[josephcsible]

> there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion.

You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems wrong to try to use it as precedent to set new policies in the meantime.

[framecowbird]

I agree, and I'm not arguing that X is OK just because it's similar to Y and Z.

What I don't like is the pretence that this is suddenly a brand new unprecedented invasion on privacy. It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.

[josephcsible]

> It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.

Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of speech. Exceptions that compel speech are much rarer than exceptions that prohibit speech.

[framecowbird]

Yeah that's super interesting. Is an action morally any different to a lack of action?

This is like the train trolley: where you can either phrase it as doing nothing, or pushing a lever. People apply much more stringent moral codes when there is action involved, or even when the fat man is actually pushed by hand.

[s1artibartfast]

I think this exactly the distinction. A lot of people frame their worldview which places value and judgement on the action, while freeing someone from responsibility for their inaction (deontological ethics). This is also common but not exclusive in many legal system (e.g. it is not murder for a bystander to not save a life/pull the lever).

I think this is coming into conflict with rising a utilitarism and consequentialist ethical worldview in the united states. Neither system is perfet, but one challenge of the consequentialist worldview is that it holds people accountable for sub-optimal behavior. (e.g. it is murder to not pull the lever, or not donate to save that starving child in Africa).

Without getting too off track, I think the conflict between these two ethical views is a big driver of the tone of discusource and current ideological conflicts in the US, be it public health, racical justice, and the role of the government.

[cycomanic]

There is two problems with this argument.

First it's easy to turn it around, it seems wrong to shout now about "infringing my freedom" if you have been pushing to infringe other people's freedom for a long time (I'd say most antivaxers are conservatives at the moment).

And second is that people oppose restricting drug use and abortion for other reasons than simply it is telling someone what to do or not do with their body.

BTW there are many other examples so it's just plain stupid to argue telling me what to do with my body is wrong on principle.