Certainly, the truth determines the approach.

However, if the truth of covid was exactly as they claimed, it would be immoral to not do what would protect everybody.

In the hypothetical case where the vaccine is 100% safe and effective, and covid is real and highly lethal, claiming "freedom" actually does just mean "freedom to kill grandma".

If abortion is murder, and it 100% is, it should be illegal, because it's wrong. So why should going out with hypothetical super deadly covid while taking zero extra precautions not also be illegal? If someone wants to do nothing and stay in their house or go be in nature, that's one thing, but forcefully exposing others to super deadly covid is more akin to spitting on people, which is illegal, than it is exercising any supposed "rights".

To be clear, I'm not saying in this hypothetical that the government should send the goony squad to force inject anyone or lock people in their houses. If someone wants to go to an abandoned lake and fish, or meet up with other people who are aware of the risk, that's fine. But if someone wants to waltz into the store with a bunch of people who aren't fine with being near someone with super deadly covid, why should that not be disallowed in a moral and just society? There is no "right to go into the local Walmart and buy a can of tuna", nor is there a "right to cough up a massive loogie in the town square".

Now luckily, everything they say about covid is nonsense, so this is nothing more than a thought experiment.

And, to be fair, I'd be hesitant to actually apply this hypothetical in a medical scenario. Big pharma are mass murderers. I very much don't like the idea of the government regulating medical decisions. I simply stuck with the covid example for the consistency of the discussion.

So, I suppose the gist of my argument is this: Even just 100 years ago, "freedom" was not understood as the satanic "do what thou wilt" kind of freedom.

Certainly, the truth determines the approach.

However, if the truth of covid was exactly as they claimed, it would be immoral to not do what would protect everybody.

In the hypothetical case where the vaccine is 100% safe and effective, and covid is real and highly lethal, claiming "freedom" actually does just mean "freedom to kill grandma".

If abortion is murder, and it 100% is, it should be illegal, because it's wrong. So why should going out with hypothetical super deadly covid while taking zero extra precautions not also be illegal? If someone wants to do nothing and stay in their house or go be in nature, that's one thing, but forcefully exposing others to super deadly covid is more akin to spitting on people, which is illegal, than it is exercising any supposed "rights".

To be clear, I'm not saying in this hypothetical that the government should send the goony squad to force inject anyone or lock people in their houses. If someone wants to go to an abandoned lake and fish, or meet up with other people who are aware of the risk, that's fine. But if someone wants to waltz into the store with a bunch of people who aren't fine with being near someone with super deadly covid, why should that not be disallowed in a moral and just society? There is no "right to go into the local Walmart and buy a can of tuna", nor is there a "right to cough up a massive loogie in the town square".

Now luckily, everything they say about covid is nonsense, so this is nothing more than a thought experiment.

And, to be fair, I'd be hesitant to actually apply this hypothetical in a medical scenario. Big pharma are mass murderers. I very much don't like the idea of the government regulating medical decisions. I simply stuck with the covid example for consistency’s sake.

So, I suppose the gist of my argument is this: Even just 100 years ago, "freedom" was not understood as the satanic "do what thou wilt" kind of freedom.