[jquery]

> as long as you can quit that jurisdiction at any time.

Nobody is going door to door and arresting unvaccinated people. It’s not like the anti-choice law in Texas that criminalizes two people working together to stop a woman from being pregnant against her will. You still have your freedom under the NAP. But as soon as you present a threat to infect other people by being unvaccinated, there are reasonable restrictions in place.

Edit: I’m seeing replies saying the NAP is strictly about physical violence.

To that I ask, are bioweapons fine to use in libertarianland? Can I hold a city hostage with weaponized anthrax because the libertarianism is, at its root, a cover for voting Republican and not a coherent political philosophy?

[hrhrhrhrhr]

NAP is about physical violence. The problem with your way of thinking is that it lets you interpret whatever you feel like as "violence".

Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence? What about blasphemy? What about just being mean?

People have very varying opinions on whether spreading COVID should be considered violence, hence contractual jurisdictions.

[variola]

> Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence?

How is it not violence to infect others with a serious disease? It causes bodily harm.

It is assault to knowingly expose others to a communicable disease.

However, using the flu as an example isn’t very good as spreading the common cold doesn’t carry criminal consequences. If you are referring to Covid as a “flu” then it’s another matter.

[hrhrhrhrhr]

If I meant COVID I'd say COVID. When I say flu I mean flu.

Why should spreading "flu" not be considered violence? Not deadly enough? Then who is going to decide where is the line drawn?

The libertarian answer to protecting yourself from viruses is private discrimination, not redefining NAP however you see fit.