DOJ says Fed Law does not bar Business from VAX Mandates

[Invisible Man]

I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians that say the same thing.

I'm struggling to understand how you can reconcile simultaneously holding both of the following beliefs:
1. The government should not prohibit you from restricting your hiring to whites only.
2. The government should prohibit you from restricting your hiring to vaccinated people only.

[Invisible Man]

If the end goal is the same, what difference does it make if it is a private company or the state itself that infringes on the rights of people? What are we trying to preserve at that point?

Outside of the ways that private companies entangle themselves with the government, what are some examples of the kinds of things that you consider to be private companies infringing on the rights of people?

[Anti Federalist]

I'm struggling to understand how you can reconcile simultaneously holding both of the following beliefs:
1. The government should not prohibit you from restricting your hiring to whites only.
2. The government should prohibit you from restricting your hiring to vaccinated people only.

I don't think that particularly.

I'm pointing out the selective hypocrisy.

It's all or nothing AFIC.

Either a business has a right to hire, fire or serve whomever they want, for any reason or no reason at all, or they they do not.

Clearly they do not have that right, so, much more important to me than how many coloreds or queeers work for the company is how does the company treat political dissenters.

If a company can't fire you because you are a man in a dress insisting that you are a woman, then they should not be able to fire you for refusing a dangerous and untested medical injection.

[Invisible Man]

I don't think that particularly.

I'm pointing out the selective hypocrisy.

It's all or nothing AFIC.

Either a business has a right to hire, fire or serve whomever they want, for any reason or no reason at all, or they they do not.

Clearly they do not have that right, so, much more important to me than how many coloreds or queeers work for the company is how does the company treat political dissenters.

If a company can't fire you because you are a man in a dress insisting that you are a woman, then they should not be able to fire you for refusing a dangerous and untested medical injection.

I agree with you about the need for consistency. But that goes both ways.

If it has to be all or nothing, then which side of the all or nothing are you on? Are you on the side that says that an employer does have the right to hire, fire or serve whomever they want, for any reason or no reason at all, including the reason of that person not being vaccinated, or are you on the side that says they don't have that right?

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with you about the need for consistency. But that goes both ways.

If it has to be all or nothing, then which side of the all or nothing are you on? Are you on the side that says that an employer does have the right to hire, fire or serve whomever they want, for any reason or no reason at all, including the reason of that person not being vaccinated, or are you on the side that says they don't have that right?

All things being equal, and employees retaining the right to join together collectively to negotiate a contract agreeable to all, I am of the mind that a business should be able to hire, fire or promote as they see fit.

Moving beyond the realm of employment, I maintain that a business may not engage in activity that violates the bill of rights, as the tech giants are now, working hand in hand with government to ban unacceptable speech.

[BSWPaulsen]

IMO there's not much difference between what "private" industry is doing these days than what the Hessian mercenaries were doing in the 1700s. If the end goal is the same, what difference does it make if it is a private company or the state itself that infringes on the rights of people? What are we trying to preserve at that point?

An important distinction that some cannot come to grasp with. Tyranny is not solely derived from governmental power. Any philosophy that is not capable of dealing with this reality must be adjusted accordingly.

[CaptUSA]

An important distinction that some cannot come to grasp with. Tyranny is not solely derived from governmental power. Any philosophy that is not capable of dealing with this reality must be adjusted accordingly.

I don't think anyone is saying the free market is perfect. There is no such thing. But at least with private entities, if you don't like the way you're being treated, you can go elsewhere and stop doing business with them. The problem is when government gets in the mix and starts mandating things to protect businesses from a competitor that would choose to operate differently.

[sdsubball23]

Well, then work for a company in the minority.

But seriously, there is a problem with your mindset if you believe that you can't leave and get paid well. If a company is willing to pay a price for your services, so will a competitor. If your value is high enough, you hold all the cards. And isn't that what we all should be striving for?? Why would anyone want to be subject to the whims of an employer or the State??

I work for a corporation, but I consider myself self-employed. The corporation pays me well for the value I provide them. If either one of us decides it's not working for us anymore, we are both free to leave. No one owes anyone anything. The corporation could crumble tomorrow. I could become incapacitated. If you fear losing your job, then you may want to question your outlook on life - because you're allowing someone else to control you.

For me, I feel as if it'd be more difficult to get a job because I'm not as skilled and experienced, so it's more of a concern for me. Plus, I live in California. I don't know if I'd have enough time to gain more skills to get another job before any possible mandates for vaccines. I know these are excuses I'm making, but they are concerns I personally have. Maybe it's just a matter of trying anyway on my part.

So for the time being, I was wondering if anyone know of any other exceptions or legal paths to avoiding any mandates?

[acptulsa]

An important distinction that some cannot come to grasp with. Tyranny is not solely derived from governmental power. Any philosophy that is not capable of dealing with this reality must be adjusted accordingly.

"Solely" being the key word, as only force can ensure a monopoly. Philosophy has no problem with it. What you're pointing to is ignorance of the fact that the CIA created both fedbook and twitster.

[TheCount]

Moving beyond the realm of employment, I maintain that a business may not engage in activity that violates the bill of rights, as the tech giants are now, working hand in hand with government to ban unacceptable speech.

First, that would essentially invalidate the property rights of businesses.

Second, the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law," so applying the first amendment to individuals is even less coherent than the rest.

[CaptUSA]

So for the time being, I was wondering if anyone know of any other exceptions or legal paths to avoiding any mandates?

The first thing I'd do is request an antibody test prior to getting the jab. If you've already had Covid (and many people have had it and didn't know it), you most likely have better antibodies than what the vaccines could provide. If your employer wouldn't accept a positive antibody test, then they're not worth working for.

You could always try the religious exemption - that may buy you some time and piss off your HR department.

Otherwise, group together with other like-minded employees and threaten a lawsuit - the vaccines are still experimental, after all.

If all else fails, don't be afraid to quit. There are plenty of jobs out there and you'll be better off in the long run. Start your own business. Do anything that provides value to people. Skills and experience are helpful, but you can get those easily over time.

[Brian4Liberty]

You are acting as if people couldn't walk away. Here's what you say, "yeah, sorry. I don't want to do any of that stuff - I'll sell my services elsewhere, thanks."

You and I may be willing to do that, but we are in an extreme minority. There’s a myriad of ways that this is impractical for the vast majority of people. And people who are close to retirement are slaves to their jobs, as they don't want to lose their retirement money.

I understand the corporate/State relationship and yes, that's a problem. The state wants to control of people and business and corporations want the cover of the state so they don't have to worry about competition from other businesses who aren't doing these kinds of mandates. That's the problem.

I lost count of how many shows I’ve seen where the people talk about how all employers and schools can mandate vaccines, and then everyone will be forced to get vaccinated. It is certainly coordinated, and is simply a way for them to mandate without it being a “government mandate”, even though government employers are leading the way.

It's not inflexible dogmatic libertarianism, it's just a belief in personal ownership and responsibility. If I'm a business owner, I should be able to select employees that meet my criteria. If I'm an employee, I should be able to select an employer that meets my criteria. That's a free exchange. Businesses that want to mandate vaccinations will have employees that have no problem with it and businesses that don't will have employees that are fine with that. This wouldn't even be an issue if not for the imposition of the State.

It is an ideal that does not work in the real world. You can advocate it, and preach it, but it still won’t work when 90% of “private” business is in on the scheme. And don't underestimate how many small-medium businesses have owners and administrators that do exactly what government asks of them, out of fear and/or agreement with the agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

And at this very moment on Fox Business, they are talking about how to achieve vaccine mandates.

[BSWPaulsen]

"Solely" being the key word, as only force can ensure a monopoly.

Obviously.

Philosophy has no problem with it.

When said philosophy is incapable of dealing with nongovernmental force, then said philosophy is incompatible with the species it would be applicable to.

What you're pointing to is ignorance of the fact that the CIA created both fedbook and twitster.

Irrelevant.

[nobody's_hero]

Outside of the ways that private companies entangle themselves with the government, what are some examples of the kinds of things that you consider to be private companies infringing on the rights of people?

Outside of the ways that private companies entangle themselves with the government? Wow.

Might as well be asking me to describe a rainbow without allowing me to use any colors.

Remember months ago when people here were running around saying Facebook/Twitter etc were private companies and they could do what they want?

Then someone blew the whistle on that and exposed what some of us already strongly suspected, that they were getting their marching orders from government.

You sure you want to defend more of these "private companies" again? Because I'm going double or nothing and saying that social media isn't the only means to which government is going to see its will be done.

Everyone knows healthcare and government have been making-out in the bushes for a long time, and that'll be the next route. Hospitals will either get on board with pushing the vaccine or no medi-carrot money for them.

"But but but, you can just make your own competing hospital."

Open a truly private self-pay/private insurance hospital next door to one that is getting reimbursed for losses with government dollars and tell me how it goes.

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't think anyone is saying the free market is perfect. There is no such thing. But at least with private entities, if you don't like the way you're being treated, you can go elsewhere and stop doing business with them. The problem is when government gets in the mix and starts mandating things to protect businesses from a competitor that would choose to operate differently.

The problem is not derived from government. The problem is derived from the species itself. Everything, including the free market, is only as healthy and positive as the people employing it.

One people may have a culture where vaccine mandates are anathema to the freedom of its people regardless of its originator. Another people may have a culture where vaccine mandates are a condoned behavior regardless of its originator. The free market allows for this duality, and that is fine. However, I would vastly prefer to belong to a culture or society in which the former is the standard and the latter is unconscionable tyranny.

[Anti Federalist]

First, that would essentially invalidate the property rights of businesses.

Second, the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law," so applying the first amendment to individuals is even less coherent than the rest.

If Congress passed a law forbidding speech of any type, it does not matter, who will enforce that?

Individuals.

If you are getting marching orders from the Executive Branch of government to delete, remove, censor and ban speech that the government finds "problematic" then you are violating the first amendment.

And the lefties love it.

I wonder what they would have thought about Nixon and the Washington Post colluding together to ban Woodward and Bernstein?

[Invisible Man]

Outside of the ways that private companies entangle themselves with the government? Wow.

Might as well be asking me to describe a rainbow without allowing me to use any colors.

That's the dichotomy that you yourself set up in the post I replied to when you said:

what difference does it make if it is a private company or the state itself

If you're talking about infringements of people's rights that private companies commit in partnership with the state, then you're still talking about infringements committed by the state itself.

There are some here who are not content with just saying that the state should refrain from cooperating with private companies in mandating vaccines for those they hire, do business with, or welcome onto their property, but they positively want the state to ban private companies from doing that.

[nobody's_hero]

That's the dichotomy that you yourself set up in the post I replied to when you said:


If you're talking about infringements of people's rights that private companies commit in partnership with the state, then you're still talking about infringements committed by the state itself.

There are some here who are not content with just saying that the state should refrain from cooperating with private companies in mandating vaccines for those they hire, do business with, or welcome onto their property, but they positively want the state to ban private companies from doing that.

Either you've missed my point entirely or you're being deliberately obtuse.

There's just not much of a private market left to defend, and at this point, defending what poses as "private enterprise," which is in truth, nothing more than a mafia-style front for government operations, is probably doing more harm than good.

[Brian4Liberty]

The first thing I'd do is request an antibody test prior to getting the jab. If you've already had Covid (and many people have had it and didn't know it), you most likely have better antibodies than what the vaccines could provide. If your employer wouldn't accept a positive antibody test, then they're not worth working for.
...

Unfortunately, antibodies disappear relatively fast, a matter of a few months. There is no reason for the body to produce antibodies when there is no active infection. You would need to test for T cells and B cells, which are the long term immune system memory. There are tests for that, but mysteriously, these tests have not been deployed or even talked about. Health insurance will not pay for them.

[Invisible Man]

Either you've missed my point entirely or you're being deliberately obtuse.

There's just not much of a private market left to defend, and at this point, defending what poses as "private enterprise," which is in truth, nothing more than a mafia-style front for government operations, is probably doing more harm than good.

Who said anything about defending an existing private market?

The status quo not being right is no reason not to defend what actually is right.

[nobody's_hero]

Who said anything about defending an existing private market?

The status quo not being right is no reason not to defend what actually is right.

Let's flip it around then:

If I'm paying for it, I get to set the rules.

If my tax dollars are going to reimburse hospital systems who are dictating to staff to get vaccinated, suppose I forbid that, and they don't like it, then make those hospitals go private and set their own rules.

What exactly are we gaining again by tying our own arm behind our backs?

Another example:

If Facebook doesn't like government telling it what to do, (and libertarians don't like government telling Fedbook what to do, despite these entities already being far down the rabbit hole of corporatist/state/fascism) then it needs to cut ties with the CIA and maybe then I'll be interested in hearing them plea to me about their rights as a private company.

Sound good?

I'm tired of playing defensively and losing every play.

Instead we've got people here running around like Smeagol in LOTR like "don't touch my precious" when it comes to government setting rules like this, and I'm like "dude, precious already been touched. " What are you defending?

[CaptUSA]

Anyone know where a registered nurse can "sell their services" at a place that hasn't bought the vaccination hook-line-sinker?

I've been out of the healthcare system since last November. I told them to take the job and shove it. Yeah. Stuck it to the man! Rebel I am.

So, here's an anecdote... My daughter is a supervising nurse in upstate NY. She told me that there are lots of nurses that are leaving because of the vaccination mandates there. So the state is bringing in travel nurses at a premium. (She did travel nursing for a few years and made some great money!)

But get this... Not all the travel nursing agencies require vaccinations. So, you actually have nurses leaving their jobs in NY, signing on with the travel agencies, staying in the state of NY and making WAY more money than before. Might be something to check out.

[nobody's_hero]

So, here's an anecdote... My daughter is a supervising nurse in upstate NY. She told me that there are lots of nurses that are leaving because of the vaccination mandates there. So the state is bringing in travel nurses at a premium. (She did travel nursing for a few years and made some great money!)

But get this... Not all the travel nursing agencies require vaccinations. So, you actually have nurses leaving their jobs in NY, signing on with the travel agencies, staying in the state of NY and making WAY more money than before. Might be something to check out.

The agencies themselves don't require them but it depends on where their contracts are. FL travel contracts are a hot deal right now because it is looking like FL might be the only state not to go full-retard with mandates. I've looked into a few, and if it were about the money I'd already have a $8,000 sign on bonus and be working in the sunshine state.

I think travel nurse pay has gotten so high that its actually hurting morale of staff who work directly for the hospitals. The nurse next to you has the same patient load and is getting paid nearly 3 times what you are. Then those in-house nurses quit to go work as contractors. I joked when I left my hospital that I'd be back in 6 months working the same job and getting paid more on a contract. But honestly I don't even think it's worth the money.

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately, antibodies disappear relatively fast, a matter of a few months. There is no reason for the body to produce antibodies when there is no active infection. You would need to test for T cells and B cells, which are the long term immune system memory. There are tests for that, but mysteriously, these tests have not been deployed or even talked about. Health insurance will not pay for them.

I need to update this. T cells also can not be detected after a time based upon current tests. They don't circulate in enough quantity to be detected in a blood sample after a matter of months, at most a year. They reside in places like bone marrow after that.

Accurate testing has been a big problem during this whole COVID fiasco.

[CaptUSA]

The agencies themselves don't require them but it depends on where their contracts are. FL travel contracts are a hot deal right now because it is looking like FL might be the only state not to go full-retard with mandates. I've looked into a few, and if it were about the money I'd already have a $8,000 sign on bonus and be working in the sunshine state.

I think travel nurse pay has gotten so high that its actually hurting morale of staff who work directly for the hospitals. The nurse next to you has the same patient load and is getting paid nearly 3 times what you are. Then those in-house nurses quit to go work as contractors. I joked when I left my hospital that I'd be back in 6 months working the same job and getting paid more on a contract. But honestly I don't even think it's worth the money.

I’ve heard this exact same complaint. And it’s a spiral. Staff nurses don’t like the disparity and end up leaving to be travel nurses. Which only leaves fewer staff nurses and more travel nurses. The incentives are all messed up. Wonder who caused that to happen??