Breakthrough infections

[TKD]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

These are great examples and I agree we should not always trust the government or big business.

But in the case of these vaccines--unlike your examples--there is a very clear danger to individuals in not taking the vaccines and wearing masks--a 10-20X increased risk of covid.

The products that you list were also motivated by things other than health, and were not tested the way the vaccines have been.

So as I balance all those things, it's an easy decision to get jabbed

Many numbers/ “facts” are being stated as absolutes regardless of motivation. people are basing their decisions on these numbers. Firm believer in Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Lots of corruption and ulterior motives out there so these “ facts” bother me. I applaud you doing what you all believe is best for you. I just expect the same courtesy/ rights.

Going to spend some time in the water and freeze a little - have a great rest of your weekend folks.

[John Mercier]

Rights would be a protection from government, not the mass market.
And no Right is absolute, it is determined by legal precedence; generally SCOTUS rulings.

[TKD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Rights would be a protection from government, not the mass market.

And no Right is absolute, it is determined by legal precedence; generally SCOTUS rulings.

Hate to be Captain Obvious here but Rights would be a protection of a person - regardless from whom.

Laws are deemed from legislation/ law makers up through SCOTUS when applicable.

[John Mercier]

No. Rights are protections from government only.
Any employer or trading partner (mass market) can place requirements on you without the force of legislation.

The only way to change that is to impede the free market... which is done through legislation/regulation.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by TKD

Hate to be Captain Obvious here but Rights would be a protection of a person - regardless from whom.

Laws are deemed from legislation/ law makers up through SCOTUS when applicable.

Or more affirmatively stated, Rights are protections of an individual from everyone else, any organization, any group, or government.

They are not just some limited paper promise from some government entity.

Individual people can violate your right, stores can violate your rights, organizations can violate your rights, governments can violate your rights, and they all have and it actually happens a lot.

From an academic perspective:

What are rights?

Rights are conditions and protections that cannot be breached or taken away by others, even by the government or the state. In liberal democratic systems, every individual is assumed to have certain rights. It is the duty of the government and legal system to protect and uphold these rights. The idea of rights is not new, in fact, it dates back to the 1600s. English philosopher John Locke was one of the first to suggest that all people were born with ‘natural rights’. Locke described three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to liberty (freedom) and the right to property (to have one’s belongings safe from theft or seizure). Ever since the days of Locke, people have struggled and fought to defend or expand their rights. Some notable rights-based struggles included the American and French Revolutions; the anti-slavery and abolition movements of the 19th century; the American civil rights movement in the 1960s; and the Aboriginal land rights campaign in Australia. The struggle for rights still continues in many parts of the world, in places like Myanmar (Burma), Tibet, Iran and many African nations.

[TKD]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Or more affirmatively stated, Rights are protections of an individual from everyone else, any organization, any group, or government.

They are not just some limited paper promise from some government entity.

Individual people can violate your right, stores can violate your rights, organizations can violate your rights, governments can violate your rights, and they all have and it actually happens a lot.

From an academic perspective:

What are rights?

Rights are conditions and protections that cannot be breached or taken away by others, even by the government or the state. In liberal democratic systems, every individual is assumed to have certain rights. It is the duty of the government and legal system to protect and uphold these rights. The idea of rights is not new, in fact, it dates back to the 1600s. English philosopher John Locke was one of the first to suggest that all people were born with ‘natural rights’. Locke described three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to liberty (freedom) and the right to property (to have one’s belongings safe from theft or seizure). Ever since the days of Locke, people have struggled and fought to defend or expand their rights. Some notable rights-based struggles included the American and French Revolutions; the anti-slavery and abolition movements of the 19th century; the American civil rights movement in the 1960s; and the Aboriginal land rights campaign in Australia. The struggle for rights still continues in many parts of the world, in places like Myanmar (Burma), Tibet, Iran and many African nations.

Agreed and well said- thank you Unfortunately others think they are infallible. - thinking in absolutes. Those are the ones that scare me.

[John Mercier]

And those ''rights'' never existed.
The Right to Life, Liberty, and Property only exists for as long as you can hold it.

An entity contracting with you can set any guidelines for that interaction.
Those ''rights'' are removed by the contractual agreement that you enter.

For instance, an employer cannot hold you down and vaccinate you... but an employer is not required to provide you with employment - employed at will.

A merchant cannot hold you down and vaccinate you... but they may choose not to cater to you - select clientele

I cannot hold you down and vaccinate you... but I do not have to interact with you - shun/ostracism.

Government is a lot less powerful than social interactions in the free market.

So when someone claims a ''right'', it usually they do not want to suffer the negative consequences of their actions/choices.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TKD

Agreed and well said- thank you Unfortunately others think they are infallible. - thinking in absolutes. Those are the ones that scare me.

Ummm---pretty sure you just posted that businesses and organizations do not have rights or cannot have their rights infringed upon? That seems absolute to me.

You may remember that a Supreme Court (that you support?) has ruled in favor of business rights numerous times recently--political donations, labor rules, free speech, etc

[TKD]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Ummm---pretty sure you just posted that businesses and organizations do not have rights or cannot have their rights infringed upon? That seems absolute to me.

You may remember that a Supreme Court (that you support?) has ruled in favor of business rights numerous times recently--political donations, labor rules, free speech, etc

Typical attack attack attack. One should never use the word “you” in a discussion. Makes it personal and naturally puts people on the defensive.

Never posted that nor believe on item#1

Agree with SCOTUS on item #2

Have a great day.

[John Mercier]

Then the you have a dichotomy.

Either the business has the Right to act in its own interest, or it doesn't.

[fatlazyless]

3-cheers (sarcasm alert-) for the four Republican members of the Executive Council who all voted NO to not accept the $27-mil in federal vaccination funding for New Hampshire.

New Hampshire don't need no 27-million dollars from Uncle Sam for vaccination funding ......LIve Free and/or Die!

Gov Chris Sununu said: "The vote showed a reckless disregard for the lives we are losing while they turn away the tools our state needs to fight and win this battle against COVID," Sununu said .......yes, he did say this according to WMUR-tv video.

updated Oct 14 2021 from Oct 13: https://www.wmur.com/article/new-ham...-2021/37948586

Gov Sununu said he did not know of any other state that turned down vaccination funding, and it is likely the $27-mil will wind up going to a large state like New York or California.

From NHPR, Oct 13 2021 ...... http://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-10-...nation-efforts ..... rejects $27-mil federal contracts covid vaccination efforts

Ok, so why did all four Republican executive councilors all say NO ...... ..... to accepting this $27-mil federal grant .... making N.H. the only state to say NO ..... ?

Will do a little research here and try to find some fantastic interesting quote comments from the individual councilors about the WHY they chose to say NO.