Honestly it would be much more productive to reject people who want to tell others how to live, than try and whip ourselves into a frenzy over some external enemy like you are advocating. This is not only sociopathic - basically dehumanizing others, it never ends well, even for those who think they're on the "right" side now, and to the point of the discussion, doesn't actually solve anything except fulfill people's worse base desires to project their fear onto an enemy.

In modern society there are implicit and explicit ways by which we force each other to live, whether that’s through laws or social norms. This isn’t any different.

And the liberally minded of us have been fighting against a world where we tell people how to live for decades. We don't want to live in that world. You want to give that world a fresh breath of life out of fear?

You're right it isn't any different, which is why we should all oppose it. Just be a use things are a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.

There simply is no way to run humanity at-large without these laws and norms. What's the alternative? Anarchy? At what point are laws "good enough" yet we still have a functioning society?

It's *so easy* to say "we don't want to be told what to do" but then expect all the comforts of modern society. It's such a nieve take.

You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean?

The alternative... A world where the only things that are illegal are infringements on someone else's rights. Why does it have to be anarchy or social conformity and control? It's not a dichotomy. Literally every time some group opposed some social control the bellyachers came out with the anarchy argument. No more segregation, let the women vote, let gay people do what they want, let people smoke weed... Good enough is simple, really simple: let everyone do whatever they want except infringe on the rights of others. What "comforts of modern society" do we lose by simplifying our rule set down to that?

> You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean?

It means you don't shit on your neighbour's porch.

It means you don't park in a handicap space, knock the old biddy who wanted it out of her wheelchair after she laboriously has got out of her car further away from the shop, and give her the finger as you walk away laughing.

It means you don't spit your boss in the face; don't cheat on your taxes, your creditors, or your wife; don't drive drunk or fuck toddlers in the arse.

It means all that, and a million other things like it.

Are you OK with that, or is any of the above something that you insist on your "right" to indulge in?

If not, then what the fuck is different about your "right" not to care whether you're coughing death-in-agony in the face of everyone you meet, that you must insist on that?!?

I'm one of those people that has not been vaccinated and chooses not to and will not. You don't need to get me on board, you're vaccinated. Leave me to the consequences of my decision. If I'm going to die, let me die.

And fuck off with the restrictions.

The issue is your decisions not only affect YOU. That's the entire point. If you're spreading COVID, it affects all of us.

If your actions only affected you, nobody would care at all.

So that argument is dead, it has been definitively for a few months now, and the proof is in the article we are discussing in this thread. Vaccination is not preventing transmission. it only lowers the likelihood of severe illness, apparently.

So yes, my actions do only affect me, and potentially those who have chosen to take the same risk as me. Those who are vaccinated have the level of protection they signed up for, I have the level of protection I signed up for.

And that severe illness is what is clogging up the healthcare system, putting a strain on those who do not have COVID and seek treatment. Again, still affecting everyone else.

Out of (genuine) interest, would you be willing to sign a document denying yourself hospital care in the event you contracted COVID and your condition required hospitalisation?

Sure.

But then go out into the wilderness and die under some fucking tree, so you don't take a bed in the ICU from some poor fucker who needs it not because of their own stupidity.

>now get the other 40% of the country on board

Why does that have to be the standard? Why can't you accept alternatives? Perhaps covid antibodies from contracting the virus instead of vaccine? Or a negative covid test? Or masks? Or germicidal light to clean air? Or restricted public involvement?

Why must we follow those SPECIFIC standards before we can be free?

No. The unvaxxed aren't driving policy. I live in a county with an almost 90% vaccination rate, and we are one of the few places with a vaccine passport.