Montana becomes the first U.S. state to ban vaccine requirements for employees

[pcosmar]

Before you were just ducking a hypothetical question. Now you're attempting a thread jack.

He is nothing but disingenuous.

[RJB]

I notice that those invoking freedom and free market for corporations when they are banned from mandating the vax are suspiciously absent in threads where vaccines are mandated.

[pcosmar]

I notice that those invoking freedom and free market for corporations when they are banned from mandating the vax are suspiciously absent in threads where vaccines are mandated.

There are many who support the Eugenic Goals of Depopulation. and therefor support the means.

[RJB]

There are many who support the Eugenic Goals of Depopulation. and therefor support the means.

This is why I am not bothered as much by the Trumpers on the forum as I am by those who NorthCarolinaliberty attacks. I think the Trumpers were mislead in the amount of trust that they invested in Trump, but they were sincere in the belief that supporting Trump was the best way to bring about liberty.

These others, we know they aren't libertarians by any stretch of the imagination. They will lie and say anything. I seriously would have respect for them if they would put up a Biden or a Hillary avatar. I don't mind an honest disagreement, but don't invoke liberty as you defend someone's boot on my neck.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/jeremykauffman/s...80556601430016

[TheCount]

Before you were just ducking a hypothetical question. Now you're attempting a thread jack.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Blame the person whose response to my statement was a toddler's but liberals do it tooooooooooo


Should be easy, since it was you.

[acptulsa]

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Blame the person whose response to my statement was a toddler's but liberals do it tooooooooooo


Should be easy, since it was you.

I'll take that "blame". It's past time for Americans to develop a toddler's aversion to hypocrisy.

[Swordsmyth]

"At least it's not the state"
"Shut up"

[TheCount]

"At least it's not the state"
"Shut up"

Is that Rhodesia or South Africa?

[jmdrake]

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Blame the person whose response to my statement was a toddler's but liberals do it tooooooooooo


Should be easy, since it was you.

Quick yes or no question. Are you for or against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[RJB]

Blame the person whose response to my statement was a toddler's [I]but liberals do it tooooooooooo

Does your account have a new person behind it? (serious question) You should read some of your posts from a year ago or so. You used all kinds of childish gibes in the past. You are a lot more serious these days.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/PanvidyaMagnus/s...48243934318593

https://twitter.com/PanvidyaMagnus/s...49274491543554

[TheCount]

Does your account have a new person behind it? (serious question) You should read some of your posts from a year ago or so. You used all kinds of childish gibes in the past. You are a lot more serious these days.

We spin a wheel every morning to decide who's going to post on the account. Yesterday I won a Starbucks gift card and a day of paid leave.

The forum's content has changed a lot since the election. Some of the most blatantly stupid posters started posting a lot less or vanished entirely. Now the politics subforum is about 25% genuinely good content/criticism, 25% endless coronavirus/vax toilet-bowl circling, and 50% race bait. The last two categories are functionally the same thread copy and pasted ad infinitum.

[TheCount]

Quick yes or no question. Are you for or against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Will you accept the answer that I gave you the last time you asked me that exact same question?

I'm against it for free association reasons.

To be fair, I'm not an absolutist or a purist. I accept that sometimes societies must make tradeoffs in order to achieve some desired result. The question being, of course, whether there is actually some justifiable interest in infringement on the free functioning of an economy.

With regard to the Civil Rights Act, I think that a reasonable argument could be made in either direction.

This cruise ship nonsense? I don't think there's a good, non-tribal argument for it.

Same answer but subtract the cruise ships.

[Swordsmyth]

Is that Rhodesia or South Africa?

Neither.

The Boers outlawed slavery before many others.

I believe that is Haiti or Jamaica.

[Swordsmyth]

"At least it's not the state"
"Shut up"

This is exactly what globalibertarians are bringing you.
The fact that they use globalism, media, and government to distort the economy until they "own" everything instead of buying you from a warlord who captured you will not make it any better.

Maybe someone can respond to this point with something other than a pitiful deflection.

[acptulsa]

This is exactly what globalibertarians are bringing you.
The fact that they use globalism, media, and government to distort the economy until they "own" everything instead of buying you from a warlord who captured you will not make it any better.

Maybe someone can respond to this point with something other than a pitiful deflection.

Okay. I never could resist troll bait.

What is a "globalibertarian", does anyone use the word but you, and why is "libertarian" part of your cute compound word when you (okay, maybe not you, but anyone with more than three brain cells and a lick of sense) know damned well that using globalism, media, and government to distort the economy is the single least libertarian activity known to man?

[TheCount]

Neither.

The Boers outlawed slavery before many others.

No, they didn't. Their British king ordered them to free their slaves.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay. I never could resist troll bait.

What is a "globalibertarian", does anyone use the word but you, and why is "libertarian" part of your cute compound word when you (okay, maybe not you, but anyone with more than three brain cells and a lick of sense) know damned well that using globalism, media, and government to distort the economy is the single least libertarian activity known to man?

The Kochs are globalist libertarians.
And so are any other libertarians who support open borders and Neofeudalism.

Globalibertarians demand that we allow or in some cases abet the use of globalism, media, and government to distort the economy and treat the ill gotten gains as legitimate free market ownership up to and including the right to implement the mark of the beast and starve people to death who resist the dictates of the Neofeudalists.

[acptulsa]

The Kochs are globalist libertarians.

So what pronouns do you use?

The Koch brothers self-identify as "libertarians" for the specific purpose of making that word mean anything to the average idiot. The word that means anything at all means nothing at all.

They've done the same thing to the word "conservative". Do you approve of that? No? Then why are you trying to help them do it to our word too? Is that a Christian sensibility? Do unto other good guys what the bad guys did to you? Must be in the Book if Mormon, because Jesus sure didn't say that in front of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

[DamianTV]

Most people have at-will employment arrangements under which the employer can change the rules at any time.

I've never heard of someone dying from a cold (not the same thing as pneumonia), and the Pfizer vaccine has been approved and is extremely effective against hospitalization and death.

Getting people vaccinated is NOT their FINAL GOAL.

Lets be VERY clear here.

Their FINAL GOAL is COMMUNISM.

The way they get there is to create chaos and basically implement the Cloward Piven Strategy where the Social Support System is so overwhelmed that there is "no other choice but to embrace communism".

Virus is one step in achieving their goal.

Now we can get to "at will employment". Their intent is to drive a wedge and interfere with the relationship between Employer and Employee. They WANT people to quit in droves. When that many people quit because they refuse, it disrupts the supply chain, which causes MASS STARVATION. The solution to Mass Starvation is to "Nationalize Everything" IE Communism.

This is not much different than allowing a private business to decide whether or not people must wear masks. The real intent is to cause division. Theres two sides on this so lets address them both at the same time because the outcome is the same. If a business requires people wear masks, those who refuse to wear masks will not buy from them. if a business does not require people wear masks, those that INSIST that people wear masks will not buy from those businesses. BOTH businesses collapse because they are simply not bringing in enough money to afford their overhead. Again, its a trap that leaves "Communism" as the only solution.

Once you have Communism, there IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY, there is no Privately Owned Business, and you will NOT BE AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE. You will work for free, or, you will be shot.

[Krugminator2]

So what pronouns do you use?

The Koch brothers self-identify as "libertarians" for the specific purpose of making that word mean anything to the average idiot. The word that means anything at all means nothing at all.

They've done the same thing to the word "conservative". Do you approve of that? No? Then why are you trying to help them do it to our word too? Is that a Christian sensibility? Do unto other good guys what the bad guys did to you? Must be in the Book if Mormon, because Jesus sure didn't say that in front of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

There is only one Koch brother as least as it relates to politics and when people talk about the Koch Brothers. David Koch is dead. Charles Koch is a classical liberal. He has done more to promote freedom than almost anyone who has ever lived. He's in the Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Mises category.

You want to know who isn't a libertarian? People who think businesses can't require vaccination to work. This is a litmus test issue. There is no in between. I can least sort of understand the Civil Rights Act support but this is clear cut.

[acptulsa]

You want to know who isn't a libertarian? People who think businesses can't require vaccination to work. This is a litmus test issue. There is no in between. I can least sort of understand the Civil Rights Act support but this is clear cut.

It is indeed a litmus test issue. It separates the realists who look at everything which has transpired from TARP to OWS and realize we're in the throes of fascism, from the trolls who are carrying water for the fascists.

As for opinions about who has done the most for freedom from people who say, government telling people what to do is tyranny, but government telling corporations what to make people do is freedom, well. One of those and six bucks will buy anyone a cup of Seattle fru-fru coffee.

[Swordsmyth]

So what pronouns do you use?

The Koch brothers self-identify as "libertarians" for the specific purpose of making that word mean anything to the average idiot. The word that means anything at all means nothing at all.

They've done the same thing to the word "conservative". Do you approve of that? No? Then why are you trying to help them do it to our word too? Is that a Christian sensibility? Do unto other good guys what the bad guys did to you? Must be in the Book if Mormon, because Jesus sure didn't say that in front of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Libertarians have done it to libertarians by supporting globalist ideas and narratives.

[Swordsmyth]

Getting people vaccinated is NOT their FINAL GOAL.

Lets be VERY clear here.

Their FINAL GOAL is COMMUNISM.

The way they get there is to create chaos and basically implement the Cloward Piven Strategy where the Social Support System is so overwhelmed that there is "no other choice but to embrace communism".

Virus is one step in achieving their goal.

Now we can get to "at will employment". Their intent is to drive a wedge and interfere with the relationship between Employer and Employee. They WANT people to quit in droves. When that many people quit because they refuse, it disrupts the supply chain, which causes MASS STARVATION. The solution to Mass Starvation is to "Nationalize Everything" IE Communism.

This is not much different than allowing a private business to decide whether or not people must wear masks. The real intent is to cause division. Theres two sides on this so lets address them both at the same time because the outcome is the same. If a business requires people wear masks, those who refuse to wear masks will not buy from them. if a business does not require people wear masks, those that INSIST that people wear masks will not buy from those businesses. BOTH businesses collapse because they are simply not bringing in enough money to afford their overhead. Again, its a trap that leaves "Communism" as the only solution.

Once you have Communism, there IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY, there is no Privately Owned Business, and you will NOT BE AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE. You will work for free, or, you will be shot.

The intent is also to get people to accept any kind of mandate no matter how dangerous or intrusive and to accept unpersoning anyone who resists.

[PAF]

It is indeed a litmus test issue. It separates the realists who look at everything which has transpired from TARP to OWS and realize we're in the throes of fascism, from the trolls who are carrying water for the fascists.

As for opinions about who has done the most for freedom from people who say, government telling people what to do is tyranny, but government telling corporations what to make people do is freedom, well. One of those and six bucks will buy anyone a cup of Seattle fru-fru coffee.

Must spread rep…

[nobody's_hero]

There is only one Koch brother as least as it relates to politics and when people talk about the Koch Brothers. David Koch is dead. Charles Koch is a classical liberal. He has done more to promote freedom than almost anyone who has ever lived. He's in the Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Mises category.

You want to know who isn't a libertarian? People who think businesses can't require vaccination to work. This is a litmus test issue. There is no in between. I can least sort of understand the Civil Rights Act support but this is clear cut.

Were you for or against the 2008 bailouts?

Just asking because you say this is "clear cut" but there have been many instances where government has intervened in "private" markets, and still very much continues to do so.

So if a major bank that acted irresponsibly got bailed out, later ends up buying out a community bank that did not engage in risky lending practices, and tried to act in good faith, do you just clap the dust off your hands and say, "the free market works!" ?

And likewise, if a "private" hospital is reimbursed by government to pay exorbitant wages to agency staff, because they drove off too many of their former employees with these stupid mandates, do you say, "See! The free market works!" ? What if government tells those hospitals that they must have x% of staff vaccinated to receive the aforementioned reimbursement? If a hospital needs staff, they're going to take the money. What if they turn right around and buy out a smaller hospital that did not require mandates because they knew staff would leave and patient care would suffer? (there is just one hospital in my area that has not yet required mandates, but it is only a matter of time before that hospital is bought out, likely by Atrium Health)

Just more "Free market"? The cream rising to the top?

No. This is corporate cronyism. This is fascism. Not the garbage, over-used claim of "fascism!" that the left thinks it sees in every warped mirror in the funhouse. This is actual fascism. And we won't call it such.

There is nothing "clear cut" about this. The lines between what is government and what is private could hardly be any blurrier.

[Krugminator2]

Were you for or against the 2008 bailouts?

Just asking because you say this is "clear cut" but there have been many instances where government has intervened in "private" markets, and still very much continues to do so.

So if a major bank that acted irresponsibly got bailed out, later ends up buying out a community bank that did not engage in risky lending practices, and tried to act in good faith, do you just clap the dust off your hands and say, "the free market works!" ?

And likewise, if a "private" hospital is reimbursed by government to pay exorbitant wages to agency staff, because they drove off too many of their former employees with these stupid mandates, do you say, "See! The free market works!" ? What if government tells those hospitals that they must have x% of staff vaccinated to receive the aforementioned reimbursement? If a hospital needs staff, they're going to take the money. What if they turn right around and buy out a smaller hospital that did not require mandates because they knew staff would leave and patient care would suffer? (there is just one hospital in my area that has not yet required mandates, but it is only a matter of time before that hospital is bought out, likely by Atrium Health)

Just more "Free market"? The cream rising to the top?

No. This is corporate cronyism. This is fascism. Not the garbage, over-used claim of "fascism!" that the left thinks it sees in every warped mirror in the funhouse. This is actual fascism. And we won't call it such.

There is nothing "clear cut" about this. The lines between what is government and what is private could hardly be any blurrier.

I'll be honest and not trying to be snarky. I really don't know how any of that relates to my post or the thread. Employment is voluntary. It wouldn't matter if the government developed the vaccines but they didn't.

Workplace rules are not fascism. If someone wants to masturbate at work, it is hardly unreasonable to ban that. Just like it is not unreasonable to ask people to get vaccinated to make the workplace safer. And if you think the vaccines are some deadly experiment poison, that's fine. You have the option to not work at a place that requires it.

[nobody's_hero]

I'll be honest and not trying to be snarky. I really don't know how any of that relates to my post or the thread. Employment is voluntary. It wouldn't matter if the government developed the vaccines but they didn't.

Workplace rules are not fascism. If someone wants to masturbate at work, it is hardly unreasonable to ban that. Just like it is not unreasonable to ask people to get vaccinated to make the workplace safer. And if you think the vaccines are some deadly experiment poison, that's fine. You have the option to not work at a place that requires it.

If government goes to a company and says, "We will give you x amount of dollars if you have x percent of your workforce vaccinated" that is NOT a private company making a private decision. It sounds very benign to say that hospitals are doing this because they "want to make the workplace safer." What is happening in reality is that they are being threatened with loss of funding they are using to pay agency staff 3-4x what the hospital itself has determined to be a reasonable wage for its own employees. The hospitals were already safe with precautionary measures (masks, gowns, negative pressure isolation rooms) that suddenly became sub-standard as soon as a vaccine was released. Government has come in and completely distorted things beyond recognition.

Minus intervention by government, many of these people would still be working. Therefore, you cannot simply say that this is A-OK, nothing to see here.

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but you COMPLETELY disregard the cause/effect relationship between government intervention in the "private" sector and people losing their jobs. Now, I don't know, if the answer is more government. I do know that liberty isn't exactly winning, so it's probably damned-if-you-do, damned-if--you-don't at this point. I tend to make allowance for government to undo previous government actions. More laws are probably not the answer, but I'm not going to frown on repeals, or laws that negate the effectiveness of misguided, damaging laws. But I digress.

[Krugminator2]

If government goes to a company and says, "We will give you x amount of dollars if you have x percent of your workforce vaccinated" that is NOT a private company making a private decision. It sounds very benign to say that hospitals are doing this because they "want to make the workplace safer." What is happening in reality is that they are being threatened with loss of funding they are using to pay agency staff 3-4x what the hospital itself has determined to be a reasonable wage for its own employees. The hospitals were already safe with precautionary measures (masks, gowns, negative pressure isolation rooms) that suddenly became sub-standard as soon as a vaccine was released. Government has come in and completely distorted things beyond recognition.

Minus intervention by government, many of these people would still be working. Therefore, you cannot simply say that this is A-OK, nothing to see here.

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but you COMPLETELY disregard the cause/effect relationship between government intervention in the "private" sector and people losing their jobs. Now, I don't know, if the answer is more government. I do know that liberty isn't exactly winning, so it's probably damned-if-you-do, damned-if--you-don't at this point. I tend to make allowance for government to undo previous government actions. More laws are probably not the answer, but I'm not going to frown on repeals, or laws that negate the effectiveness of misguided, damaging laws. But I digress.

The overwhelming majority of private companies don't get federal funding.

For example, Wal-Mart is mandating vaccines for some workers. I don't see where they are getting paid for it. Failing to see why free association needs to be repealed.

Rules banning companies from requiring vaccination go in the same bucket as anti-discrimination laws and equal pay laws. They make it less attractive to go into business and hire people. They increase lawsuits and create waste. If enough people don't want to be vaccinated there will always be employers who don't make it a requirement because it will allow them to get labor for cheaper.