The Social Contract

[Tone]

"In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.[2][3]"
Social contract - Wikipedia

So, I was recently involved in a discussion about the fact that I will not be taking any mandatory vaccination. And if one is introduced into the society I am apart of, I believe that I will have to pull out, for conscience sake.


I gave reason for my decision--the gist of it being, that I do not agree with that level of control over myself, because I am already under a much higher Sovereign. Therefore, I will not place myself under any other headship.

Anyways, the discussion moved to him giving an "I'm an Island" type of argument and that he will choose to take a mandatory vaccination, because whatever agenda they might have doesn't mean anything to him. In other words, he was placing himself within the comforting idea that it's all relative to the individual and so his decision was his own to bear, apart from any liability.

This is when I reminded him about how the powers that be see it, as summed up in such statements as, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia). I also reminded him that we have entered a social contract wherein he and I have experienced, first hand, its power as we have both been incarcerated. So, if he truly is an island, why did he do 40+ years in prison? He didn't like this at all.

Basically, I wanted to show him that it doesn't matter whether he believes he will accept the mandatory vaccination for himself alone, apart from any effect on others. The fact of the matter is, is that he is just as liable as the one injecting it into the bloodstream.

So, if there are to be negative consequences for those of us who do not consent to the vaccinations, it should be understood that whatever those consequences are, e.g., loss of employment, a tax, a fine, etc...those who do take the vaccination are giving their blessing to it and have become surety for all debt.

Thoughts?

 

[Sabertooth]

Do you want thoughts on social contracts, generally, or that which surrounds vaccines, specifically?

 

[Tone]

Do you want thoughts on social contracts, generally, or that which surrounds vaccines, specifically?

Vaccines specifically. Thank you.

Or whatever you'd like to share really.

 

[Sabertooth]

1. I think that social contracts are a necessary part of society. Traffic laws are a good example of that. But even with traffic laws, there are exceptions, like emergency service vehicles and urgent transport to a hospital, etc.
2. Vaccines, unlike traffic laws, are experimental in nature. Medicine is a practice.
   There are three valid reasons to object to any medical treatment:
   • allergy tendencies,
   • ethical rejection and
   • not trusting the safety of the treatment method.
   If none of those apply (like the traffic exceptions above), we DO have a social obligation to contribute to herd immunity.

The requirements of traffic just do not encroach on those objections (allergy, ethics, safety) that can arise in medicine.

 

[muichimotsu]

"In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.[2][3]"
Social contract - Wikipedia

It's hardly a revolutionary idea these days and the only issue is how far one is willing to surrender them, rather than some idea that you are sovereign otherwise, which is insane and will get you into prison with enough insistence on you being immune to state or federal requirements (like licenses, etc)

So, I was recently involved in a discussion about the fact that I will not be taking any mandatory vaccination. And if one is introduced into the society I am apart of, I believe that I will have to pull out, for conscience sake.


I gave reason for my decision--the gist of it being, that I do not agree with that level of control over myself, because I am already under a much higher Sovereign. Therefore, I will not place myself under any other headship.

The vaccine wouldn't necessarily be mandatory except for the fact that this is something of concern and we'd like to have at least 75% immunity with the inoculation or it will continue to spread and necessitate more restrictions rather than returning to some semblance of normalcy

And this isn't about control, you don't have nearly as much control over yourself as you seem to think: you can have preventative measures for avoiding illness, but viruses don't care and you don't have control over the intensity of your antibodies or immune response anymore than you have control over how your body processes food, relative to allergies or such, or controlling things like any involuntary physical aspect.

You getting a vaccine is not surrendering control anymore than you getting a license for car operations is surrendering control, because it is done with understanding about how viruses and immunity to them is acquired. Some people may not be able to get the vaccine because of immunocompromised systems, but I imagine that's not a massive number. It's like wearing a face mask to prevent the spread through droplets, due to this virus being able to spread even if you're asymptomatic (making the reported numbers tricky given limits of testing in the infrastructure we have worldwide)

Your God clearly doesn't protect the followers from this virus, I'd bet money plenty who took your attitude are now dead or have recovered, but are suffering more long term problems that this strain has been observed to cause even in healthy individuals. This notion that you are somehow immune to requirements that are not discriminatory in nature to begin with is not only dangerous to yourself, but others, given that the virus is not nearly as survivable as people claim when we consider problems of how spikes in cases could very well overwhelm rural and even urban hospitals and lead to preventable deaths.

Anyways, the discussion moved to him giving an "I'm an Island" type of argument and that he will choose to take a mandatory vaccination, because whatever agenda they might have doesn't mean anything to him. In other words, he was placing himself within the comforting idea that it's all relative to the individual and so his decision was his own to bear, apart from any liability.

I seriously doubt the argument was that, because that really is more your argument: you think you are in some kind of vacuum and that your refusal to take a vaccine is not going to affect others, as if you are on a literal island (which I doubt is the case)

Assuming an agenda is a hasty generalization, you have to substantiate this claim instead of just assuming people will take you at face value

And no, this isn't about moral relativism or anything like that, because the choice to do something is not always about having absolute certainty, but demonstration with evidence that shows there is a reliable response in terms of medical science to a vaccine, not unlike a flu shot to protect against major strains (as it continues to evolve)

This is when I reminded him about how the powers that be see it, as summed up in such statements as, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia). I also reminded him that we have entered a social contract wherein he and I have experienced, first hand, its power as we have both been incarcerated. So, if he truly is an island, why did he do 40+ years in prison? He didn't like this at all.

Again, you'd have to cite this idea that the person was claiming they were an island in the sense you insinuate rather than being an island in a more modulated sense of having freedom to deliberate, but not freedom to flagrantly ignore laws. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but when the populace doesn't always get accurate information about the law and you have sovereign citizens thinking they can talk down to police officers and ignore any ideas about state level requirements and appeal to outdated and cherry picked Supreme Court decisions to claim they have some freedom that is basically absolute barring particular circumstances, it's not exactly conducive to rational discussion

Basically, I wanted to show him that it doesn't matter whether he believes he will accept the mandatory vaccination for himself alone, apart from any effect on others. The fact of the matter is, is that he is just as liable as the one injecting it into the bloodstream.

No one is claiming they aren't taking responsibility for possible side effects of the vaccine and the ones injecting it would likely be more aware as medical professionals. Or do you think just anyone's going to inject you with this?

So, if there are to be negative consequences for those of us who do not consent to the vaccinations, it should be understood that whatever those consequences are, e.g., loss of employment, a tax, a fine, etc...those who do take the vaccination are giving their blessing to it and have become surety for all debt.

You're acting like the social contract means we acquiesce to everything without question rather than actually taking the evidence and understanding it, which I'm skeptical you have in regards to vaccines at large, let alone this one, far more advanced than the last pandemic we had where immunology was likely still in early stages

The consequences are likely going to be restriction in regards to access, not unlike wearing a mask in a private business or not allowing unvaccinated kids into public schools for health concerns. You cannot call discrimination when the vaccine is applied in a neutral fashion after prioritizing the risk groups (health professionals and the elderly, among some others) and is not forced on you, but is recommended based on sound and demonstrable evidence through months of testing.

 

[returntosender]

Unless you are one of those that think it may possibly be controlled by the beast now or in the future.

 

[Sabertooth]

Unless you are one of those that think it may possibly be controlled by the beast now or in the future.

While I agree, I hope that it doesn't adversely influence their general adherence to traffic laws.

 

[Tone]

some idea that you are sovereign otherwise, which is insane and will get you into prison with enough insistence on you being immune to state or federal requirements (like licenses, etc)

I didn't say I was sovereign, I said I am under the Sovereign.

The vaccine wouldn't necessarily be mandatory

Well, the OP is about mandatory vaccination, so this is irrelevant.

you don't have nearly as much control over yourself as you seem to think:

I do have a say in every contract I enter, otherwise it is under duress and/or non-disclosure, and therefore, it is void.

You getting a vaccine is not surrendering control

Again, the OP is about a mandatory (forced) vaccine.

plenty who took your attitude

It is apparent that you have my attitude mixed up with someone or something else you read.

 

[Tone]

you think you are in some kind of vacuum and that your refusal to take a vaccine is not going to affect others, as if you are on a literal island (which I doubt is the case)

If you really read the OP you would realize that I said exactly the opposite of this, hence, the title of this thread as well, "The Social Contract".

I said that I am currently in a social contract and so I am not an island, but the whole point is that, if the vaccine is forced (mandatory), then I believe I may have to become an island.

and you have sovereign citizens

I see who you have in mind and who you are projecting on to me.

for possible side effects of the vaccine

This is besides the point.

I haven't went into the pros and cons of the health issues.

The focus here is on punishing people for not consenting to a mandatory vaccination.

 

[Tone]

1. I think that social contracts are a necessary part of society. Traffic laws are a good example of that. But even with traffic laws, there are exceptions, like emergency service vehicles and urgent transport to a hospital, etc.
2. Vaccines, unlike traffic laws, are experimental in nature. Medicine is a practice.
   There are three valid reasons to object to any medical treatment:
   • allergy tendencies,
   • ethical rejection and
   • not trusting the safety of the treatment method.
   If none of those apply (like the traffic exceptions above), we DO have a social obligation to contribute to herd immunity.

The requirements of traffic just do not encroach on the objections (allergy, ethics, safety) that can arise in medicine.

I agree that vaccines are unlike traffic laws.

 

[ananda]

"In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.[2][3]"
Social contract - Wikipedia

So, I was recently involved in a discussion about the fact that I will not be taking any mandatory vaccination. And if one is introduced into the society I am apart of, I believe that I will have to pull out, for conscience sake....

Thoughts?

IMO it can be argued that a contract is void if one or both sides to the contract engages in "fraud, undue influence, duress, mutual mistake, or misrepresentation". I see all of the above when it involves vaccines, in deceptive practices such as these.

 

[Tone]

IMO it can be argued that a contract is void if one or both sides to the contract engages in "fraud, undue influence, duress, mutual mistake, or misrepresentation". I see all of the above when it involves vaccines, in deceptive practices such as these.

I agree with this completely.

Why mandate (with negative consequences) something that would not stand as a valid contract?

This would be a clear mark of tyranny, and those who take it are willfully pledging allegiance to that image.

*And sealed with the blood of others...

 

[returntosender]

Seems like you can't start a thread without someone coming in and knocking you around.
informative thread Tone.
Happy Sabbath!

 

[Tone]

Seems like you can't start a thread without someone coming in and knocking you around.
informative thread Tone.
Happy Sabbath!

Hmmmm, yeah, am I being cyber bullied right now...I didn't sign up for that...


Ha ha...

 

[muichimotsu]

I didn't say I was sovereign, I said I am under the Sovereign.

How does that change the implication you think that you're just immune to diseases when that's patently false?

I do have a say in every contract I enter, otherwise it is under duress and/or non-disclosure, and therefore, it is void.

Not in society, otherwise you're insisting on absolute legalism, which is ridiculous. You already agree to several contracts as a citizen of the United States if you are to benefit from the state in any sense, even if you also are subject to punishment from the state in violating laws that are neutrally applied (ideally). And thus, I am not unjustified in thinking you're in the realm of the sovereign citizens, who are thoroughly deluded and wrong about how law works

It is apparent that you have my attitude mixed up with someone or something else you read.

If not a sovereign citizen, then you seem to have antinomian tendencies, as if only God's laws matter to you even though the Bible says in at least one, if not more places, that God sets up governments and you are expected, within reason, to obey them.

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree with this completely.

Why mandate (with negative consequences) something that would not stand as a valid contract?

This would be a clear mark of tyranny, and those who take it are willfully pledging allegiance to that image.

*And sealed with the blood of others...

Your ignorance is not an excuse, you can't claim there isn't a valid contract when a contract in this case would be absurd to do on an individual level beyond your voluntary involvement to begin with of not getting vaccinated, but understanding the consequences

 

[muichimotsu]

I said that I am currently in a social contract and so I am not an island, but the whole point is that, if the vaccine is forced (mandatory), then I believe I may have to become an island.

Then why are you acting like you're the victim when you are going against basic science in terms of how vaccines and immunization through herd immunity works with a pandemic disease? You don't get to just choose to endanger people because you feel uncomfortable, you have to justify this notion with something more than your mere convictions that go against demonstrable evidence about vaccines being effective (not perfect, but effective in their end goal of herd immunity to a viral disease)

The consequences are not on the repressive level you think they are, because sovereign countries have the right to deny entry same as private businesses in regards to not having a vaccine and you have the right, such as it is, to not get a vaccine, but you're not free from consequences. Desiring such a scenario means you're contradicting yourself in desiring rule of law, but not having it applied neutrally and rationally, but selectively based on people's convictions that are not sufficient to justify exceptions

This is besides the point.

I haven't went into the pros and cons of the health issues.

The focus here is on punishing people for not consenting to a mandatory vaccination.

You've failed to demonstrate how this is arbitrary or tyrannical when the goal is public health and it isn't applied in a discriminatory fashion as regards to public access, because it is for the good of the whole, not the parts

 

[Tone]

have antinomian tendencies, as if only God's laws matter

There is a difference between being legal and being lawful.

 

[Tone]

going against basic science in terms of how vaccines and immunization

people's convictions that are not sufficient to justify exceptions

Conscience over science.

 

[Tone]

the goal is public health

Debatable.