Mediaboss Marketing

Mandates for the COVID-19 shots are popping up all over the country now, which means you may soon have to show proof of vaccination if you want to go to work, the gym or an indoor public event.

The requirements are a reaction to slowed vaccination rates that have left significant parts of the population without protection from the virus, just as the highly contagious delta variant is spreading. Among those supporting the new requirements is President Joe Biden, who has issued one for federal workers and encouraged both private and public employers to do the same.

The requirements seem to be relatively popular. As many as two-thirds of Americans support them, if some recent polling is correct. But there are plenty of opponents out there. Among the loudest are some high-profile leaders in the Republican Party.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) says vaccine requirements are products of the lefts authoritarian instincts. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) describes the push for requirements as vaccine fascism. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) responded to Bidens announcement by tweeting, No mandates for anyone, and vowing that Americans will stand for freedom and then punctuating the line with an American flag emoji.

Republicans at the state level are saying similar things and they are acting too, putting in place prohibitions on vaccine requirements in more than a dozen states. One of them is Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued orders and signed legislation thatbansvaccine requirements by private companies as well as local government agencies.

Florida is a free state, and we will empower our people, DeSantis said in a fundraising letter this week. We will not allow Joe Biden and his bureaucratic flunkies to come in and commandeer the rights and freedoms of Floridians.

The virtual flag-waving, appeals to personal liberty, and warnings about fascism suggest there is something fundamentally un-American about vaccine mandates.But requirements to get inoculations have been around since the very first days of the republic, claiming broad support and withstanding legal challenges.

This isnt because officials or judges are ignoring freedom. Its because they believe vaccination is a key to securing it.In fact, among those who support vaccine requirements today are some well-known conservative judges and libertarian scholars in other words, precisely the sort of people you would expect to protest government overreach most vociferously.

What Liberals And Conservatives Say About Vaccine Mandates

A basic justification for vaccine mandates is that your freedom doesnt include the freedom to endanger the rest of your community.The principle is a bedrock of democratic philosophy and the American legal tradition, with courts applying it to a variety of contexts including public health.

You cant walk around assaulting people just because you feel like its an important part of your self-expression, Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said in an interview. And you cant dump pollutants into a towns drinking water just because youd rather not pay for cleanup. By the same token, we require kids to get vaccinated for all sorts of illnesses before they go to public school. Otherwise, their bodies could be used as vectors to harm others.

SOPA Images via Getty ImagesFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose state's hospitals are filling up with COVID-19 patients, has said that vaccination requirements threaten freedom.

The most important legal precedent on vaccines specifically is a 1905 case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring smallpox vaccination for adults. Just this week, a panel from a federal appeals court cited Jacobson when it upheld, unanimously, a new COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students at Indiana University.

The author of that ruling, Frank Easterbrook, is a well-respected conservative first put on the bench by President Ronald Reagan. In the opinion, Easterbrook argued that the Indiana University requirement was actually less onerous than the old Massachusetts requirement, because it applied only to people who are choosing to enroll at the university.

People who do not want to be vaccinated may go elsewhere, Easterbrook wrote.

That appears to be true for all of the vaccine mandates now in place or under discussion: They are not requirements per se, but rather conditions for some kind of voluntary activity. Although the consequences can still be harsh say, if it means giving up a job many of the mandates, including the one Biden introduced for federal workers, offer alternatives like undergoing frequent testing plus a promise to observe social distancing.

Thats in addition to exceptions for people who can cite legitimate religious grounds or who cant get shots for medical reasons.

In the eyes of the law, nothing under discussion is actually a mandate, in the sense of a government command backed up by coercion, Bagley said.

What Some Libertarians Say About Vaccine Mandates

Bagley is generally thought of as a liberal, but its not hard to find conservatives and libertarians who take the same view.

In a 2013 paper titled A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination, Jessica Flanigan, a University of Richmond professor known for libertarian writings on bioethics, cited the example of people firing guns into the air in order to celebrate Independence Day. Governments can and do prohibit such behavior even though its a form of expression, Flanigan explained, because the bullet could end up hitting and even killing somebody.

People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, Flanigan wrote.

Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan made a similar argument in a 2018 journal article called A Libertarian Case for Mandatory Vaccination. That was two years before COVID-19, but, he told HuffPost last week, he thinks the case for mandates now remains strong.

Bill Clark via Getty ImagesElise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair from New York, punctuated her tweets on vaccine mandates with an American flag emoji.

In my view, people have the right to harm themselves by making bad choices, Brennan said. This is about protecting others from the undue risk of harm you impose upon them by being unvaccinated. The lower the personal costs/risks of the vaccine and the higher the risk that the unvaccinated impose upon others the stronger the case is for mandating vaccines.

And then there is Ilya Somin, whom nobody would mistake for a fan of government power.

A professor at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, he has spent much of his professional life decrying what he sees as state encroachments on personal liberty, whether its local authorities taking property under eminent domain or the federal governmentpenalizing people for not getting health insurance.

But Somin said in an interview that vaccine mandates make sense under certain circumstances and that the present situation qualifies. He described taking the shot as a small burden for the sake of much larger benefits, like slowing transmission and reducing the opportunities for new, more dangerous variants to emerge.

The issue here is not just that it saves lives, but that it potentially saves a great many of them, and not just those of the vaccinated people themselves, Somin said. It also protects others in the community. That makes it different from primarily paternalistic restrictions on liberty, such as, say, requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Somin said said he would feel differently about imposing a requirement on the public at large, rather than making the vaccines a condition for engaging in certain activities, in part because it would be a law enforcement nightmare. Somin also noted that many of the mandates are coming from private-sector companies acting on their own.

American laws and courts have long given private companies all kinds of leeway to dictate terms of employment, as well as whom they serve as customers. Libertarians like Somin are especially reluctant to see that erode, because they believe owners, workers and consumers end up better off when corporations operate with fewer restrictions.

Where The Debate Goes From Here

One group that would be happy to cut down on management discretion over employees are labor unions, and thats a big reason so many unions representing teachers, health care workers and other sectors subject to the mandates have been fighting them.

The unions are also representing workers who, in many cases, are genuinely fearful of the vaccines. This is especially true for the health care unions whose memberships include large numbers of Black Americans, whose vaccination numbers nationwide have lagged in part because of deep distrust of the medical establishment that has built up over the centuries.

Of course, from a public health perspective, thats all the more reason to impose the mandate: to boost vaccination among people who take the pandemic seriously and are part of communities that have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19. And thats not to mention the biggest reason, which is that unvaccinated health care workers are a direct threat to the safety and well-being of patients.

Still, many of the unions fighting the requirements are focusing more on the specifics of verification and exceptions to the rules.Thats different from the categorical rejection of mandates you hear from Cruz, DeSantis and the other Republicans. And although the unions certainly represent a lot of members, those GOP officials have a lot of influence especially when it comes to the part of the population most hostile to getting vaccinated.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

See original here:
Opponents Of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Have A Curious Definition Of 'Freedom' - HuffPost

FILE PHOTO: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

By David M. GreenwaldExecutive Editor

Since the start of the pandemic, issues of government and health based restrictions have been framed by thoseespecially on the right, though not exclusivelyas an issue of freedom and rights. The argument goes that the individual and not the government should determine issues like masking, social distancing, and the like.

That issue has been amplified severalfold with the issue of vaccinations and whether or to what extent government and/or employers can mandate them.

In this piece I will argue that, while there are issues of freedom and rights embedded into this debate, for the most part and this extends well beyond the realm of COVID, we have misconstrued the issue of freedom way too narrowly.

When people yell freedom in this society, most often they are thinking along narrow self-interested lines. I want the freedom to do what I want.

The problem is that the government cannot operate along those lines of freedom. The government generally thinks not in terms of freedom but in terms of rights. Allowing someone to exercise their rights is relatively straightforward. Where government exists, however, is at the point where rights conflictgovernment has a responsibility to arbitrate and weigh on situations where my rights conflict with yours.

Many people yelling freedom forget this fact. The government has the obligation in my view of not only arbitration in the conflict of rights, but ensuring that the laws, to the extent possible, offer equal protection.

We may often think of freedom versus safetythe but reality is that safety is another way of designating other peoples rights. You may have the right to run down the street. But when you run into the street, you are putting other peoples rights in jeopardynot only their freedom of movement but also their freedom to live.

So the government preemptively steps in to create a set of rules that we follow. So we have traffic laws that prescribe and proscribe movements and govern when and where pedestrians can cross roadways and which laws that drivers have to obey to create as safe of an environment as possible.

What determines those laws? In part, community standards. But in part, a risk assessment.

Let us use speed limit as a case example here. In most places there are laws governing the maximum speed. Those laws generally allow people to drive at a faster rate of speed on the open road than on narrow and crowded city streets where there are more likely to be pedestrians and traffic controls.

Speed limits are limits on freedom. Thats one way to look at it. But another way is it is the governments decision to arbitrate between competing rights. My freedom of movement is circumscribed by your need to be able to safely move from point A to point B.

How does the government determine speed limits? A lot of it is based on risk assessment. The faster you go, the more freedom you have to determine your own safe rate of speed. But we know from studies, the faster you go the more likely driver error or roadway conditions are to create hazards, and so we weigh freedom against risk and arrive at a somewhat subjective limit for upper speed. That can vary state to state and also by location, but at the end of the day, risk assessment guides it.

In general, in the non-economic realm, I tend to be more libertarian. In fact, I generally consider myself a civil libertarian. I oppose government limits on free speech, think that most drugs should be legalized and, if not, decriminalized. I think things like sex work should be legalized but regulated.

I am more libertarian on things like gun laws than many on the left.

But I have a hard time understanding the freedom dimension to reasonable regulations with regard to COVID.

The problem again with COVID is that regulations are not about individual liberty exclusively. For example, if COVID were such that the precautions only impacted your own healththen by all means take whatever risks you want.

Let us take smoking as a good example here. If someone wants to smoke, that puts their health at risk. I am fine with that (we can debate the extent to which society should have to pay the bill for cancer treatment or the extent to which it is fair that we have to pay higher health insurance premiums to mitigate that risk, but thats a slightly different question).

But most places determined that you may have the right to smoke by yourself outside, but smoking can also impact others. Second hand smoke poses a health risk, and so most indoor places in most states have now forbidden ityou used to be able to smoke on planes, in restaurants, at bars, now you cant.

Wearing a mask is pretty much the same issue. When you dont wear a mask, you actually put other peoples health at risk, not your own.

Government therefore has a compelling interest in mandating masks to prevent disease spread.

I have heard people argue that if you want to live in fear, thats fine, but they dont choose to. But the mask issue is more complicated. If it again were merely about you avoiding getting sick if you didnt wear a mask, there would be a more compelling argument. But the mask issue is actually the opposite, it prevents you from spreading the virus to others. Thats a little different.

Vaccination, of course, is more complicated. You are not talking about a temporary and passive use of masks. You are talking about whether the government has an interest to compel an individual to inject something into their body.

I would argue that they dont.

However, freedom to act is not freedom to live without consequences or choices.

The government in my view, does have a compelling interest in regulating who can operate in the public realm and create increased levels of risk. Therefore the government I think has the ability to regulate who can enter public buildings, it has the ability to regulate who can go to restaurants, bars, and gyms, and it has the ability to weigh your freedom to not vaccinate against societys freedom to incur undo risk at entering the public realm.

Bottom line, I think the government does have the right to place restrictions on those who CHOOSE not to vaccinate. They are making a choice.

I have seen people say that they can choose not to wear a mask or not vaccinate and if I dont like it, I can choose not to leave my home.

Sorry, but we both have equal freedoms here. Our rights conflict. And there when rights conflict, the government has the duty to arbitrate those conflicts and they do so by managing risk. Right now in the middle of a pandemic, the government interest in protecting health and safety outweighs other factors.

When that risk is reducedas we have seen at various timesgovernment can and will remove those restrictions.

Read more from the original source:
Commentary: We Have Misconstrued Freedom in the Fight against COVID - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's campaign is in a dispute with state officials over whether he can be listed as the city's retired mayor on the ballot for the recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Each candidate is listed with a job title or other descriptor, but they are not allowed to use the word former. Faulconer's campaign requested he be listed as San Diego's retired mayor, which state officials are now disputing, Faulconer spokesman John Burke said. He left the office in 2020, and referencing his prior role would help boost his name identification.

Burke said the campaign plans to sue the Secretary of State's office.

"It defies common sense that KevinFaulconerwouldnt be allowed to use retired San Diego Mayor as his ballot designation, where he was elected and re-elected, leaving office only at the end of last year," Burke said in a written statement. "This is not fair to voters who should be given accurate information as to who the candidates for this recall actually are. Our campaign is suing the Secretary of State to ensure that this is rectified."

Faulconer isn't the only candidate upset with the list of 41 candidates released Saturday by the state. YouTube creator Kevin Paffrath said he planned to sue to get his YouTube nickname on the ballot.

And, conservative talk radio host Larry Elder was left off the ballot because state officials say he submitted incomplete tax returns, a requirement to run. Elder maintains he should be included and says he'll go to court to get his name on the ballot.

The list of candidates includes 21 Republicans and eight Democrats, one Libertarian, nine independents and two Green Party members. The list has a range of candidates from the anonymous to the famous, including an entertainer known for putting herself on Los Angeles billboards in the 1980s and others with eye-catching names, like deputy sheriff Denver Stoner, and Nickolas Wildstar, who lists himself as a musician/entrepreneur/father.

Also listed is Olympian-turned-reality-TV-star Caitlyn Jenner, who was reportedly in Australia filming a reality show at the time the list was released, though she tweeted Friday that she and her campaign team are "in full operation."

Voters will be sent a ballot with two questions: Should Newsom be recalled, and who should replace him. If more than half of voters say yes to the first question, then whoever on the list of potential replacements gets the most votes is the new governor of the nations most populous state. With numerous candidates and no clear front-runner, its possible the someone could win with less than 25% of the votes.

Ballots will start going out next month in the mail, and the official election date is Sept. 14.

Read the original here:
Faulconer Campaign in Dispute With State Over Title on Recall Ballot - NBC San Diego

Start your day with LAist

Sign up for the Morning Brief, delivered weekdays.

Californias next governor could be a retired homicide detective, a marijuana reform advocate, or an Olympic champion.

Or, a former Mayor of San Francisco who went on to win the Governor's office a few years ago.

The state on Saturday released a list of 41 people who filed the required paperwork to run in the Sept. 14 recall election that could remove Gov. Gavin Newsom. The lineup includes 21 Republicans, eight Democrats, one Libertarian, nine independents, and two Green Party members.

Voters may be familiar with several names on the list, including Caitlyn Jenner, the former Olympian turned reality TV personality; and John Cox, the Orange County businessman. Other, perhaps lesser-known candidates include Democrat Kevin Paffrath, 29, a YouTube financial advisor; Libertarian Jeff Hewitt, 68, a Riverside County supervisor, and Republican Sam Gallucci, 60, a former executive at the financial management firm PeopleSoft and current pastor at an Oxnard church.

See all 41 candidates: Whos Running In Newsom Recall? Politicians, Activists, Californians Of All Stripes

The number of candidates is smaller than some analysts expected; predictions at one point ran up to 100. That could be a setback for recall supporters who had hoped for a large, prominent field to attract voters for the first question of whether or not Newsom should be recalled.

If that question fails, the recall is over and Newsom remains in office, mooting the candidates on the second ballot.

A certified list the one voters will see will be released Wednesday and changes are possible.

What questions do you have about Southern California?

Read more from the original source:
Here's Who's Running For CA Governor In The Upcoming Recall Election, So Far - LAist

By Rich Moniak

On Monday, oral arguments were heard on an election lawsuit ripe with irony. It seeks to invalidate Alaskas new voting law for statewide offices that narrowly passed last November. Proposition 2 created a nonpartisan primary that advances the top four vote-getters to a ranked-choice competition in the general election.

The plaintiffs are Kenneth Jacobus, a registered Republican and the attorney who filed the lawsuit; Scott Kohlhaas, a member of the Alaska Libertarian Party; The Alaskan Independence Party; and Bob Bird, AIPs chairman.

The complaint Jacobus submitted describes how the non-partisan primary stripped all three parties of their ability to control the selection of candidates in Alaskas elections. In doing so, he argues, Proposition 2 violates their rights to free political association and creates a system in which political parties are rendered irrelevant.

Now Im not a fan of our two-party duopoly, but the Alaskan Independence Party and Alaska Libertarian Party are already irrelevant. Combined, they account for only 4.3% of all registered voters in Alaska. In 2020, the two parties nominated a total of six candidates for 32 statewide offices. They all lost by huge margins. Their record for the prior decade is just as bad.

If their candidates cant do any better in a nonpartisan primary, then Proposition 2 does nothing more than reschedule their embarrassing showing from November to August.

Kohlhaas has personal experience in the art of political irrelevance. He lost two state House races by more than 40 points. And in his 2014 bid to be our U.S. senator, he finished third with just 14% of the vote in his partys primary. Its worth noting that the winner of that got under 4% in the general election.

Before that, Kohlhaas filed lawsuits against the state for refusing to certify two ballot initiatives he proposed. Both were about giving Alaskans the choice to secede from the union. Jacobus, who represented him both times, took his appeals to the state Supreme Court where they were unanimously rejected.

Their record as a team suggests this is just another a crank lawsuit. Which is probably why the GOP opted out. But because it serves the GOPs desire to limit who can appear on the general election ballot, its leadership is hoping Kohlhass and Jacobus prevail this time.

The irony here is thethe Alaskan Independence Party and Alaska Libertarian Party are to the political right of the GOP. So, if the court strikes down Proposition 2, general election candidates from both parties will continue syphon off a small percentage of conservative voters. Twice in the past 10 years, the loss of those votes resulted in a narrow defeat for Republican House candidates.

Because the top four vote-getters advance to the general election though, its unlikely theyll be spoilers in the primary. Indeed, as the plaintiffs argue, all four are likely to be Democrats or Republicans.

But with the GOP becoming little more than a cultish allegiance to former President Donald Trump, it doesnt want a principled Republican like Sen. Lisa Murkowski on the general election ballot.

Murkowski earned Trumps wrath a year ago for agreeing with the blistering criticism of him by his former Secretary of Defense. And again after she voted to convict him during his second impeachment trial.

Murkowski has got to go! Trump said last month when he endorsed Kelly Tshibaka for the Senate.

Tshibaka thinks its time to replace Lisa with an Alaskan who is not a Washington, D.C., insider politico. And claims to have a fire in my heart to rebuild Alaska.

Those are amusing statements coming from a Harvard Law graduate who spent 17 years climbing the bureaucratic ladder in Washington, D.C., before returning to Alaska in 2019.

But rather than recruit a candidate with a real Alaskan resum, the GOP bowed to Trumps preference and grievances by endorsing her last week.

Tshibaka would probably beat Murkowski in a traditional primary because the voices of nonpartisan and nonaffiliated Alaskans are irrelevant. But they outnumber the combined registration of all three conservative parties 2-to-1. If the courts uphold Proposition 2, theyll help Murkowski finish in the top four.

And if she wins election, the GOP leaders who bet on Trump and Tshibaka will be free to associate with their party while finding a place alongside Kohlhaas in ranks of the politically irrelevant.

Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

See more here:
Opinion: The parties to political irrelevance - Juneau Empire