Mediaboss Marketing

Many people believe that the existence of strong and effective vaccines against COVID-19 implies that governments have the right to issue vaccine mandates. Under a mandate, residents must be vaccinated before they are allowed to enter places of work, schools or businesses.

This view has it exactly backwards. Paradoxically, it is the weakness of the existing COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine delivery system that justify vaccine mandates. Weak vaccines require strong laws.

The question of what governments or employers are authorized to do is first and foremost a question of political philosophy. Within political philosophy, deciding not to take a vaccine is a classic example of a decision whose consequences are not purely private.

Suppose that Robert (named in honor of the late, libertarian political philosopher Robert Nozick) chooses not to be vaccinated against COVID-19. By remaining unvaccinated, Robert is more likely to spread COVID-19 to other persons. In the language of economics, Roberts decision imposes a negative externality on others. Therefore, a government has the right to regulate Roberts otherwise private decision to remain unvaccinated, just as it has the right to limit pollution. Roberts liberty interest in remaining unvaccinated is overridden by the public benefit in widespread vaccination.

Many proponents of vaccine mandates end their analysis here, but they shouldnt because Robert has a response. Suppose that COVID-19 affects only adults, that a vaccine is freely available to all residents and that all residents are fully informed with respect to the vaccines effects. Suppose further that the vaccine is perfectly effective against COVID-19. Finally, suppose that everyone pays for their own health care and that persons who contract COVID-19 dont impose a cost on the health care system through congestion.

If all these conditions are satisfied, or even just more or less true, then the philosophical case for a vaccine mandate is quite weak. Yes, Roberts decision to remain unvaccinated increases the risk that others will contract COVID-19. But anyone can choose to eliminate that risk by getting vaccinated. Therefore, society is not justified in violating Roberts personal liberty by mandating that, in order to participate in civic life, he take a vaccine that he would rather avoid.

Robert would further argue that it is everyones personal responsibility to protect themselves against COVID-19 for example, by taking the vaccine if they wish to so a failure to exercise that responsibility is not a legitimate reason to infringe on his liberty.

From the standpoint of liberal (in the classical, English sense) political philosophy, Roberts argument is powerful on its own terms. But each of Roberts assumptions are empirically flawed. And because they are flawed, a liberal society in fact has a strong interest in implementing vaccine mandates.

First, COVID-19 affects children, and a vaccine has not yet been developed for all children. Moreover, even if an effective vaccine for children were widely available, a child who is unvaccinated is not responsible for that decision.

Second, society may also believe that communities that have faced historical discrimination and are distrustful of the health care system do not bear full responsibility for their decisions not to get vaccinated and deserve some protection from that decision through vaccine mandates.

Third, vaccines are widely available in the United States, but certain people such as the homeless and the undocumented may still have a difficult time obtaining access. Moreover, vaccines are not widely available in other parts of the world, and COVID-19 does not respect borders.

Fourth, existing vaccines are not perfectly effective against COVID-19. For example, even if vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization by close to 90 percent, 10 percent of the total number of hospitalizations to date is still a big number.

Finally, in our health care system, society bears some of the cost of care and thus has a right to regulate individual health decisions that impose a high cost on the system as a whole.

Therefore, in the real world, Roberts decision to remain unvaccinated imposes costs, at a minimum, on children, disadvantaged communities, people in poorer countries, already-vaccinated individuals and funders and patients of the health care system. Moreover, none of these costs can be eliminated under our current constraints.

In other words, it is the limitations in current vaccine science and existing systems of vaccine delivery that justify incursions into the liberty of others. In a perfect world, liberty should prevail. But ours is not a perfect world, which makes vaccine mandates a legitimate part of a liberal society.

PrasadKrishnamurthy is professor of law at U.C. Berkeley School of Law, where he teaches and writes in the area of financial regulation and contracts.

Continued here:
The paradox at the heart of the vaccine mandate debate | TheHill - The Hill

Letter writers| Fort Myers News-Press

I applaud Dr. Antonuccis plea urging everyone to get vaccinated.For the record, I am against vaccine mandates except in certain special situations and I fervently believe that Lee Health presents one of these special situations.Lee Health should and must mandate vaccinations for its staff.I have heard the argument that many on the staff would quit rather than be vaccinated.Frankly, maybe this is something that needs to happen.

How can they advocate for action they themselves dont follow?Is it that everyone should be vaccinated except the Lee Health staff who come into contact day in, day out with COVID-19 patients?It makes no sense.The staff go home and no matter how they sanitize and take precautions, they put their families, neighbors and the community at risk each time they go out in public because the virus is so highly transmissible.

These individuals are doing heroic work and their dedication is commendable. But isnt it time for them to do what they ask of everyone else?

Charlotte Newton, Fort Myers

According to Rep.Byron Donalds, If I hadnt had COVID-19, I would have gotten vaccinated…. If somebody doesnt want to be vaccinated, to be blunt and with all due respect, thats no business of yours.

With all due respect Mr. Donalds, it is our business. Florida is a COVIDhotbed with a record 242 dying each day, because only 52 percentare fully vaccinated, and our governor has banned mask mandates. The vaccinated are generally protected from serious illness, but children under 12are totally vulnerable, as are many adults with health issues.

In addition, the unvaccinated thwart herd immunity and enable the virus to mutate into more serious variants. People like you, Mr. Donalds, who have recovered from COVID,arent immune and still need a vaccination to stop further spread.

It is disturbing that our self-professed libertarian-leaning congressman believes America is predicated not on our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on his license to kill. Mr. Donalds, forgive my bluntness, but your philosophy is not libertarian, its libertine.

Connie B Holzinger,Fort Myers

In the last twoyears of the Trump administration, the Democrats controlled the House. During that time, the House had 14 different Democrat-controlled committees launch 50 investigations into the Trump administration.

Some of the matters investigated were: obstruction, inflated assets, his family security clearances, slow aid to Puerto Rico, conflict of interest, national emergency declaration, emoluments, abuse of power, citizenship question on census, gag orders on staff, short term insurance plans, border security policies, move of FBI headquarters to suburb, border wall funds and, of course, Russia. Can anyone tell me how any of these investigations turned out?

Now we obviously have a crisis in Afghanistan and at our southern border along with many other issues (inflation, gas prices, deals with the Taliban, Hunter, origins of the virus, the virus itself, crime). Can you show me what committees of the House are investigating the Biden administration on anything? Does that indicate what the real motive of the Democrats has always been?

Ron Wobbeking, Naples

In the pantheon of American heroes, Washington, Lincoln and Eisenhower made contributions to our country that are enduring.

However, each man's historical record is not perfect. Washington lost more battles than he won; Lincoln's Civil War resulted in catastrophic loss of life; and Eisenhower's Normandy Invasion endured days of horrendous losses before success was achieved due to the incredible sacrifice and bravery of Allied troops.

As we watch the events in Afghanistan unfold in real time, one wonders if our impressions of yesterday's leaders would have changed if cable news, and live streaming coverage, had been at the battlefields of prior wars.

War was hell then, and war is hell now. One difference today being that we are subjected to instantaneous exposure, assessment and condemnation of leadership. That is not to say that President Biden is a Washington, a Lincolnor an Eisenhower. But it is to suggest that he is being attacked with instantaneous ridicule and daily denigration. Some criticisms are justified, but many are as valid as the integrity of the political pundits who deliver them to their voracious viewers. The long-term wisdom of history will determine Biden's legacy, not the transient trollers on the TVtube.

Manny Cacciola, Fort Myers

Continued here:
Letters to the editor for Tuesday, August 31, 2021 - News-Press

Its often said that Wario is an enigma. Who says that? Thats not one of the questions were here to answer.

Its Wario Month here at Wariogon, and there are some burning questions out there about Wario. While hes certainly the loudest and proudest of the overall-wearing citizens of the Mushroom Kingdom, there are some common misconceptions about him.

Lets dive into the things you need to know ahead of our month celebrating the gold and garlic-loving prince of video games (and farts).

Warios first appearance was Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins on the Game Boy. He served as the games primary antagonist, and he was reportedly born out of one Nintendo teams frustration over making a game based on a different teams protagonist.

Thus Wario, envisioned by creator Hiroji Kiyotake as the Bluto to Mario's Popeye, was born. Wario went on to take over the Land series, dubbing it Wario Land. Most notably, Wario joined the ever-growing roster of Mushroom Kingdom denizens to golf, kart, and party with Mario and his friends. He eventually opened WarioWare to make his own video games, and he even starred in his own 3D platform on the Nintendo GameCube, Wario World, but we dont talk about that.

Growing up, I remember hearing playground rumors about Wario. (Clearly, I had a lot going on during second grade.) The most popular one was that Wario and Mario were cousins. But thats not the case. Wario and Mario were actually just childhood rivals, and the two share no blood relation.

So, Mario and Wario arent cousins, but surely Waluigi is Warios brother? No, thank god.

Wario was the original Wa inhabitant of the Mushroom Kingdom, showing up as a villain for Mario in 1992. Waluigi, on the other hand, is an absolute creep who only exists so Wario could have a duos partner in tennis. None of that is a joke.

An issue of Nintendo Power cataloged last year on Twitter revealed that Waluigi is just some goober that Wario hired. Waluigi isnt even his real name. Wario apparently searched an internet actor pool and hired Jimmy Poppadopolos to act like his duo partner and be a foil for Luigi. Waluigi has since legally changed his name. Seriously.

This question has a pretty complex answer. Wario isnt the main villain of the series, to be sure. But even Bowser, who trumps Wario in sheer villainy, is more of an antagonist than a villain. Bowser is a good dad who even occasionally acts in a more comedic role for story-based Mario titles like the Mario & Luigi games or Paper Mario. In many cases, Bowser is more of a frenemy than an antagonist. And with how much Bowser, Wario, Mario, and the rest of the gang hang out while playing sports and driving, Im not sure you could even call Bowser a bad guy.

With Wario clearly in a lower bad guy tier than Bowser, I think its safe to downgrade him from villain to jerk.

Youd think so, but Id guess no.

Youll find surprisingly little if you type Wario and IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) into Google, so Ill just say this from the heart: Warios farts are weaponized and on demand. It is, in fact, crueler if he doesnt have IBS and has instead just cultivated his body to be an unnatural fart machine. A weapon of gas destruction, if you will.

Another question thats surprisingly complex to answer.

Wario is Italian now, but he wasnt always. Warios original voice actor was German translator Thomas Spindler, and his line that sounds like oh, I missed! is actually So ein Mist! which is German for oh crap! On brand for Wario. Spindler said Wario was always envisioned as German.

However, outside of his Mario Strikers Charged theme song which has a German folk song vibe Wario is largely viewed as Italian. The shift seems to have happened as soon as Charles Martinet, Marios voice actor, took over the role. The Wario we hear today speaks more than any of Martinets other characters and in an even thicker Italian accent than Mario.

Maybe?

In a Nintendo Power issue from 2000, the magazine asked producer Hiroyuki Takahashi if Wario had his own partner the way Mario and Luigi have Peach and Daisy. Marios creator, Shigeru Miyamoto told the producer that he didnt want to see whatever girlfriends Wario and Waluigi would find for themselves.

However, the same Nintendo Power blog that outs Waluigi as Jimmy Poppadopolos also suggests that Wario and Waluigi may have had a budding romance. The article does say that as of Mario Kart Double Dash the two have parted ways physically, which is perhaps the worst imaginable way to put that.

So, if Wario does fuck, he probably fucks Waluigi. Do with that information what you will.

If you google Wario, as I often do, youve probably run into this auto-complete, asking if Wario considers himself a member of the Libertarian political party.

This is actually not a sincere question, but instead an old school Twitter meme from 2011.

But in service of this FAQ: No, Wario is not a Libertarian. Wario clearly doesnt believe in or understand government, otherwise he would have run for office at this point.

Read the rest here:
Everything you need to know about Wario - Polygon

Given the partisan nature of everything, it's no surprise that debates about the unfolding humanitarian tragedy in Afghanistan center on the Biden administration's handlingor most would say, mishandlingof the pull-outof U.S. troops and resulting conquest by the Taliban.

"The debacle of the U.S. defeat and chaotic retreat in Afghanistan is a political disaster for Joe Biden, whose failure to orchestrate an urgent and orderly exit will further rock a presidency plagued by crises and stain his legacy,"wroteCNN analyst Stephen Collinson. The retreat had a troubling "fall of Saigon" air about it, as desperate Afghans clung to departing U.S. fighter jets.

Others blamed the former Trump administration. "This was a consequence of the Trump administration's announcementof a fixed date for total withdrawal," arguedRobert Tracinski in The Bulwark. "This signaledthat the United States had given up and that we would be leaving the Afghan government without support." That, too, makes some sense.

Nevertheless, late-game finger-pointing reminds me of lost hikers arguing about exit trailswhen the problem was heading into the woods in a blizzard. Sure, specific U.S. policies have failed along the way. Writer Bari Weiss, for instance, casts a wide netblaming Bill Clinton's refusal to target Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush's reliance on warlords, and Barack Obama's unwillingness to focus on winning.

The problem is America's fundamental policythe hubristic idea that a government that can't even handle its domestic responsibilities has the wherewithal to rebuild an undeveloped nation. That's a bipartisan delusion, although I'm pleased Trump and Biden finally pulled the plug. Had our War on Poverty succeeded, perhaps one could make a stronger case for intervention. We should know better but rarely learn.

Libertarians long decried endless U.S. military interventions given our understanding of the way the government worksas opposed to its myopic promises. I recall the angry responses The Orange County Register editorial pages received when we opposedthe wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as readers questioned our patriotism for pointing out the obvious. It's too bad it can take decades to be proven right.

The Iraq war made no sense given the dubious connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but Afghanistan was a hotbed for terrorism. It was a tougher case, but there were alternatives to an outright invasion. But once our leaders start pounding the war drums, there was no reasoning with Americans who insisted that this timeresultswould be different.

It is horrific to watch the Taliban, whose philosophy emanates from the Dark Ages, cement its grip on Afghanistan. The results will betragic indeed. Expect widespread executions of those who cooperated with the Western regime, the relegation of women to the status of chattel, and the re-imposition of Islamic law. But let's not forget the horrific effects of the war and occupation.

"An accurate accounting of the war in Afghanistan must take into account the roughly 2,400 American service members, 3,800 American contractors, 66,000 Afghan security forces, 47,000 Afghan civilians, and others (including journalists and aid workers) who were killed,"explainedEric Boehm in Reason. Then add to that the trillions of dollars in costs.

Reasonalso pointed to a report by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. SIGAR lamented our shifting goals: "At various points, the U.S. government hoped to eliminate al-Qaeda, decimate the Taliban movement that hosted it, deny all terrorist groups a safe haven in Afghanistan, build Afghan security forcesand help the civilian government become legitimate and capable enough to win the trust of Afghans."

Although it pointed to a few successes, the "Lessons Learned"report documented 140 pages of failures. The best lesson learned, however, is that the United States should not insert itself into these foreign conflicts, should not engage in nation-building, and should limit its interventions to defensive measures that actually protect our nation and its interests. That's what libertarians always have argued.

"Most Americans still want to see some sort of retribution against Osama bin Laden and his far-flung organization,"wrotethe Register's late editorial writer Alan Bock. "But more are wondering if they'll see it anytime soon. The dread word 'quagmire,'has become part of the discourse." He wrote that in 2001and it's hard to say he was wrong.

What should the United States government do now? It should complete the pull-out, keep close tabs on any terrorist networks that could threaten us, and accept as many Afghan refugeesinto the United States as possible. Many of them, especially interpreters, worked with the U.S. military. Welcoming them here is the least we can doand can help prevent a bloodbath.

Former Gen. Colin Powell is known for citing the "Pottery Barn"rule of foreign affairs. "If you break it, you own it." How about the U.S. start following the libertarian rulejust stop playing with other people's pottery?

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Read this article:
Libertarians Correctly Predicted the Afghanistan Fiasco Reason.com - Reason

Thomas L. Knapp| Libertarian View

More than seven months after the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during the January 6 riot, the Capitol Police Department officer who shot her is speaking out. I know that day I saved countless lives, Lt. Michael ByrdtellsNBC Newss Lester Holt.

Maybe hes right, maybe not, but hes going farther than he has to go. The standard for use of deadly force not just in the Capitol Police Department but generally is not certain knowledge but rather,as the departments policy puts it, a reasonable belief that said use of force is in the defense of human life, including the officers own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.

Did Byrds actions meet that standard? The events of the day, andthe video record of the shooting, say yes.

Even setting aside the question of whether the 2020 presidential election was stolen, as many Trump supporters believe, and the bizarre theories of QAnon, with which she seems to have been affiliated, the story of Babbitts death is a story of reasonable versus unreasonable beliefs.

It was unreasonable for Babbitt especially given her description in online biographies as a 14-year Air Force veteran and former security guard at a nuclear power plant to believe that she and the mob she joined could walk into the US Capitol and violently prevent Congresss certification of the election without armed Capitol Police officers contesting the matter.

It was even more unreasonable for Babbitt to believe that when her fellow rioters began smashing the windows of the barricaded doors to the Speakers Lobby, and that when she attempted to crawl through one of those windows, the armed officers charged with protecting Congress wouldnt respond with deadly force. Frankly its surprising that they didnt do so as soon as the window-smashing began.

On the other hand, whether or not one likes the Capitol Police, or Lt. Byrd, or Congress, or the outcome of the election, it was entirely and obviously reasonable for Lt. Byrd to believe that members of a mob attempting to force their way through those barricaded doors represented a danger of immediate danger of serious physical injury or even death to himself and those he guarded.

Ashli Babbitt is neither a martyr nor an innocent victim of police abuse (of which there are far too many). She willingly joined a violent mob. She willingly took part in that mobs violent actions. She willingly went an extra foot or two beyond the actions of most of that mobs members. And that extra foot or two was fatal.

Had Ashli Babbitt not put her unreasonable beliefs into motion against Michael Byrds reasonable beliefs, shed almost certainly still be alive.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).

View post:
Libertarian view: Beliefs and expectations, reasonable and unreasonable - The Spectrum