# News & Current Events > Coronavirus SARS-CoV2 >  Do you support a government ban of private vaccine passports

## Invisible Man

Do you support a government ban of privately issued vaccine passports that could be used by private companies and individuals?

----------


## PAF

Government is responsible for the "plandemic".

Government stole MY tax money and gave it to pharm/biotech corporations.

Government is supposed to protect my freedoms, privacy, the Bill of Rights.

And now you want to know if I would support a government ban?

----------


## Invisible Man

> Government is responsible for the "plandemic".
> 
> Government stole MY tax money and gave it to pharm/biotech corporations.
> 
> Government is supposed to protect my freedoms, privacy, the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And now you want to know if I would support a government ban?


Sadly, there are many victims of all those things who would support that, even here at Ron Paul Forums I suspect, though I would be glad to see poll results that prove me wrong.

----------


## CaptUSA

Poll needs more options.

In theory, I wouldn't support a ban - especially, at the federal level.  But in reality, the government is so intertwined with business and commerce now.  It's hard to imagine a scenario where a "vaccine passport" could remain strictly private.  In theory, as a business owner, I should be able to decide to not do business with someone that doesn't live up to whatever parameters I decide.  If I want them to provide proof of vaccination, I should be able to tell them to go to a competitor if they don't want to show it to me.

But in reality, that's not how it would work.  Because it would be in no business's interest to send away their customers over a virus that is not really that harmful, the only way a business would do this is if they could coerce their competitors to do the same.  And in today's market, they *will* leverage government.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Poll needs more options.
> 
> In theory, I wouldn't support a ban - especially, at the federal level.  But in reality, the government is so intertwined with business and commerce now.  It's hard to imagine a scenario where a "vaccine passport" could remain strictly private.  In theory, as a business owner, I should be able to decide to not do business with someone that doesn't live up to whatever parameters I decide.  If I want them to provide proof of vaccination, I should be able to tell them to go to a competitor if they don't want to show it to me.
> 
> But in reality, that's not how it would work.  Because it would be in no business's interest to send away their customers over a virus that is not really that harmful, the only way a business would do this is if they could coerce their competitors to do the same.  And in today's market, they *will* leverage government.


It's true, this is a theoretical question. And the Cato article that prompted all that consternation which in turn prompted this poll was also theoretical inasmuch as it advocated a level of government keeping its hands off things that we stand no chance of seeing in the world we now live in.

But then, even in this world we now live in, would government banning private vaccine passports be a good thing? If somebody thinks it would, then they can answer yes and explain in a comment.

That's my philosophy with polls. Keep the question and answers as black-and-white as possible, and let nuance be added in the comments where each individual will have their own take in ways that a poll option will never be able to capture.

----------


## CaptUSA

> That's my philosophy with polls. Keep the question and answers as black-and-white as possible, and let nuance be added in the comments where each individual will have their own take in ways that a poll option will never be able to capture.


Ok, Luntz.  Lol.

Well, then it's all in how you phrase the question to get the poll results you want, then.  

"Should the tyrant's pen be able to order how a private business decides which customers to do business with?"

Or

"Should corporations be prevented from banding together to violate the privacy of American consumers in the name of safety?"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ok, Luntz.  Lol.
> 
> Well, then it's all in how you phrase the question to get the poll results you want, then.  
> 
> "Should the tyrant's pen be able to order how a private business decides which customers to do business with?"
> 
> Or
> 
> "Should corporations be prevented from banding together to violate the privacy of American consumers in the name of safety?"


Or...

Do you support a business banning unvaccinated customers?

Do you support a business that takes government contracts or money banning unvaccinated customers?

Do you support a business that gets the majority of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?

Do you support a business that gets all of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ok, Luntz.  Lol.
> 
> Well, then it's all in how you phrase the question to get the poll results you want, then.  
> 
> "Should the tyrant's pen be able to order how a private business decides which customers to do business with?"
> 
> Or
> 
> "Should corporations be prevented from banding together to violate the privacy of American consumers in the name of safety?"





> Or...
> 
> Do you support a business banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that takes government contracts or money banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that gets the majority of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that gets all of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?


Or:

Do you still beat your wife?

----------


## Invisible Man

> Ok, Luntz.  Lol.
> 
> Well, then it's all in how you phrase the question to get the poll results you want, then.  
> 
> "Should the tyrant's pen be able to order how a private business decides which customers to do business with?"
> 
> Or
> 
> "Should corporations be prevented from banding together to violate the privacy of American consumers in the name of safety?"


Those are not just different ways of asking the same question. They're different questions.

As to whether or not corporations should be prevented from doing that, the crucial points for the purpose of this poll are not whether they should be prevented, but how and by whom.

You can be against having government do that and still be for having it done by way of the economic constraints the market places on corporations.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Or...
> 
> Do you support a business banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that takes government contracts or money banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that gets the majority of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?
> 
> Do you support a business that gets all of their revenue from government contracts banning unvaccinated customers?


Those are all good questions, and worthy of polls, but different than the one I'm asking.

Many people, perhaps everyone here, would say that they do not support businesses doing that. But not everyone who doesn't support those actions by those businesses would support the government banning it, as opposed to letting the market sort it out. And that's the question.

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you support a government ban of privately issued vaccine passports that could be used by private companies and individuals?


Define "Passport"..

and what purpose it would have..

I do not know of Private Ports.

----------


## pcosmar

I would support a Government Definition of such as a "Novelty Item"" with NO Weight in law.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Define "Passport"..
> 
> and what purpose it would have..
> 
> I do not know of Private Ports.


It's purpose would be up to those who use it to decide. Part of not banning it would be not banning any entirely private use of it by property owners with respect to whom they allow onto their property and under what conditions.

Privatizing ports is a great idea. But I think that would require a separate poll question of its own.

----------


## Invisible Man

> I would support a Government Definition of such as a "Novelty Item"" with NO Weight in law.


Yes, exactly. That's the kind of private vaccine passport the poll is asking about.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Those are not just different ways of asking the same question. They're different questions.


Um... yeah - that's the point.  Which answer do you want?  If you want people to take your side, ask Q1.  If you want them to take the opposite side, ask Q2.

----------


## Invisible Man

To those who don't like how the poll question is worded, what would be some alternatives that you would be willing to answer?

----------


## Invisible Man

> Um... yeah - that's the point.  Which answer do you want?  If you want people to take your side, ask Q1.  If you want them to take the opposite side, ask Q2.


I want them to answer the question that I actually asked, and not some other question that's asking something entirely different, with whichever answer is their actual view. This is why I kept the poll question simple, direct, and without biased language--the opposite of the Luntz approach.

It may be interesting to see their answers to those other questions too. But then we still wouldn't know their answer to this particular question.

How about you? Even from your earlier post I can't tell if you're a yes or a no. You said that in theory you would say no, but then when you talked about the real world you never said what your answer is for this real world that you then went on to describe.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, exactly. That's the kind of private vaccine passport the poll is asking about.


But that is not being proposed in the "real" world.

----------


## Invisible Man

> But that is not being proposed in the "real" world.


It was proposed in an article by someone from the Cato Institute that has a bunch of libertarians upset.

----------


## pcosmar

> It was proposed in an article by someone from the Cato Institute that has a bunch of libertarians upset.


ID 2020 is what IS being proposed.. the Cato Circle Jerk  is irrelevant. Nothing but distracting mental masturbation.

----------


## RJB

This poll was was brought to you today in part by the wonderful generosity of the Koch brothers...*



ETA:  Legal disclaimer.  This was written as a joke.  I have no idea who our benevolent benefactors are.

----------


## Invisible Man

> ID 2020 is what IS being proposed.. the Cato Circle Jerk  is irrelevant. Nothing but distracting mental masturbation.


Perhaps. But others here were criticizing the position of that Cato article, and I thought it would be helpful to nail down just what position they were intending to take.

My attempt to do that via poll so far hasn't been very successful.

----------


## oyarde

As far as I know there are already federal laws against this  as this would be in direct violation of all those laws that protect the privacy of peoples health information from everyone .

----------


## Invisible Man

> As far as I know there are already federal laws against this  as this would be in direct violation of all those laws that protect the privacy of peoples health information from everyone .


You're saying there's a law in the US that prohibits private organizations from requiring that people provide them with proof of certain immunizations as a prerequisite for participating in their functions? I'm pretty sure there isn't. There are all sorts of organizations, both public and private, that do that all the time with the government's blessing.

----------


## oyarde

> You're saying there's a law in the US that prohibits private organizations from requiring that people provide them with proof of certain immunizations as a prerequisite for participating in their functions? I'm pretty sure there isn't. There are all sorts of organizations, both public and private, that do that all the time with the government's blessing.


In my home state I think only I , my physician and authorized health attendants ( Nurses etc) are able to access my records with the exception of HIV and venereal if I recall. With the exceptions of child abuse etc I think that all is in sections 34 and 16. Not really my kind of reading , but yeah pretty sure I can refuse .

----------


## oyarde

I'm thinking the reason more states havnt planned already to ban these is because many already have laws in place preventing it . States can pass whatever they like but they are all supposed to also follow whatever is in the HIPAA fed law too which I have not read from general lack of interest .

----------


## Invisible Man

> In my home state I think only I , my physician and authorized health attendants ( Nurses etc) are able to access my records with the exception of HIV and venereal if I recall. With the exceptions of child abuse etc I think that all is in sections 34 and 16. Not really my kind of reading , but yeah pretty sure I can refuse .


Sure you can refuse. And private organizations can refuse to allow you to participate in various functions of theirs when you do.

----------


## oyarde

> Sure you can refuse. And private organizations can refuse to allow you to participate in various functions of theirs when you do.


I dont belong to any private organizations but cant think of any locally with health discrimination rules. Doubt any would stand up if challenged unless it could be demonstrated they were required such as a hospital employee or something . Whole new area for lawyers to make money on opening up I imagine.

----------


## oyarde

One of the real problems I see with govt and other shills on all this is they needed a better plague to terrify people into doing what they wanted.

----------


## Invisible Man

> I dont belong to any private organizations but cant think of any locally with health discrimination rules. Doubt any would stand up if challenged unless it could be demonstrated they were required such as a hospital employee or something . Whole new area for lawyers to make money on opening up I imagine.


This is not a whole new area. It's been a common practice for decades.

----------


## pcosmar

> My attempt to do that via poll so far hasn't been very successful.


Perhaps you should look at the concept behind the question..

on what basis does any entity have a right to your personal health information?

Why should a private entity have any right to ask such private questions? and for what Purpose.? (understanding that Covid is NOTHING)

curious as to the purpose of such a ridiculous question..or the purpose of such an organization as you envision it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

By all means and beyond any shadow of a doubt, yes.

Big Business should be held to the same account as Big Government and the people's right to be secure in their "persons, effects, papers and things" should be protected and criminal sanctions brought against those in Big Business who violate the people's rights and liberty.

----------


## devil21

Smells like data mining.

----------


## Invisible Man

> on what basis does any entity have a right to your personal health information?


On the basis of the fact that they have no obligation to do any business with anyone if they don't want to, and it is their right to refuse to do business with anyone they want for any reason they want.





> Why should a private entity have any right to ask such private questions?


On the basis of the fact that their own property belongs to them to make those decisions about, and no one else.




> and for what Purpose.?


For any purpose they want on their own property. Those who don't want to provide that private information don't have to. They can just accept that this other individual doesn't want to do business with them and move on to do their business with someone else who will.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Um... yeah - that's the point.  Which answer do you want?  If you want people to take your side, ask Q1.  If you want them to take the opposite side, ask Q2.


Given the wording of the poll question that I used, which answer do you think I wanted people to give?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Given the wording of the poll question that I used, which answer do you think I wanted people to give?




"Do you support a government ban of private _anything_"???

----------


## CaptUSA

> How about you? Even from your earlier post I can't tell if you're a yes or a no. You said that in theory you would say no, but then when you talked about the real world you never said what your answer is for this real world that you then went on to describe.


In the real world, I'd have to see the language of any proposed bill.  In theory, businesses should be able to turn away anyone for any reason at any time.  But that's not the world we're living in.  Government is already forcing businesses to engage in commerce with people that they may not want to.  If this fairy-tale ban you're proposing prevented government from coercing businesses to collude with each other I think I might support it.

----------


## Invisible Man

> "Do you support a government ban of private _anything_"???


I'm not sure what your answer to my question is. For most poll respondents here, the answer is yes. I expected that to be the case, albeit not with such a large majority. But I wasn't trying to lead anyone to give that response.

----------


## Invisible Man

> In the real world, I'd have to see the language of any proposed bill.


How about in the real world if a proposed bill banned private companies from issuing vaccine passports, or from using vaccine passports that were issued by other private companies as prerequisites for anything?

This proposed bill doesn't have anything else bundled in with it. It's just that.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> "Do you support a government ban of private _anything_"???


“Do you support a government ban on private Doctors providing abortions during the third trimester?”

Edit: The point being that some people support some government bans, some people support other bans.

----------


## CaptUSA

> How about in the real world if a proposed bill banned private companies from issuing vaccine passports, or from using vaccine passports that were issued by other private companies as prerequisites for anything?
> 
> This proposed bill doesn't have anything else bundled in with it. It's just that.


I know you really want to remove all nuance (again to keep it in the theoretical realm), but nuance matters.  First of all, this hasn't been a problem in the real world, so we are not likely to see legislation banning this.  If it did become an issue, the corporate interests would line up against the ban, because they'd HAVE to ensure that it was as nearly ubiquitous as possible so that they wouldn't be driving their business to their competitors.  If there was a collusion among businesses that in turn drove privacy advocates to request a ban on the practice, I'd like to see the bill to address the collusion rather than an outright ban, but that's not the real world either.

----------


## pcosmar

> On the basis of the fact that they have no obligation to do any business with anyone if they don't want to, and it is their right to refuse to do business with anyone they want for any reason they want.
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis of the fact that their own property belongs to them to make those decisions about, and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> For any purpose they want on their own property. Those who don't want to provide that private information don't have to. They can just accept that this other individual doesn't want to do business with them and move on to do their business with someone else who will.


Seems like a PHUCKING PISS POOR business practice.
I would think it would insure the failure of nearly any business.

----------


## Danke

The jab can cause serious injuries and death.  One thing I think government is good for stepping in to prevent.

----------


## PAF

..

----------


## Invisible Man

> Seems like a PHUCKING PISS POOR business practice.
> I would think it would insure the failure of nearly any business.


I think you're right. 

The market is capable of dealing with that.

That was one of the points that was made in that Cato article that so many statists are upset about.

----------


## Invisible Man

> The jab can cause serious injuries and death.  One thing I think government is good for stepping in to prevent.


Are you saying that you think it is the proper role of government to step in and prevent people from making voluntary choices for themselves that result in their injury or death?

----------


## Danke

> Are you saying that you think it is the proper role of government to step in and prevent people from making voluntary choices for themselves that result in their injury or death?


as long as I have to pay taxes and don’t have enough land to be self sufficient , yes.  No jab and I can’t feed or house myself.  No thanks.

----------


## Swordsmyth

I'm glad to see that even after the trolls have been allowed to run off so many good members and the mods have banned some too that we still see common sense prevail in this poll:


 _Yes_ 

6	 		75.00% 	 	 		 			No 		 	

2	 		25.00%

----------


## oyarde

> as long as I have to pay taxes and don’t have enough land to be self sufficient , yes.  No jab and I can’t feed or house myself.  No thanks.


Ya , everyone should be working on getting a few acres and plenty of ammo . Hard times could be coming . You dont want to end up living in a dumpster like tebowlives.

----------


## Invisible Man

> I'm glad to see that even after the trolls have been allowed to run off so many good members and the mods have banned some too that we still see common sense prevail in this poll:
> 
> 
>  _Yes_ 
> 
> 6             75.00%                           No              
> 
> 2             25.00%


I think we all know that Ron Paul himself would be a no vote on this.

So how does agreeing with him make people trolls at Ron Paul Forums?

----------


## devil21

> I think we all know that Ron Paul himself would be a no vote on this.
> 
> So how does agreeing with him make people trolls at Ron Paul Forums?


Ron's position that anything resembling a vaccine passport is a big NO for him, no matter who is issuing it, whether gov or private.

Vaccine passports- The horrific idea of "show your papers" - RP Liberty Report   (from only a month ago)
https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/vid...0700756977298/

----------


## Invisible Man

> Ron's position that anything resembling a vaccine passport is a big NO for him, no matter who is issuing it, whether gov or private.


I think you totally misread the poll question.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I think we all know that Ron Paul himself would be a no vote on this.
> ...


That would be entirely in your imagination. You certainly don't speak for Ron Paul.




> Ron's position that anything resembling a vaccine passport is a big NO for him, no matter who is issuing it, whether gov or private.
> 
> Vaccine passports- The horrific idea of "show your papers" - RP Liberty Report   (from only a month ago)
> https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/vid...0700756977298/


Good link, and that is just one example. Anyone who watches the Liberty Report knows that Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to vaccine passports or any requirements for a COVID vaccine. He also supports Governors DeSantis’ and Abbott’s bans on vaccine passports or requirements.

Here’s another example:

Ron Paul: “We have to take a stand. And one, these vaccine passports can’t be allowed to go on.”

Around 31:18:



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HhabS5NgJGQ

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ron's position that anything resembling a vaccine passport is a big NO for him, no matter who is issuing it, whether gov or private.
> 
> Vaccine passports- The horrific idea of "show your papers" - RP Liberty Report   (from only a month ago)
> https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/vid...0700756977298/


From only three days ago.

https://rumble.com/vgvg6x-the-vaccin...jcwo5&mc=2sdbb

https://rumble.com/vgvg6x-the-vaccin...jcwo5&mc=2sdbb

----------


## Invisible Man

> That would be entirely in your imagination. You certainly don't speak for Ron Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> Good link, and that is just one example. Anyone who watches the Liberty Report knows that Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to vaccine passports or any requirements for a COVID vaccine. He also supports Governors DeSantis’ and Abbott’s bans on vaccine passports or requirements.
> 
> Here’s another example:
> 
> Ron Paul: “We have to take a stand. And one, these vaccine passports can’t be allowed to go on.”
> ...


You know full well that it's not just my imagination and that I'm 100% right about what I said. There's no possible disputing it for anyone who knows the first thing about Ron Paul. It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Of course he's against vaccine passports. So am I, and I'm been clear on that.

When Ron Paul gets a chance to vote on whether or not government should pass laws that prohibit people from making personal decisions for themselves to do something that he's against, he votes no on that ban. Every single time. For him, being against something isn't a reason for passing a new law to ban it. He leaves it to the market to sort that out, not the government.

As he said in the video that Devil21 posted, there's no demand for this. He never hinted at wanting a new law to ban it.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You know full well that it's not just my imagination and that I'm 100% right about what I said. There's no possible disputing it for anyone who knows the first thing about Ron Paul. It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Of course he's against vaccine passports. So am I, and I'm been clear on that.
> 
> When Ron Paul gets a chance to vote on whether or not government should pass laws that prohibit people from making personal decisions for themselves to do something that he's against, he votes no on that ban. Every single time. For him, being against something isn't a reason for passing a new law to ban it. He leaves it to the market to sort that out, not the government.
> 
> As he said in the video that Devil21 posted, there's no demand for this. He never hinted at wanting a new law to ban it.


You have no links to support your opinion. And you are the consistently dishonest one.

Ron DeSantis signed a law banning *all* vaccine passports. Ron Paul cheered it.

----------


## CaptUSA

> When Ron Paul gets a chance to vote on whether or not government should pass laws that prohibit people from making personal decisions for themselves to do something that he's against, he votes no on that ban. Every single time. For him, being against something isn't a reason for passing a new law to ban it. He leaves it to the market to sort that out, not the government.
> 
> As he said in the video that Devil21 posted, there's no demand for this. He never hinted at wanting a new law to ban it.


Which is why when you try to remove the nuance, you end up flat.  I'm actually glad to see Ron's position on this mirrors my own as I laid out earlier.  There is no reason why a private company would do this without government coercion.  So if this ever became an issue - which it won't - then you'd have to address the underlying problems.  Obviously, some politicians are taking a proactive step to tell businesses to not slice their own throats.  Ok - not really necessary, but also not really harmful compared to everything else they do.  It's just a political show.  But I'd rather have that political show than the opposite.

In reality, if DeSantis and Abbot would have banned government from pressuring private companies to institute these vaccine passports, it would have accomplished the same thing without this ridiculous controversy you're trying to drum up.  Because companies will NOT do this on their own.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Which is why when you try to remove the nuance, you end up flat.  I'm actually glad to see Ron's position on this mirrors my own as I laid out earlier.  There is no reason why a private company would do this without government coercion.


I totally agree.

I see no difference between your position and my own.

I'm all for nuance. But nuance and direct answers to yes or no questions are not mutually exclusive. Paragraphs are great for nuance. Polls are great for the simple and specific yes or no question.

I don't see why you think I'm tying to drum up controversy. I'm simply trying to see where people stand.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Ron DeSantis signed a law banning *all* vaccine passports. Ron Paul cheered it.


No, DeSantis did not sign a law banning *all* vaccine passports.

He signed a law banning the Florida government from issuing any vaccine passports, and penalizing any businesses that require proof of COVID-19 vaccination from their patrons or customers with a loss of eligibility for government grants and contracts. It does not address businesses requiring this for other purposes, such as for their employees. And even for businesses that require it from patrons and customers, those that are willing to forgo government grants and contracts can still do it.

I also cheer on that law. So far, I agree 100% with everything that Ron Paul has said on this matter that's been shared in this thread.

But nobody has shown any instance of his stating that he would support a law banning entirely private, and not just pseudo-private, vaccine passports.

Every single one of us knows that if a law doing that came up for a vote and he was in Congress, he would vote no.

----------


## PAF

@Brian4Liberty  @Invisible Man

The question becomes, whether a law is passed or not aside, if/when it comes down to it, whether by government dictate, or by the assumed protection of private businesses, if vaccine passports are required in order to attend to school, work, shop, travel, dental appointments, hardware stores, etc….

Will you personally obtain a vaccine passport in order to carry out your daily lives?

----------


## devil21

> I think you totally misread the poll question.


I don't participate in weasel worded data mining semantic arguments.  Ron says NO to vaccine passports.  Parsing it beyond that is a waste of time and reeks of mind games.

----------


## oyarde

I certainly dont think the my state or county govt should ever participate  in the enabling  of allowing big business any access to my personal information. Only person who needs it is me and really I dont even need it which I s why I just go see my Doc once a yr for an annual physical .

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, DeSantis did not sign a law banning *all* vaccine passports.


Read this and weep, LIAR:

*Earlier today the Florida legislature passed S.B. 2006, a  bill that would prevent the government or corporations from requiring  Floridians to present a vaccine passport to engage in commerce.*
    The bill explicitly forbids businesses from  requiring COVID-19 passports with the language, A business entity as  defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state,  may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation  certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain  access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this  state. Should a business choose to ignore the Florida governments  legislation, they can be fined up to $5,000 per violation.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/posts/flori...ine-passports/
Ron supports it.
Globalist Cruise Lines are threatening to skip Florida because of it.

----------


## TheTexan

This government is illegitimate.  In every way possible.

Which makes any of its bans, illegitimate.

----------

