Asura.Saevel said: »
There is a line one doesn't cross and this is it. Preemptively taking away someones free will out of fear is morally reprehensible. It's akin to rape, or putting someone in jail because they are statistically likely commit a crime.
Seriously it's no different then gathering up all the young impoverished children from single parent households and putting them in prison for life because they are the highest category to commit crime. Doing this would most certainly lower the crime rare, but the moral costs to the society would far outweigh the benefits.
And using some great unthinkable punishment is just as bad. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, are you doing so out of free will? How different is it if I put a gun to your head and tell you to get vaccinated or get your children vaccinated?
Seriously it's no different then gathering up all the young impoverished children from single parent households and putting them in prison for life because they are the highest category to commit crime. Doing this would most certainly lower the crime rare, but the moral costs to the society would far outweigh the benefits.
And using some great unthinkable punishment is just as bad. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, are you doing so out of free will? How different is it if I put a gun to your head and tell you to get vaccinated or get your children vaccinated?
You probably shouldn't try to make a point about fearmongering when you're basically using the same tactic, except on the opposite end, with examples worthy of a dystopian sci-fi universe. Make sure to cast Tom Cruise in the lead role and you might have a winner.
Considering how you've also made plenty of posts in the past which basically argue that government in general is just a more polite way of pointing guns at citizens to enforce laws (even for something as simple as paying for a ticket, since not paying for it means you can eventually get arrested), unless you have changed in that view (or you're an anarchist) I can only conclude that you think the implicit threat of violence from government is okay under certain circumstances. A declaration that you're a pragmatist certainly would imply that.
FTR I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your overall position, I'm pointing out that you are not being consistent in your positions. You can't dismiss something you personally don't find important with "I'm a pragmatist" and then backtrack on that attitude when it happens to be a principle you happen to care a lot more about. That's called having a double standard.