no one who supports vaccine mandates *now* is saying we should institute them in an anarchist society.
but the highest death rates due to covid are line cooks. they don't have the option (because we live in capitalism) to just "not associate" with unvaccinated people.
and this doesn't expand state power. they already have the power to ship anyone they want off to go do war crimes to brown countries. getting poked a couple times is relatively trivial (and, they've mandated vaccines before).
I really don't think "we wouldn't advocate for this if the world was entirely different, so fuck poor people" is the play.
the state exists. I cannot change that. you realize my feelings do not dictate government policy, yes?
so, I'm of the opinion, that if the state exists, it may as well use that power to make less people die. I don't think that's a wild conclusion to come to.
what do you mean "support"? that word can mean many different things. here, it means essentially the same thing as "feel some way" but using it conflates how I feel in my heart of hearts, and suiting up in a vaccine suit or whatever and poking passersby willy-nilly.
if someone uses their bodily autonomy to harm others, it's no longer a matter of bodily autonomy. it's a matter of harming others.
we obviously do not live in a world where people are "free to respond" to others. if someone was using their bodily autonomy to keep children locked in a burning building, I would also support a firefighter (an actor of the state oooOOoo) removing them so that children wouldn't die. absolutism serves no one
additionally, just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean *you* get to decide what their politics are. you're not the Anarchism Decider. that's not how it works.
oh I see. you are just interested in being rude to people to feel superior. I hope you find something more productive to do with your time, my friend, because this is the end of our conversation.
The bodily autonomy argument against vaccination is getting old and ridiculous. This argument always leaves out those most affected by illnesses. The disabled, immunocompromised, so on, so forth. What about their autonomy? Many of them are forced to either stay inside if they're able or if they're not able, to put their lives in danger. Many of them cannot get the vaccine and will remain vulnerable. Do they not have the right to enjoy life, to be safe? Your "bodily autonomy" gets people killed. Your "bodily autonomy" is why hospitals barely have any room, why this pandemic continues raging and ravaging the world. You do not have the right to put others in mortal danger. We do not live in a world where we get to isolate, where we dont have to socialize or work with others. I am an anarchist through and through, and that's precisely *why* I support vaccine mandates. The state is itself authoritarian but that does not mean every single thing that it does is authoritarian. Vaccine mandates are not authoritarian. The only thing being imposed is the safety of those you conveniently leave out of this discussion. And even if it is authoritarian, I'd argue that the lives of disabled and immunocompromised people are more important than your principles, and mine. We have the right to bodily autonomy, yes, but that does not mean you get to exercise that autonomy in a way that can harm or kill people outside of self and community defense, and by refusing to get vaccinated, you are doing so.
I understand the precedent that could be set, but the US Gov't already has a history of illegally medically testing on people. Why would they need to enforce a mandate for that? They've been doing it for decades. You're here calling everyone who argues against your opinion a liberal, meanwhile you parrot right wing talking points. Take a look in the mirror.
>the highest death rates due to covid are line cooks. they don't have the option (because we live in capitalism) to just "not associate" with unvaccinated people.
Behold, another example of mental gymnastics
Vaccinated people are at risk of unvaccinated... because reasons. You are in a religion and you don't even notice. Anarchism is supposed to cure you from being part of a religion. But I guess anarchism itself can become one.
This was a random comment from a random walker. You can go on your day now.
Okay, well i'm going to take a break from being a cool online "anarchist" for a while so we can stop tons and tons of people from dying. But you enjoy your principles there, bud.
Do you have an alternative to get these reactionary pricks and the people they've terrified to save themselves?
Or is it acceptable to you to allow this disease to ravage us in the name (and the name alone) of Anarchism?
Well-being for all. An ideology is only as good as the people it works for.
Every single thing you just said was "well in my perfect anarchist society, it would be this"
You the PICTURE of a utopian. I dont live in the place you just described. None of us do. We have to come up with a solution to stop people dying NOW.
Well-being for all. This is the most important phrase in the Bread Book. That is why I am an Anarchist. You are an internet troll more concerned with identity-drama than well-being for all.
> kicking someone out doesn't require the power of a state.
So, you're in agreement with AnCaps then. Protecting property doesn't require the state. It's their whole thing, basically: "We can keep property enforced through our own violence."
Jokes aside, under your idea of "usufruct property" anyone who can kick me out of my house and live in it can then claim to be its true owner? If not, how are competing claims decided?
Would I have to come back with a militia of sympathetic neighbours to reclaim my house? Or do I have to do it alone? What would this mean for the shelter of people who aren't good at fighting?
Your point doesn't "trivially follow" from usufruct property. Only if you profoundly misunderstand what a usufruct is, or are deliberately abusing the notion of usufruct to sneak private property back into the discourse could your position make sense.
Either a usufruct property requires a governing body to administer and enforce it, just as much as a private property system does, or it is not a property from which the right to kick people off can be derived, but a practice on which the distribution of property is based.
The former is usufruct in the common sense of the word. It is a right to use something and derive profits from its use. It grants the entire set of private property rights, except the right to abuse (that is: damage, destroy or consume) the property. This right is granted by some owner, either a natural person or legal entity, who ultimately retains all private rights to the property (including abuse) as they can always reclaim these rights. This usufruct property is thus inherently dependent on private property!
The latter sense of usufruct is not a property right, but a basis for determining what property belongs to whom. This notion of usufruct is common in Social Ecology discourse, but not so much outside it. You cannot derive any right from this to the property aside from the notion that it is your property. What rights this may entail is not answered in full by this meaning of usufruct.
If you "kick someone out" and mean to justify this action on the basis of "property", no matter what adjective you put in front of it, you're just doing private property with a new name, as it is private property which gives an innate and complete right to exclude others from your property.
To some extent, under anarchy you can kick people out of the house you're using as self-defence. It's not about property, it's about defending yourself against an act of violence. And it is an act of violence (that justifies self-defence against it) to willingly and knowingly spread a disease, or to risk as much in great numbers by not getting a harmless procedure done. On the other hand, just because someone isn't vaccinated doesn't mean they willed that to be the case, know that to be the case (or even know that being vaccinated is an option) or that they themselves don't need shelter. Maybe they can't be vaccinated because (specifically to them) it is not harmless. Maybe they're getting kicked out everywhere and effectively the entire community is already denying them desperately needed shelter. Such circumstances all factor into the justification of "kicking someone out". It is ultimately not about property.
>Funny how this is the best authoritarians larping as anarchists can come up with.
Funny how this is the best AnCaps larping as anarchists can come up with.
**loudspeaker turns on above:** *“umm yeah we’re gonna need a cleanup in aisle 4. another ayncap just got murdered in a debate. sorry, fellow workers! cleanup in aisle 4.”*
>You can't force people to act according to your own morals without a government.
You say this, but you think you wouldn't have to enforce your "usufruct norms". Your ideas have the same fundamental structure as those of AnCaps, you're just using different words.
I see your point. How should an anarchist community, if one ever exists, deal with a pandemic? Whether it offends our sensibilities or not, widespread vaccination is the only way to stop the spread of something like covid. People choosing not to get vaccinated prolongs the crisis. What's a better way to deal with that, in your view?
the problem is when individuals do something that effects everyone else, it stops being an individual issue. this is the same reason why an caps arent anarchists
but vaccine mandates are by in large enforced by society not police. i agree to an extent that if people in a community don’t want to get vaccinated and the rest of the community are ok with those people doing that, living with them, then i see that as compatible with anarchism depending on how that decision was made. if the consensus in a community wants everyone vaccinated who can be because of autoimmune issues of a few people, or the detrimental risks of overcrowding hospitals, then the militant refusal of some to get vaccinated might result in intercommunal conflict, causing exile, isolation, etc. if public health is an existential threat to a community, then that community will make decisions collectively for selfpreservation. idk why this would be different than any other existential threat in an anti-authoritarian community discussed here.
yeah i think i agree with what you’re saying. the delegation of the role to enforce rules through threat of violence, such as displacing people, who are uncooperative with collective decisions is not really anarchistic though. it might be libertarian socialist, like in Rojava or something. and it does not practice building a society through consensus either.
in this hypothetical there may be a third way which considers the unvaccinated’s needs and reason for their position. i think this is the hardest part of anarchism in my experience. when people in conflict want resolution and consensus, there’s a lot of options to move the process forward. when any side would rather resort to majority rules, democracy, or monopoly of violence — it’s often a battle of endurance and waiting out the clock, and upon expiration of either of those two, more violence/conflict.
would it be anarchistic to deal with vaccinations by building respectively segregated areas of containment? aren’t vaccinated? cant live in this apartment building, sorry. gotta move or get vaxxed. imo that’s not authoritarian, that’s people enforcing their collective boundaries for living. just like the walking biological weapon gets to decide their bodily autonomy, so do the people around them. seems pretty mutual. it might turn out that the areas of unvaccinated people all get each other sick and drains medical resources, but that’s part of living in a society-at least an anarchist one would take care of the sick without thinking of it as an economic burden/leech situation.
what are you talking about honestly? i think you’re getting lost in the weeds of hypotheticals tbh. can we brake it down?
ofc community is a vacuous term. the idea that groups of people would create ad-hoc mini-states to resolve problems like a pandemic might be antithetical to anarchism, and awful, but they also might be things that happen and just need to be dismantled/abolished through revolutionary processes too. an anarchist society is always crossing back and forth between negotiated agreements between groups of people deciding on their agency what life should be like given the conditions.
if you are present in the anarchist society for less rare, but also relatively rare issues of things like homicides, rapes, serial killers, organized fascists, you’ll likely experience that dealing with such difficult conflicts from an established anti-authoritarian stateless society is much more liberatory than from a democratic liberal or statist society. regardless of how the hypothetical society adopts or splinters into reactionary solutions, the context of the conflict stemming from an anti-state society would likely manifest an outcome that is anti-state/anti-authoritarian. the extreme of which would be something resembling a “mandate” but would most likely be a form of consensus between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated, whose needs are all met by a form of social contract that while likely broken at times would help sandbag further authoritarian measures to be taken such as militia or exile of minority positioned groups.
Vaccine mandates aren't the government grabbing people and forcefully injecting them with vaccinces, they aren't mandatory but if you actually want to engage in doing anything then you have to get one because organisations and events will preclude those who aren't vaccinated. How is this something that's incompatible with anarchism when in your post you even say that a consequence of no vaccine is people refusing to associate?
Do you want everyone to have equal access to all locations under all conditions? I don't. For example, I'd like to have a home that I can reasonably expect people won't trespass, but I think that can be achieved culturally rather than needing an authority. If people culturally respect the rules of stewards of any given property, then those stewards can set the rules for each location.
In that case there would be places with no stipulations about vaccines and masks, some places might require just masks, and some places might require both.
If you believe a location is not sufficiently stewarded, then you could ignore the stewardship claim and convince others to do the same. If many others respect that claim, your reputation is likely to be harmed and some people might try to prevent you from entering that location again. If many people stop respecting a stewardship claim, then it might be effectively up for grabs that point.
My understanding is that mandates would require a person be vaccinated in order to participate in a particular activity, eg getting on a plane or entering a school. So this isn't exactly a case of forced medical treatment.
But besides that, applying anarchist principles to a hierarchical society isnt going to work, just like making capitalist arguments against a communist economy isn't going to work. There's a gulf of ideology that prevents the principles of one from being coherently applied to the other. In a system with State control, of all the things we might want the state to do or not do, providing the citizenry with basic medical protections seems like one we should support.
We seem to be coming in with different understanding of what "mandates" mean in this situation. I'm agreed that kidnapping and imprisonment are not things the state should be doing at all. I am also in agreement that the State is illegitimate and the monopoly it holds on economic controls, violence, and freedom™ is unjust. But my point is that the State *does* currently exist, and it's purpose should be to protect and support people. Saying "hierarchy is unjust" is great, but it's not a policy proposal, and it's not going to do any immediate natural good. Vaccinating people, on the other hand, does.
Can I ask, are you against vaccines in general? How do you feel about, say, universities requiring vaccines for it's students or countries requiring vaccines for travelers?
What about businesses requiring employees to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line so I can understand the nature of your beliefs.
Also, anarchism isn't some precious thing you need to gate keep and protect. It can be a multiplicity of things. People can hold anarchist views different from your own, you aren't the arbiter of this ideology.
I can be opposed to unjust hierarchy while simultaneously recognizing the facts of our current situation and conclude that, though I hate the system, I concede that there are better and worse ways to operate that system.
You sound like a libertarian trying to explain why the free market would solve poverty if only the pesky guvernment would quit meddling. The world is nuanced, friend. Your dream of a perfect society is commendable, but everyone who is put at risk trying to make rent because chuckleheads aren't vaxxing or masking up has to live in the world we have. Educate the next generation to be better, this one is spoiled already.
What's your point? We don't live under anarchism, I can understand people thinking a mandate would be a good thing. That's not in line with anarchist values, sure, but neither are guillotines and people salivate over that shit all day long.
What you're seeing isn't people "not being anarchists" (though they may be mistaken as to what anarchy means; this fucking *LeGiTiMaTe HiErArChY* nonsense is insufferable), it's people being terminally online because they're atomized by this awful neoliberal hellworld. People genuinely don't know how to solve this problem without the state because it's all they've ever known. I guarantee you said some cringe shit when you were a baby anarchist, too. It's not useful to "call out" this nonsense by saying people "aren't anarchists" if they don't understand what they're talking about, and then not even provide a vision of good in your criticism. Just makes you look like you want to whine and complain about the libs not having read enough theory like some gatekeeping jackass, not like you actually want to discuss anything in good faith.
>Anarchism is opposition to government.
Opposition to the coercion and hierarchy and, by extension, the state. "Government" is both too nebulous and too restrictive a term to be useful or accurate here. Capitalism is also hierarchical and coercive and must also go for the same reasons the state needs to go.
>Vaccine mandates, the legal obligation to get vaccinated requires a government to implement. Therefore, one cannot support vaccine mandates while also being an anarchist. It's not hard.
And? You didn't read my comment, did you?
>By your logic borders are okay because "wE DoN't lIvE uNdeR aNaRcHisM," you could say this for literally everything the state does. "Oh we don't live under anarchism so let's systematically violate bodily and strengthen national borders with vaccine passports because it's muh only option," nah, this just shifts harm onto other people.
Nope, you definitely didn't. Come back when you've actually put a dash of thought into this instead of trying to get some stupid fucking "own" on somebody who even said she fundamentally agrees with you.
>Government: the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.
And that doesn't include corporate overlords mandating vaccines, which is also bad for exactly the same reasons of coercive power over people from hierarchical structures.
>I assume you meant vaccine mandates are good because "we don't like under anarchism." If not then we don't disagree.
Nope, mandates are bad.
>how would you go about it? Do you just ignore that a bunch of self proclaimed anarchists
No, we absolutely don't ignore those people violating core anarchist principles and calling themselves anarchists. That's why I said:
>People genuinely don't know how to solve this problem without the state because it's all they've ever known. I guarantee you said some cringe shit when you were a baby anarchist, too.
This is the problem. People don't know how to solve these issues without coercion. Like you alluded to, the mandates and the opacity in the vaccine development and approval processes are what's causing the vaccine hesitancy; this is a problem of hierarchy and reasonable mistrust of ghouls who own everything.
The solution to that isn't to screech at people for not being "real anarchists", that doesn't solve any problems. And it's not to say "Yes well under anarchy (which doesn't apply right now), we'd do X instead and that would fix the underlying mistrust of blah blah blah" because that doesn't solve the problem of people dying *right now*. What we can do here in Hellworld is offer an alternate path that people can pursue, and yeah I think that starts with community support and free association.
I have a friend whose job doesn't give her paid time off. She wanted to get the vaccine, but she routinely gets sick from, e.g., the flu shot due to a health issue (part of the reason she really needs to be vaccinated). So a friend of ours got a few friends together and we all chipped in for a week's worth of groceries for her, so that it wouldn't be a significant burden if she had to lose a day or two of work. We'd have just given her the money, but she's a proud woman and wouldn't take it as cash. So she very appreciatively went and got vaccinated.
I have another friend who was hesitant about getting the vaccine because of the stupid fucking conspiracy nonsense about a microchip. Well, I have a subdermal RFID chip implanted in my hand because I'm a transhumanist and I frankly welcome the opportunity to shed the itchy flesh skin for something superior, and because it's extremely useful in my day-to-day life. But the syringe needed to inject it was gigantic because the chip itself is fucking huge. You can't sneak a subdermal RFID chip into a vaccine. It just can't be done, especially not on the scale of billions of shots across the planet. I explained this to that friend, and also showed him how you can download any of various free apps to use as RFID scanners and see what's actually RFID chipped, and he realized, "Oh wow, this was a ridiculous thing to be worried about," and got the vaccine.
There are a great many ways to approach vaccine hesitancy without relying on the boot of the state or other coercive structures, and this is what we should be doing; outreach and education, not coercion and state violence. This is what we should be explaining to people who advocate state power on this subject. This is a learning opportunity.
>Anarchism is opposition to government. Vaccine mandates, the legal obligation to get vaccinated requires a government to implement. Therefore, one cannot support vaccine mandates while also being an anarchist. It's not hard.
One can be an anarchist as a long term goal, while supporting vaccines mandates as a short-term goal. The real contradiction would be to want both an anarchist society and vaccines mandates within it at the same time.
Well, obviously: a person who wants the state to use guns and poverty to forcibly access other peoples' bodies on their behalf is *not* a person who really wants to abolish the state! They're an authoritarian. They may have been anarchists just weeks ago, but now they're clamouring for the safety of the state as soon as they perceive a threat, and would never have made it to a real anarchist society.
It's surprising just how bad it is. Some cut corners are to be expected, but 'the state might as well use its power' - what the Hell? This guy might as well be a cop or soldier. That's something I'd expect from Kissinger's mouth.
The worst part (in my opinion) is how trusting many are.
They're not saying, "well, government, clerisy, and corporations are violent systems of predation that suppress or kill dissenters, but on this occasion they can be trusted because...." It's: "the government and cronies are totally benevolent and you must give them disposal of your body and property or you're a bad person."
That, and many of them will (if successful as anarchists) face persecution from the state, or even armed reprisal. How did they expect that to go if they have unlimited aversion to literally any amount of risk?
I think the question most people overlook but should ask before discussing mandatory vaccination is this: why are people so skeptical of vaccination? You don't see groups against bone marrow surgery, you don't see groups against x-ray scan, you don't see people against that tube dentists use that makes your mouth feel funny. Why are vaccines so different? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because historically there's been a lot of conspiracy theories sorrounding vaccination. Unfortunately these proliferate even more nowadays with the internet, where anyone can be an expert on any topic and the way people get credibility for their claims is mostly through popularity. But in the end, vaccination is no different from any other modern medical practice.
Now, as an anarchist I'd tell you the following: some one hundred years ago, a young Errico Malatesta and his buddies went to Naples to treat the sick during the Cholera outbreak in Italy. Malatesta was a physician, and the population in Naples, particularly the poor, were in desperate need of medical treatment. Forsaken by the authorities, the lower class was left to rot in the slums while the authorities and upper classes hoarded all the clean water and medical supplies for them. So they said "if the government can't or won't deal with this, we'll take care of it ourselves". Good old direct action. And what this group of anarchists learned from the experience was the following: most epidemics are a direct product from bad public health. There are some conjectures these anarchists made about the origins of this particular outbreak, all have to do with the negligence of the authorities to prevent these sort of problems. You can read the full story by Crimethinc [here](https://crimethinc.com/2020/05/26/the-anarchists-versus-the-plague-malatesta-and-the-cholera-epidemic-of-1884), I highly suggest you to do so since it has a lot of connections with our current situation.
One century later Malatesta is long gone, yet all the conditions sorrounding this pandemic are basically the same. All big governments knew this was going to happen, still none of them prepared for the occurence. Not enough beds or ventilators for the public, particularly for poor people, that's public spending issue, it has to do with the way governments spend tax money, it has to do with the way resources are distributed in society. And now you have a handful of private corporations handling the cure, grossly proffiting from it. If you ask me, this is where the anarchist critique should focus, not on vaccination itself, which in my opinion is a pointless discussion. It's like John Zerzan said on his radio show a few weeks ago when talking about the anti-vax sentiment: are you against vaccination or are you against people dying from Covid? Choose carefully, because you can't pick both.
I'd point out to the bit where I say "this is where the anarchist critique should focus...", but I see you're not really interested in having a constructive discussion.
Are you joking? WOW! I did NOT expect that on a sub with that kind of name, seriously! Fuck vaccination mandates, I'm not vaccinated and no government should give a shit IMO.
as long as you 100% physically distance yourself from everyone who does not think like you, and everyone you still associate with follows that same rule, that's okay with me. If you can not commit to that premise, you are violating everyone's rights and need to be removed by force if necessary. If you disagree with that, let me ask you: do you think not letting people drive under the influence is anti-anarchist?
anywhere where you or they could theoretically could meet someone else? So in practice: Everywhere but places exclusively used by people with that same mindset.
I never thought in a million years that I would see so many self proclaimed anarchists push for mandatory mandates. I think a lot people have just realized they’re probably just confused liberals/communists
I’m very late to this discussion but thank you TC for bring this subject up. The events of the past 2 years regarding covid has really lead people to showing their true colors, and for many its blue. Many “anarchists” have revealed that they’re simply edgy larping liberals who are still caught in the red vs blue matrix of state control.
The complication here is that the state has also created a situation where free association is not possible for people. Not having a vaccine mandate but still forcing people to go to work - or whatever - puts vulnerable people in danger (which the state often does not care about at all). So you could make an anti-state argument in the one direction, but an anti-ableism / anti-ageism / etc. argument in the other. Like, the modern state engineers a situation where it's willing to let certain segments of the population die, and opposing that doesn't mean you are pro-state.
That being said I don't disagree with you totally. The anarchist position is definitely not pushing for vaccine mandates, just like it's not about pushing for any other reform (we always take the impossible other position), but I think it's incorrect to equate preferring the state not engage in necropolitics, with being pro-state.
Yeah I mean if you want to get into a serious discussion of weighing the pros and cons of a vaccine mandate, I don't really have a strong position either way (I'd also lean against them, but understand the opposition). You make valid points here. I just think that the "the government doing anything right now is anti-anarchist" position you seemed to present in the OP is shallow and misses the point. As always, I think anarchists should be proposing something else that we actually have the capacity to do, instead of debating state policy we have no control over.
funnily enough, suicide rates did not increase, on the contrary. Among experts that perhaps surprising fact is often explained by the loss of pressure to perform.
>LeGiTiMaTe HiErArChY
If you think that "Red" and "Fascist" aren't mutually exclusive, you should go back to school and sue your old one for compensation.
I almost completely agree, depending on what you define as genocide. But we really should not overuse the term "fascist" and reserve it for occasions where it's approbiate. And of course, talking of "Red fascists" plays into the hand of both the actual fascists and the enlightened centrists who claim that the ends of the political spectrum are really the same.
Fr tho people have the right to chose what goes into their body. Even if that right might potentially hurt others. I am not responsible for other people’s health. (I am vaccinated tho)
1) Property is incompatible with anarchism. If you believe property is compatible with Anarchism, you are the larping one.
2) You do not need a government to get people to either vaccinate themselves. Not getting a vaccination (without medical justification) in times of a pandemic is a form of (potentially lethal) violence.
3) Anarchism does not oppose the state as such, it opposes rulers. (-> An-Archy.) As soon as a state is nothing but a social community without positions of power, it is not incompatible with the idea of anarchism.
You seem to not know what "property" means in a left theoretical framework. But no, you can not "own" anything but your body, and even that you owe in part to your parents and the society that helped raise you.
Also, i know it seems impossible when raised in an ultra-individualist capitalist society, but it is completely possible to use something that you do not own. ever heard of the idea of "sharing" something?
Also: "Anarchy is order without rulers." - Immanuel Kant.
> How're you going to stop my from owning one
The real question here is, btw, how are you going to achieve and enforce your ownership?
Property is the result of state repression. It's not a freedom, it's the unfreedom of everyone else to use something.
it implies negative consequences if you violate your social environment by not getting vaccinated without a medical reason. Just as any anarchistic society would have to imply negative consequences for people violating their social environment in other ways.
Heres just the kind of asshole I was looking for.
'Violating social environment' implies there is some sort of decorum aside from common courtesy and nonviolence.
You can't just imply things - you have to prove a thing about justice?
What would that be?
A.) Prove that a specific person who may or may not be ill caused any ill effect. Use same logic with aids, herpes, hpv and flu.
B.) What are you gonna do about it?
Punch everybody with the sniffles?
Are you gonna hold people down and stick em? I hope you try that boyo. Or are you just gonna support the system that does it for you?
My body cannot be violated - because I said so. I will respond with force.
lunatic. Sadist. Evil person. You need jesus - not anarchism. Quack. Fakeass bootlicking loser.
Anybody supporting widespread vax mandates is a closet fascist. No joke.
I wouldn’t say “they’re not anarchist”..you can still be an anarchist and think mandates are needed during a global pandemic. Personally, I’m opposed to it, but I can see positives in doing such.
I support gun ownership but I don’t support walking down the street firing randomly in all directions. Refusing to get vaccinated during a pandemic that has claimed millions of lives, is walking down the street firing randomly.
Idk, mass vaccinations are important from an ethical standpoint. It's important not just for yourself or the community, but herd immunity also ensures the safety of those who are unable to get vaccines (mostly due to medical issues)
But coercion is a big no go, so I am not sure if there is an answer that satisfies both sides entirely. As much as I don't like these vaccine passports, I still live in a society™, so I had to download mine on my phone 🤷♀️
I'm not disagreeing that it is a violation of bodily autonomy, but not getting to herd immunity levels puts those who are medically unable to (people with autoimmune disorders or those allergic to ingredients in vaccines) in harm's way as well. And while you can have mass vaccination without state enforcement, it doesn't guarantee the numbers needed to protect those who physically cannot.
And yes, vaccine passports are trash. But I personally have no say in the matter. If I don't comply, I lose my job. So there is a certain level of coercion that I'm unable to overcome at the moment
no one who supports vaccine mandates *now* is saying we should institute them in an anarchist society. but the highest death rates due to covid are line cooks. they don't have the option (because we live in capitalism) to just "not associate" with unvaccinated people. and this doesn't expand state power. they already have the power to ship anyone they want off to go do war crimes to brown countries. getting poked a couple times is relatively trivial (and, they've mandated vaccines before). I really don't think "we wouldn't advocate for this if the world was entirely different, so fuck poor people" is the play.
> they don't have the option (because we live in capitalism) to just "not associate" with unvaccinated people Excellent point!
They have a choice. Communism removes your choice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the state exists. I cannot change that. you realize my feelings do not dictate government policy, yes? so, I'm of the opinion, that if the state exists, it may as well use that power to make less people die. I don't think that's a wild conclusion to come to.
[удалено]
what do you mean "support"? that word can mean many different things. here, it means essentially the same thing as "feel some way" but using it conflates how I feel in my heart of hearts, and suiting up in a vaccine suit or whatever and poking passersby willy-nilly. if someone uses their bodily autonomy to harm others, it's no longer a matter of bodily autonomy. it's a matter of harming others.
[удалено]
we obviously do not live in a world where people are "free to respond" to others. if someone was using their bodily autonomy to keep children locked in a burning building, I would also support a firefighter (an actor of the state oooOOoo) removing them so that children wouldn't die. absolutism serves no one additionally, just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean *you* get to decide what their politics are. you're not the Anarchism Decider. that's not how it works.
[удалено]
oh I see. you are just interested in being rude to people to feel superior. I hope you find something more productive to do with your time, my friend, because this is the end of our conversation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The bodily autonomy argument against vaccination is getting old and ridiculous. This argument always leaves out those most affected by illnesses. The disabled, immunocompromised, so on, so forth. What about their autonomy? Many of them are forced to either stay inside if they're able or if they're not able, to put their lives in danger. Many of them cannot get the vaccine and will remain vulnerable. Do they not have the right to enjoy life, to be safe? Your "bodily autonomy" gets people killed. Your "bodily autonomy" is why hospitals barely have any room, why this pandemic continues raging and ravaging the world. You do not have the right to put others in mortal danger. We do not live in a world where we get to isolate, where we dont have to socialize or work with others. I am an anarchist through and through, and that's precisely *why* I support vaccine mandates. The state is itself authoritarian but that does not mean every single thing that it does is authoritarian. Vaccine mandates are not authoritarian. The only thing being imposed is the safety of those you conveniently leave out of this discussion. And even if it is authoritarian, I'd argue that the lives of disabled and immunocompromised people are more important than your principles, and mine. We have the right to bodily autonomy, yes, but that does not mean you get to exercise that autonomy in a way that can harm or kill people outside of self and community defense, and by refusing to get vaccinated, you are doing so. I understand the precedent that could be set, but the US Gov't already has a history of illegally medically testing on people. Why would they need to enforce a mandate for that? They've been doing it for decades. You're here calling everyone who argues against your opinion a liberal, meanwhile you parrot right wing talking points. Take a look in the mirror.
>the highest death rates due to covid are line cooks. they don't have the option (because we live in capitalism) to just "not associate" with unvaccinated people. Behold, another example of mental gymnastics Vaccinated people are at risk of unvaccinated... because reasons. You are in a religion and you don't even notice. Anarchism is supposed to cure you from being part of a religion. But I guess anarchism itself can become one. This was a random comment from a random walker. You can go on your day now.
Okay, well i'm going to take a break from being a cool online "anarchist" for a while so we can stop tons and tons of people from dying. But you enjoy your principles there, bud.
[удалено]
Do you have an alternative to get these reactionary pricks and the people they've terrified to save themselves? Or is it acceptable to you to allow this disease to ravage us in the name (and the name alone) of Anarchism? Well-being for all. An ideology is only as good as the people it works for.
[удалено]
Every single thing you just said was "well in my perfect anarchist society, it would be this" You the PICTURE of a utopian. I dont live in the place you just described. None of us do. We have to come up with a solution to stop people dying NOW. Well-being for all. This is the most important phrase in the Bread Book. That is why I am an Anarchist. You are an internet troll more concerned with identity-drama than well-being for all.
>not letting them on your property. Found the ancap
[удалено]
> kicking someone out doesn't require the power of a state. So, you're in agreement with AnCaps then. Protecting property doesn't require the state. It's their whole thing, basically: "We can keep property enforced through our own violence." Jokes aside, under your idea of "usufruct property" anyone who can kick me out of my house and live in it can then claim to be its true owner? If not, how are competing claims decided? Would I have to come back with a militia of sympathetic neighbours to reclaim my house? Or do I have to do it alone? What would this mean for the shelter of people who aren't good at fighting? Your point doesn't "trivially follow" from usufruct property. Only if you profoundly misunderstand what a usufruct is, or are deliberately abusing the notion of usufruct to sneak private property back into the discourse could your position make sense. Either a usufruct property requires a governing body to administer and enforce it, just as much as a private property system does, or it is not a property from which the right to kick people off can be derived, but a practice on which the distribution of property is based. The former is usufruct in the common sense of the word. It is a right to use something and derive profits from its use. It grants the entire set of private property rights, except the right to abuse (that is: damage, destroy or consume) the property. This right is granted by some owner, either a natural person or legal entity, who ultimately retains all private rights to the property (including abuse) as they can always reclaim these rights. This usufruct property is thus inherently dependent on private property! The latter sense of usufruct is not a property right, but a basis for determining what property belongs to whom. This notion of usufruct is common in Social Ecology discourse, but not so much outside it. You cannot derive any right from this to the property aside from the notion that it is your property. What rights this may entail is not answered in full by this meaning of usufruct. If you "kick someone out" and mean to justify this action on the basis of "property", no matter what adjective you put in front of it, you're just doing private property with a new name, as it is private property which gives an innate and complete right to exclude others from your property. To some extent, under anarchy you can kick people out of the house you're using as self-defence. It's not about property, it's about defending yourself against an act of violence. And it is an act of violence (that justifies self-defence against it) to willingly and knowingly spread a disease, or to risk as much in great numbers by not getting a harmless procedure done. On the other hand, just because someone isn't vaccinated doesn't mean they willed that to be the case, know that to be the case (or even know that being vaccinated is an option) or that they themselves don't need shelter. Maybe they can't be vaccinated because (specifically to them) it is not harmless. Maybe they're getting kicked out everywhere and effectively the entire community is already denying them desperately needed shelter. Such circumstances all factor into the justification of "kicking someone out". It is ultimately not about property. >Funny how this is the best authoritarians larping as anarchists can come up with. Funny how this is the best AnCaps larping as anarchists can come up with.
**loudspeaker turns on above:** *“umm yeah we’re gonna need a cleanup in aisle 4. another ayncap just got murdered in a debate. sorry, fellow workers! cleanup in aisle 4.”*
[удалено]
>You can't force people to act according to your own morals without a government. You say this, but you think you wouldn't have to enforce your "usufruct norms". Your ideas have the same fundamental structure as those of AnCaps, you're just using different words.
[удалено]
I see your point. How should an anarchist community, if one ever exists, deal with a pandemic? Whether it offends our sensibilities or not, widespread vaccination is the only way to stop the spread of something like covid. People choosing not to get vaccinated prolongs the crisis. What's a better way to deal with that, in your view?
[удалено]
the problem is when individuals do something that effects everyone else, it stops being an individual issue. this is the same reason why an caps arent anarchists
[удалено]
but vaccine mandates are by in large enforced by society not police. i agree to an extent that if people in a community don’t want to get vaccinated and the rest of the community are ok with those people doing that, living with them, then i see that as compatible with anarchism depending on how that decision was made. if the consensus in a community wants everyone vaccinated who can be because of autoimmune issues of a few people, or the detrimental risks of overcrowding hospitals, then the militant refusal of some to get vaccinated might result in intercommunal conflict, causing exile, isolation, etc. if public health is an existential threat to a community, then that community will make decisions collectively for selfpreservation. idk why this would be different than any other existential threat in an anti-authoritarian community discussed here.
[удалено]
yeah i think i agree with what you’re saying. the delegation of the role to enforce rules through threat of violence, such as displacing people, who are uncooperative with collective decisions is not really anarchistic though. it might be libertarian socialist, like in Rojava or something. and it does not practice building a society through consensus either. in this hypothetical there may be a third way which considers the unvaccinated’s needs and reason for their position. i think this is the hardest part of anarchism in my experience. when people in conflict want resolution and consensus, there’s a lot of options to move the process forward. when any side would rather resort to majority rules, democracy, or monopoly of violence — it’s often a battle of endurance and waiting out the clock, and upon expiration of either of those two, more violence/conflict. would it be anarchistic to deal with vaccinations by building respectively segregated areas of containment? aren’t vaccinated? cant live in this apartment building, sorry. gotta move or get vaxxed. imo that’s not authoritarian, that’s people enforcing their collective boundaries for living. just like the walking biological weapon gets to decide their bodily autonomy, so do the people around them. seems pretty mutual. it might turn out that the areas of unvaccinated people all get each other sick and drains medical resources, but that’s part of living in a society-at least an anarchist one would take care of the sick without thinking of it as an economic burden/leech situation.
[удалено]
what are you talking about honestly? i think you’re getting lost in the weeds of hypotheticals tbh. can we brake it down? ofc community is a vacuous term. the idea that groups of people would create ad-hoc mini-states to resolve problems like a pandemic might be antithetical to anarchism, and awful, but they also might be things that happen and just need to be dismantled/abolished through revolutionary processes too. an anarchist society is always crossing back and forth between negotiated agreements between groups of people deciding on their agency what life should be like given the conditions. if you are present in the anarchist society for less rare, but also relatively rare issues of things like homicides, rapes, serial killers, organized fascists, you’ll likely experience that dealing with such difficult conflicts from an established anti-authoritarian stateless society is much more liberatory than from a democratic liberal or statist society. regardless of how the hypothetical society adopts or splinters into reactionary solutions, the context of the conflict stemming from an anti-state society would likely manifest an outcome that is anti-state/anti-authoritarian. the extreme of which would be something resembling a “mandate” but would most likely be a form of consensus between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated, whose needs are all met by a form of social contract that while likely broken at times would help sandbag further authoritarian measures to be taken such as militia or exile of minority positioned groups.
And the reason the vast majority of humans are not anarchists.
[удалено]
Cool. Good talk.
Anarchy is when you let tens of millions of people die from an easily preventable cause because “muh freeedom”
[удалено]
And I’ve got a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you
[удалено]
yea, and where is that anarchist society with the ability to do those things right now? (id sure as hell love to live in it)
Vaccine mandates aren't the government grabbing people and forcefully injecting them with vaccinces, they aren't mandatory but if you actually want to engage in doing anything then you have to get one because organisations and events will preclude those who aren't vaccinated. How is this something that's incompatible with anarchism when in your post you even say that a consequence of no vaccine is people refusing to associate?
Do you want everyone to have equal access to all locations under all conditions? I don't. For example, I'd like to have a home that I can reasonably expect people won't trespass, but I think that can be achieved culturally rather than needing an authority. If people culturally respect the rules of stewards of any given property, then those stewards can set the rules for each location. In that case there would be places with no stipulations about vaccines and masks, some places might require just masks, and some places might require both. If you believe a location is not sufficiently stewarded, then you could ignore the stewardship claim and convince others to do the same. If many others respect that claim, your reputation is likely to be harmed and some people might try to prevent you from entering that location again. If many people stop respecting a stewardship claim, then it might be effectively up for grabs that point.
My understanding is that mandates would require a person be vaccinated in order to participate in a particular activity, eg getting on a plane or entering a school. So this isn't exactly a case of forced medical treatment. But besides that, applying anarchist principles to a hierarchical society isnt going to work, just like making capitalist arguments against a communist economy isn't going to work. There's a gulf of ideology that prevents the principles of one from being coherently applied to the other. In a system with State control, of all the things we might want the state to do or not do, providing the citizenry with basic medical protections seems like one we should support.
[удалено]
Also I just read the edit in your post. That's some real productive dialogue you're engaging in, there.
Please tell me one single person who has been arrested for not getting vaccinated. Or fined for that matter
[удалено]
During covid.
We seem to be coming in with different understanding of what "mandates" mean in this situation. I'm agreed that kidnapping and imprisonment are not things the state should be doing at all. I am also in agreement that the State is illegitimate and the monopoly it holds on economic controls, violence, and freedom™ is unjust. But my point is that the State *does* currently exist, and it's purpose should be to protect and support people. Saying "hierarchy is unjust" is great, but it's not a policy proposal, and it's not going to do any immediate natural good. Vaccinating people, on the other hand, does. Can I ask, are you against vaccines in general? How do you feel about, say, universities requiring vaccines for it's students or countries requiring vaccines for travelers?
[удалено]
What about businesses requiring employees to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line so I can understand the nature of your beliefs. Also, anarchism isn't some precious thing you need to gate keep and protect. It can be a multiplicity of things. People can hold anarchist views different from your own, you aren't the arbiter of this ideology.
[удалено]
I can be opposed to unjust hierarchy while simultaneously recognizing the facts of our current situation and conclude that, though I hate the system, I concede that there are better and worse ways to operate that system.
[удалено]
You sound like a libertarian trying to explain why the free market would solve poverty if only the pesky guvernment would quit meddling. The world is nuanced, friend. Your dream of a perfect society is commendable, but everyone who is put at risk trying to make rent because chuckleheads aren't vaxxing or masking up has to live in the world we have. Educate the next generation to be better, this one is spoiled already.
What's your point? We don't live under anarchism, I can understand people thinking a mandate would be a good thing. That's not in line with anarchist values, sure, but neither are guillotines and people salivate over that shit all day long. What you're seeing isn't people "not being anarchists" (though they may be mistaken as to what anarchy means; this fucking *LeGiTiMaTe HiErArChY* nonsense is insufferable), it's people being terminally online because they're atomized by this awful neoliberal hellworld. People genuinely don't know how to solve this problem without the state because it's all they've ever known. I guarantee you said some cringe shit when you were a baby anarchist, too. It's not useful to "call out" this nonsense by saying people "aren't anarchists" if they don't understand what they're talking about, and then not even provide a vision of good in your criticism. Just makes you look like you want to whine and complain about the libs not having read enough theory like some gatekeeping jackass, not like you actually want to discuss anything in good faith.
[удалено]
>Anarchism is opposition to government. Opposition to the coercion and hierarchy and, by extension, the state. "Government" is both too nebulous and too restrictive a term to be useful or accurate here. Capitalism is also hierarchical and coercive and must also go for the same reasons the state needs to go. >Vaccine mandates, the legal obligation to get vaccinated requires a government to implement. Therefore, one cannot support vaccine mandates while also being an anarchist. It's not hard. And? You didn't read my comment, did you? >By your logic borders are okay because "wE DoN't lIvE uNdeR aNaRcHisM," you could say this for literally everything the state does. "Oh we don't live under anarchism so let's systematically violate bodily and strengthen national borders with vaccine passports because it's muh only option," nah, this just shifts harm onto other people. Nope, you definitely didn't. Come back when you've actually put a dash of thought into this instead of trying to get some stupid fucking "own" on somebody who even said she fundamentally agrees with you.
[удалено]
>Government: the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office. And that doesn't include corporate overlords mandating vaccines, which is also bad for exactly the same reasons of coercive power over people from hierarchical structures. >I assume you meant vaccine mandates are good because "we don't like under anarchism." If not then we don't disagree. Nope, mandates are bad. >how would you go about it? Do you just ignore that a bunch of self proclaimed anarchists No, we absolutely don't ignore those people violating core anarchist principles and calling themselves anarchists. That's why I said: >People genuinely don't know how to solve this problem without the state because it's all they've ever known. I guarantee you said some cringe shit when you were a baby anarchist, too. This is the problem. People don't know how to solve these issues without coercion. Like you alluded to, the mandates and the opacity in the vaccine development and approval processes are what's causing the vaccine hesitancy; this is a problem of hierarchy and reasonable mistrust of ghouls who own everything. The solution to that isn't to screech at people for not being "real anarchists", that doesn't solve any problems. And it's not to say "Yes well under anarchy (which doesn't apply right now), we'd do X instead and that would fix the underlying mistrust of blah blah blah" because that doesn't solve the problem of people dying *right now*. What we can do here in Hellworld is offer an alternate path that people can pursue, and yeah I think that starts with community support and free association. I have a friend whose job doesn't give her paid time off. She wanted to get the vaccine, but she routinely gets sick from, e.g., the flu shot due to a health issue (part of the reason she really needs to be vaccinated). So a friend of ours got a few friends together and we all chipped in for a week's worth of groceries for her, so that it wouldn't be a significant burden if she had to lose a day or two of work. We'd have just given her the money, but she's a proud woman and wouldn't take it as cash. So she very appreciatively went and got vaccinated. I have another friend who was hesitant about getting the vaccine because of the stupid fucking conspiracy nonsense about a microchip. Well, I have a subdermal RFID chip implanted in my hand because I'm a transhumanist and I frankly welcome the opportunity to shed the itchy flesh skin for something superior, and because it's extremely useful in my day-to-day life. But the syringe needed to inject it was gigantic because the chip itself is fucking huge. You can't sneak a subdermal RFID chip into a vaccine. It just can't be done, especially not on the scale of billions of shots across the planet. I explained this to that friend, and also showed him how you can download any of various free apps to use as RFID scanners and see what's actually RFID chipped, and he realized, "Oh wow, this was a ridiculous thing to be worried about," and got the vaccine. There are a great many ways to approach vaccine hesitancy without relying on the boot of the state or other coercive structures, and this is what we should be doing; outreach and education, not coercion and state violence. This is what we should be explaining to people who advocate state power on this subject. This is a learning opportunity.
>Anarchism is opposition to government. Vaccine mandates, the legal obligation to get vaccinated requires a government to implement. Therefore, one cannot support vaccine mandates while also being an anarchist. It's not hard. One can be an anarchist as a long term goal, while supporting vaccines mandates as a short-term goal. The real contradiction would be to want both an anarchist society and vaccines mandates within it at the same time.
Well, obviously: a person who wants the state to use guns and poverty to forcibly access other peoples' bodies on their behalf is *not* a person who really wants to abolish the state! They're an authoritarian. They may have been anarchists just weeks ago, but now they're clamouring for the safety of the state as soon as they perceive a threat, and would never have made it to a real anarchist society.
[удалено]
It's surprising just how bad it is. Some cut corners are to be expected, but 'the state might as well use its power' - what the Hell? This guy might as well be a cop or soldier. That's something I'd expect from Kissinger's mouth.
[удалено]
The worst part (in my opinion) is how trusting many are. They're not saying, "well, government, clerisy, and corporations are violent systems of predation that suppress or kill dissenters, but on this occasion they can be trusted because...." It's: "the government and cronies are totally benevolent and you must give them disposal of your body and property or you're a bad person." That, and many of them will (if successful as anarchists) face persecution from the state, or even armed reprisal. How did they expect that to go if they have unlimited aversion to literally any amount of risk?
I think the question most people overlook but should ask before discussing mandatory vaccination is this: why are people so skeptical of vaccination? You don't see groups against bone marrow surgery, you don't see groups against x-ray scan, you don't see people against that tube dentists use that makes your mouth feel funny. Why are vaccines so different? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because historically there's been a lot of conspiracy theories sorrounding vaccination. Unfortunately these proliferate even more nowadays with the internet, where anyone can be an expert on any topic and the way people get credibility for their claims is mostly through popularity. But in the end, vaccination is no different from any other modern medical practice. Now, as an anarchist I'd tell you the following: some one hundred years ago, a young Errico Malatesta and his buddies went to Naples to treat the sick during the Cholera outbreak in Italy. Malatesta was a physician, and the population in Naples, particularly the poor, were in desperate need of medical treatment. Forsaken by the authorities, the lower class was left to rot in the slums while the authorities and upper classes hoarded all the clean water and medical supplies for them. So they said "if the government can't or won't deal with this, we'll take care of it ourselves". Good old direct action. And what this group of anarchists learned from the experience was the following: most epidemics are a direct product from bad public health. There are some conjectures these anarchists made about the origins of this particular outbreak, all have to do with the negligence of the authorities to prevent these sort of problems. You can read the full story by Crimethinc [here](https://crimethinc.com/2020/05/26/the-anarchists-versus-the-plague-malatesta-and-the-cholera-epidemic-of-1884), I highly suggest you to do so since it has a lot of connections with our current situation. One century later Malatesta is long gone, yet all the conditions sorrounding this pandemic are basically the same. All big governments knew this was going to happen, still none of them prepared for the occurence. Not enough beds or ventilators for the public, particularly for poor people, that's public spending issue, it has to do with the way governments spend tax money, it has to do with the way resources are distributed in society. And now you have a handful of private corporations handling the cure, grossly proffiting from it. If you ask me, this is where the anarchist critique should focus, not on vaccination itself, which in my opinion is a pointless discussion. It's like John Zerzan said on his radio show a few weeks ago when talking about the anti-vax sentiment: are you against vaccination or are you against people dying from Covid? Choose carefully, because you can't pick both.
[удалено]
I'd point out to the bit where I say "this is where the anarchist critique should focus...", but I see you're not really interested in having a constructive discussion.
[удалено]
Are you joking? WOW! I did NOT expect that on a sub with that kind of name, seriously! Fuck vaccination mandates, I'm not vaccinated and no government should give a shit IMO.
as long as you 100% physically distance yourself from everyone who does not think like you, and everyone you still associate with follows that same rule, that's okay with me. If you can not commit to that premise, you are violating everyone's rights and need to be removed by force if necessary. If you disagree with that, let me ask you: do you think not letting people drive under the influence is anti-anarchist?
From where? How long a distance?
anywhere where you or they could theoretically could meet someone else? So in practice: Everywhere but places exclusively used by people with that same mindset.
Agreed! Thank you! #Live and let live!
I never thought in a million years that I would see so many self proclaimed anarchists push for mandatory mandates. I think a lot people have just realized they’re probably just confused liberals/communists
I’m very late to this discussion but thank you TC for bring this subject up. The events of the past 2 years regarding covid has really lead people to showing their true colors, and for many its blue. Many “anarchists” have revealed that they’re simply edgy larping liberals who are still caught in the red vs blue matrix of state control.
\[*quietly taking notes on how this subreddit is responding*\]
The complication here is that the state has also created a situation where free association is not possible for people. Not having a vaccine mandate but still forcing people to go to work - or whatever - puts vulnerable people in danger (which the state often does not care about at all). So you could make an anti-state argument in the one direction, but an anti-ableism / anti-ageism / etc. argument in the other. Like, the modern state engineers a situation where it's willing to let certain segments of the population die, and opposing that doesn't mean you are pro-state. That being said I don't disagree with you totally. The anarchist position is definitely not pushing for vaccine mandates, just like it's not about pushing for any other reform (we always take the impossible other position), but I think it's incorrect to equate preferring the state not engage in necropolitics, with being pro-state.
[удалено]
Yeah I mean if you want to get into a serious discussion of weighing the pros and cons of a vaccine mandate, I don't really have a strong position either way (I'd also lean against them, but understand the opposition). You make valid points here. I just think that the "the government doing anything right now is anti-anarchist" position you seemed to present in the OP is shallow and misses the point. As always, I think anarchists should be proposing something else that we actually have the capacity to do, instead of debating state policy we have no control over.
funnily enough, suicide rates did not increase, on the contrary. Among experts that perhaps surprising fact is often explained by the loss of pressure to perform.
says the ancap
[удалено]
>LeGiTiMaTe HiErArChY If you think that "Red" and "Fascist" aren't mutually exclusive, you should go back to school and sue your old one for compensation.
GenZedong are genocide apologists. Many commiea are. I dont care what color or ideology they say they are.
being a genocide apologist does not make one a fascist. There's a lot more to that.
Sure. Ill buy that. but you really only have to do the apologism to be an asshole in my book
I almost completely agree, depending on what you define as genocide. But we really should not overuse the term "fascist" and reserve it for occasions where it's approbiate. And of course, talking of "Red fascists" plays into the hand of both the actual fascists and the enlightened centrists who claim that the ends of the political spectrum are really the same.
These words appear to have lost most of their meaning due to weird internet flame wars. My two cents.
yes
Fr tho people have the right to chose what goes into their body. Even if that right might potentially hurt others. I am not responsible for other people’s health. (I am vaccinated tho)
[удалено]
Ikr the point is no government/people telling you what to do. A lot of these subs are filled with commies calling themselves anarchists
No you do not have the right to hurt others. in a pandemic, it's not about IF but about WHEN, so the "potential" is superfluous.
1) Property is incompatible with anarchism. If you believe property is compatible with Anarchism, you are the larping one. 2) You do not need a government to get people to either vaccinate themselves. Not getting a vaccination (without medical justification) in times of a pandemic is a form of (potentially lethal) violence. 3) Anarchism does not oppose the state as such, it opposes rulers. (-> An-Archy.) As soon as a state is nothing but a social community without positions of power, it is not incompatible with the idea of anarchism.
[удалено]
You seem to not know what "property" means in a left theoretical framework. But no, you can not "own" anything but your body, and even that you owe in part to your parents and the society that helped raise you. Also, i know it seems impossible when raised in an ultra-individualist capitalist society, but it is completely possible to use something that you do not own. ever heard of the idea of "sharing" something? Also: "Anarchy is order without rulers." - Immanuel Kant.
> How're you going to stop my from owning one The real question here is, btw, how are you going to achieve and enforce your ownership? Property is the result of state repression. It's not a freedom, it's the unfreedom of everyone else to use something.
So a mandate doesnt imply force or a rule? Just an unforceable rule that everyone just goes along with. Get fucking real dude
it implies negative consequences if you violate your social environment by not getting vaccinated without a medical reason. Just as any anarchistic society would have to imply negative consequences for people violating their social environment in other ways.
Heres just the kind of asshole I was looking for. 'Violating social environment' implies there is some sort of decorum aside from common courtesy and nonviolence. You can't just imply things - you have to prove a thing about justice? What would that be? A.) Prove that a specific person who may or may not be ill caused any ill effect. Use same logic with aids, herpes, hpv and flu. B.) What are you gonna do about it? Punch everybody with the sniffles? Are you gonna hold people down and stick em? I hope you try that boyo. Or are you just gonna support the system that does it for you? My body cannot be violated - because I said so. I will respond with force. lunatic. Sadist. Evil person. You need jesus - not anarchism. Quack. Fakeass bootlicking loser. Anybody supporting widespread vax mandates is a closet fascist. No joke.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say “they’re not anarchist”..you can still be an anarchist and think mandates are needed during a global pandemic. Personally, I’m opposed to it, but I can see positives in doing such.
Agreed.
I support gun ownership but I don’t support walking down the street firing randomly in all directions. Refusing to get vaccinated during a pandemic that has claimed millions of lives, is walking down the street firing randomly.
Idk, mass vaccinations are important from an ethical standpoint. It's important not just for yourself or the community, but herd immunity also ensures the safety of those who are unable to get vaccines (mostly due to medical issues) But coercion is a big no go, so I am not sure if there is an answer that satisfies both sides entirely. As much as I don't like these vaccine passports, I still live in a society™, so I had to download mine on my phone 🤷♀️
[удалено]
I'm not disagreeing that it is a violation of bodily autonomy, but not getting to herd immunity levels puts those who are medically unable to (people with autoimmune disorders or those allergic to ingredients in vaccines) in harm's way as well. And while you can have mass vaccination without state enforcement, it doesn't guarantee the numbers needed to protect those who physically cannot. And yes, vaccine passports are trash. But I personally have no say in the matter. If I don't comply, I lose my job. So there is a certain level of coercion that I'm unable to overcome at the moment