riding participated in a virtual community election forum hosted by the Ponoka and District Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 14.

The forum was moved to an online platform after other election debates in Central Alberta were cut short due to those refusing to wear masks indoors.

READ MORE: Ponoka election forum goes virtual due to mask controversies

The candidates in attendance were Megan Lim for the Peoples Party of Canada, Libertarian Party candidate Matthew Watson and NDP candidate Tanya Heyden-Kaye.

The candidates briefly introduced themselves before entering into a question and answer period.

Watson was born and raised in Lacombe and is raising his children there.

I decided to jump into politics as Im a very passionate person and I decided to turn that passion into something that is useful, he said.

Watson says there are many issues with the current political system that doesnt give the west much of a voice. He understands peoples concerns with the oil and gas industry but also sees the benefits.

Lim lives in rural Ponoka with her partner and their two young boys. She is running to ensure a prosperous future for the next generation.

I feel like that future is slipping away from them right now, she said.

We are heading towards a communist dictatorship.

The PPC is against mandated vaccination and vaccination passports.

Your body is not the jurisdiction of the government, said Lim.

She says as a PPC member, she intends to promote Albertas interests, fight the misinformation leading to climate hysteria, get Alberta a fair deal on equalization and put a stop to the globalist agenda of the UN and the WHO.

The PPC plans to defund the CBC, and corporate welfare and subsidies, and balance the budget in their first four years and then lower taxes.

Im an Albertan, Im a worker like you who wants a better life for my community and my surrounding communities, said Heyden-Kaye, who lives in Ponoka.

Heyden-Kaye says rural Albertans have been neglected by the federal government.

The NDP plans to expand health care to include pharmacare and dental care, to end for profit long term care, to fight for seniors and people with disabilities to have a basic, livable income.

The two big parties in this election care mostly about making the rich, richer, which leaves my family, and my friends, and my neighbours behind.

The NDP will also prioritize getting rural Albertans reliable and high-speed Internet, diversifying the economy, tackling climate change and fighting to ban conversion therapy in all forms.

And just watch me tax the rich with unlimited zeal, said Heyden-Kaye.

Q: What will your party do to protect freedoms when it comes to mandating vaccine passports?

A: I think that there is a bit of a confusion between what is a right in Canada and what is a privilege, said Heyden-Kaye, giving the example of being able to drive a car with a license.

There are some things at time, that are laws sometimes they have to be implemented for public safety .. including (for) people who are elderly, disabled and cant be vaccinated.

This is a hot topic that keeps coming up constantly. I encourage you, if you care about your neighbours, that you make the decision that helps the most its dangerous to say its for public safety, said Watson.

I think if theyre presented with proper information theyll make those decisions on their own.

Lim agreed with Heyden-Kayes point on the difference between rights and freedoms, but added that people dont have a right to be protected against illness.

Lim stated while she is not against vaccines, the number of adverse reactions to the vaccine are significant.

I just want people to be able to make that choice freely, said Lim.

Q: What are your opinions on vaccine passports?

A: I actually really dislike the phrase vaccine passport because we have always had vaccine records, said Heyden-Kaye, adding that as a vaccinated person, she wants proof of vaccination to show when needed, such as for travel in other countries where it may be required.

This isnt something new.

The issue isnt so much proving it for international travel what were talking about is all businesses being mandated to not allow you in unless you provide proof of vaccination, said Lim.

Obviously, I dont find that acceptable, she said, adding if the vaccine works, why do people fear the unvaccinated?

Watson says theres nothing preventing anyone showing proof of vaccination on their own.

This is a brand new issue for this year, he said, noting he is against the use of force.

Q: How will your party balance the budget?

A: Lim says the PPC will cut down on government spending and decentralize power. Along with defunding the CBC, the party plans to cut funding to UN, and end corporate subsidy. They do not intend to cut funding for military or seniors.

The Libertarians would similarly sell off crown corporations and cut federal programs that are not effective or greatly used, says Watson. By reducing taxes, people can put their own money to better use, he says.

Heyden-Kaye replied that the NDPs platform costs less than the Conservative or Liberal platform.

Q: How will your party support the military/veterans?

A: Watson says the Libertarians would remove Canadian troops from foreign conflicts and provide mental health support for veterans.

Lim says the PPC doesnt believe the federal government doesnt have the money veterans are asking for when its sending billions of dollars of foreign aid overseas.

The PPC would honour a previous agreement and make a retroactive lump sum payment to veterans, she says.

The NDP has no plans to cut military funding.

Heyden-Kaye says supporting veterans is important. She knows a lot of homeless and veterans with disabilities and the partys affordable housing platform and expanded health care helps veterans immensely. The NDP would also increase mental health care supports.

Q: Would your party commit to withdrawing from the UN and abolishing the carbon tax?

A: Heyden-Kaye says the NDP wont leave the UN, and Its impossible to cut off tax to oil.

She says automation is cutting down on jobs which is unfair to oil workers, and the NDP would retrain workers. Canada would still be a global energy centre, but for green energy.

Lim says the PPC would withdraw from any agreements with the UN that dont benefit Canada directly.

The Libertarians would also pull out of UN. Watson says Canada doesnt need foreign entities forcing their opinion on us and we have enough environmentally conscious people in this country already.

Q: If elected, what would you party do to reconcile Indigenous legacy on inter-generational trauma?

A: Watson says the Libertarians would move forward as best as possible with all of the provinces to recognize treaties and give control of resources back to First Nations.

Lim says clean drinking water for First Nations would be the PPCs top priority. They would also repeal the Indian Act and institute property rights on reserves.

Heyden-Kaye says its very important to implement the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. The 94th is to change the oath of citizenship to say they will honour all the treaties. The NDP would also invest in housing and clean drinking water, she says.

Canada Election 2021Election 2021Ponoka

Read the original:
Three election candidates take part in election forum in Central Alberta - Red Deer Advocate

Learning to be a real conservative

Republican leaders are absolutely right to object that last weeks proclamation by President Biden forcing many to become vaccinated against COVID-19 infringes on personal liberty.

But unless the Grand Old Party wants to go the way of the Grand Old Dinosaurs, it has to go a step further and understand that the proclamation, like the most famous one ever issued by a Republican president, was the right thing to do even if it stretched legality.

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln had no real authority to issue his Emancipation Proclamation save for the moral authority that slavery was an intolerable wrong.

Its also an intolerable wrong for die-hard (or should we say die-easy?) libertarians to insist on business as usual and assert their right to infect others merely because they dont want to be bothered to get a mask or are afraid of science, needles, or doing anything that smacks of being civilized.

America is all about personal rights. Each of us, unless were threatening, can throw our arms around as much as we want, but that right extends only to the tip of someone elses nose.

If Republicans and this writer counts himself among them are serious about personal rights, the right to not be infected because of someone elses stubbornness must also be recognized.

If requiring masks, testing, and vaccination is too much, the only alternative is to have police arresting all unvaccinated and untested people who come within six feet of anyone else. The charge, already is on the books, would be reckless aggravated assault. Look it up. The behavior exactly fits the definition of that crime.

Similarly, anyone who doesnt do his or her part to stop the again increasing spread of the disease should be ineligible to suckle the largess of government aid made available to pandemic victims. Entire communities could be disqualified if the percentage of vaccinated residents falls below recommended levels.

Or we could do the simpler and easier thing: Be tested, get a shot, and wear a mask. We cant imagine that Republicans would rather create bigger government to handle the pandemic when such a simple alternative exists.

God forbid that upcoming mass events locally, the likes of which epidemiologists say necessitate quarantine after attending, will not become super-spreader events.

If everyone stays as far apart as possible, gets tested, always wears a mask, covers sneezes, and washes hands, and does all the other things dutiful members of society should do, maybe well be lucky and the first of a series of fall events wont end up having to be the last.

ERIC MEYER

See more here:
Learning to be a real conservative | Hillsboro Star-Journal | Sept. 16, 2021 - Hillsboro Star-Journal

Last week, the Biden administration announced sweeping new vaccination mandates affecting huge numbers of Americans. These orders are an attempt by the federal government to override our basic right of bodily autonomy. It is an unacceptable power grab that must be rejected. In his address to the nation, Biden said, This isnt about freedom or personal choice. He is wrong. Freedom and personal choice are exactly what this is about.

Every aspect of the new Biden mandate is reprehensible. However, it is the provision regarding large employers that will have the greatest and most insidious impact. Over the past 18 months, the government response to COVID has pushed countless American families into financial insecurity. Now, the government is forcing them to weigh their innate right of self-ownership against their need to provide for their families. Overnight, potentially millions of Americans face a new and undue pressure to undergo a medical procedure that they have chosen not to consent to. These measures are coercive and unjust.

It is worth noting that the people who will be affected the most by this order will be the most vulnerable among us: low-income families without savings or good employment alternatives. It has also been widely acknowledged that minority communities have lower rates of vaccination. This mandate will create new disparities in opportunity and exacerbate existing ones. Anyone who supports this can no longer call themselves an advocate or an ally. You do not support a community by disregarding their revealed preferences and trampling on their ability to make their own choices.

It doesnt matter whether you believe vaccine hesitancy is unjustified. What goes into someone elses body is their decision, and theirs alone. The fact that the virus is contagious does not alter that basic truth. The reality is that life involves risk, and those risks change as the world changes. Your risk of dying in an automobile accident is far higher in 2021 than it would have been in 1821, just as your risk of dying from dysentery is vastly lower. Allowing the government to make your medical decisions because society is impacted is the same logic that has in the past justified eugenics, forced sterilization, and other examples of true evil.

This mandate is where the rubber hits the road. We at the Libertarian Party of Nevada advocate for mass noncompliance and peaceful civil disobedience. If you are an unvaccinated employee; dont participate and dont quit. If you are vaccinated, dont submit your records. If you are a business owner, dont comply. A government that seeks to violate your rights on such a fundamental level is not acting in your best interest. After the one-year anniversary of 15 days to slow the spread, we should all be on notice that they will not stop here. Authoritarians will push until they meet resistance.

Again, someone elses personal thoughts or feelings on the efficacy or safety of these vaccines are irrelevant. The opinions of the experts, pundits, and politicians are irrelevant. There is a higher principle at stake. Either you are a free person and you make your own decisions, or you are not. Our government considers us to be state property. They are wrong.We call on all Americans to reject this encroachment without hesitation, and to resist these mandates without reserve.

Katie Banuelos is the secretary for the Libertarian Party of Nevada, which describes itself as a staunch opponent of government overreach and a passionate advocate for individual liberty.

Go here to read the rest:
The government has no business mandating vaccines - The Nevada Independent

Whether Texass anti-abortion law survives inevitable Supreme Court scrutiny, it may already have done irreparable damage to what was once known as the conservative movement despite delivering a crucial part of that movement its greatest win.

The law, which bans abortions after six weeks and allows private citizens to sue abortion providers, has already helped energize a progressive pro-choice base that might otherwise have been complacent or demoralized heading into 2022. Meanwhile, the law threatens to upend a decades-long alliance among several factions of the conservative movement.

From the 1970s onward, that movement was a loose confederation of conservatives with various priorities: a strong defense (with a fervent anti-communist wing), fiscal discipline (with a fervent anti-tax wing) and traditional family values (with a fervent anti-abortion wing). But by the early 90s, the collapse of the Soviet Union had made defense and anti-communism less prominent as issues.

So in 1996, conservative activist Grover Norquist announced a new unifying principle. The new common political goal for Republicans, he said, was simple: to be left alone by the government. The Leave Us Alone Coalition was a center-right alliance of conservative and libertarian groups that promoted individual freedom over government involvement.

Norquist, then as now president of Americans for Tax Reform, defined the coalition broadly, including small business owners, the self-employed, home schoolers and gun owners. Democrats, who wanted to raise taxes or increase regulations on all these groups, were part of what he called the Takings Coalition.

Accept that formulation or not, it essentially describes how much of the center-right has seen itself over the last quarter-century.

To be clear: The center-right coalition was not universally pro-life, with many libertarians agreeing to disagree with social conservatives on a womans right to terminate a pregnancy. Nonetheless, the right was mostly unified in its support for conservative judges committed to individual freedom and limited government.

The Texas abortion law threatens to blow up this truce. In empowering anti-abortion activists to sue any party that aids and abets a woman seeking an abortion after six weeks, the law is an open invitation to upend the private lives of untold numbers of Texans. Its not just abortion providers that can be sued; so can friends or relatives who might accompany a pregnant woman, or even a driver hired for the journey. So much for reducing regulations on small businesses or the self-employed.

And for conservatives who have traditionally seen trial lawyers as an adversary, this law is a kind of lawyer-enrichment program. It not only sets a floor of $10,000 in civil claims from a defendant, but it also requires a losing defendant to pay all court costs (the same does not hold if the plaintiff loses).

Its hard to square the philosophy of leave us alone with a law that essentially deputizes private citizens to interfere in their neighbors lives. Previous anti-abortion laws have targeted abortion providers for regulation (or, yes, elimination). This one pits citizen against citizen creating a financial incentive to pry, probe and sue.

It is ironic that the debate over Texass law coincides with increasing calls on the right for greater freedom amid a pandemic. At least members of the Leave Us Alone Coalition are on firmer philosophical ground when they oppose vaccine mandates or mask-wearing in schools. As it turns out, whether you deserve to be left alone depends a lot on who you are, where you live and what youre doing.

____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Robert A. George writes editorials on education and other policy issues for Bloomberg Opinion. He was previously a member of the editorial boards of the New York Daily News and New York Post.

Read the original here:
Commentary: Texas upends the Republican 'leave us alone coalition' - The Sun Chronicle

A conservative Twitter pal notes that back in 2015, before the conservative movement lost its mind, conservative writer Ben Domenech, writing for the really conservativeFederalist, called it insane that vaccine mandates would stir any controversy:

Fundamentally, the protection against life-threatening plague is one of the original reasons government exists. Weve had mandatory vaccines for schoolchildren in America since before the Emancipation Proclamation. The Supreme Court has upheld that practice as constitutional for over a century, and only the political fringes believe there ought to be a debate about such matters. This is one of the few areas where government necessarily exercises power [Ben Domenech, The Insane Vaccine Debate, Reason, 2015.02.03].

Domenech expressed sympathy for parents who wanted to delay shots for their kids but not for people who wanted to avoid vaccination without consequences:

Its the failure to deal with those consequences that frustrates me about this debate. If you choose to not vaccinate your children, that is your choice. In the absence of an immediate threat, such as a life-threatening plague or outbreak, the state doesnt have a compelling reason to administer that vaccination by force or to infringe on your rights. But that doesnt mean there are no tradeoffs for such a decision. If you choose not to vaccinate, private and public institutions should be able to discriminate on that basis. Disneyland should be able to require proof of vaccination as a condition of entry, and so should public schools. You shouldnt be compelled to vaccinate your child, but neither should the rest of us be compelled to pretend like you did [Domenech, 2015.02.03].

Domenech cited libertarian science writer Ronald Bailey, who expressed this very libertarian argument for vaccine mandates in a 2014 debate:

Vaccines are like fences. Fences keep your neighbors livestock out of your pastures and yours out of his. Similarly, vaccines separate peoples microbes. Anti-vaccination folks are taking advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen differently, thus acting as a firewall protecting them from disease. But if enough people refuse, that firewall comes down, and innocent people get hurt.

Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a good libertarian principle when he said, The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins.

Some people object to applying Holmes aphorism by arguing that aggression can only occur when someone intends to hit someone else; microbes just happen. However, being intentionally unvaccinated against highly contagious airborne diseases is, to extend the metaphor, like walking down a street randomly swinging your fists without warning. You may not hit an innocent bystander, but youve substantially increased the chances. Those harmed by the irresponsibility of the unvaccinated are not being accorded the inherent equal dignity and rights every individual possesses. The autonomy of the unvaccinated is trumping the autonomy of those they put at risk.

As central to libertarian thinking as the non-aggression principle is, there are other tenets that also inform the philosophy. One such is the harm principle, as outlined by John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, Mill argued that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Vaccination clearly prevents harm to others [Ronald Bailey, Refusing Vaccination Puts Others at Risk, Reason, April 2014].

Libertarians advocate maximum freedom, not absolute freedom. Maximum freedom results from imposing minimal restrictions on individuals to prevent harm to others. Vaccines are minimal restrictions that maximize freedom: they stop individuals from conducting their normal business for maybe twenty minutes and then allow everyone to go about all of their regular business with far less fear of infection, hospitalization, and death, all of which egregiously restrict freedom.

Even Kristi Noem used to believe mandatory vaccines were a good idea:

Gov. Kristi Noem says she opposes a bill eliminating the vaccination requirement for students.

Vaccinations have literally saved millions of lives over the years. That is not something that I can support, she said during her weekly press conference [Lisa Kaczke, Gov. Kristi Noem Opposes Bill to Drop Vaccination Requirements for Students, that Sioux Falls paper, 2020.02.21].

Ah, the good old days, when conservatives had a sane, practical commitment to protecting our freedom from real threats, like disease and death.

Visit link:
Conservatives and Kristi Noem Used to Think Government Should Require Vaccines - Dakota Free Press