Libertarian Think Tank Comes Out in Support of Vaccine Passports From ‘Private Sector’

Swordsmyth

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
74,737
Libertarian Think Tank Comes Out in Support of Vaccine Passports From ‘Private Sector’

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has come out in support of Vaccine Passports, so long as they are from the private sector, rather than the Government.

In an article, which also appeared on the markedly left wing NBC News, Cato Institute Writer and Senior Fellow Julian Sanchez opined that moves to restrict vaccine passports are “ultimately shortsighted — and unlikely to serve either freedom or public health.” He went on to claim that such moves “unwisely conflate the idea of vaccination credentials in themselves with the most unpleasant way they might possibly be used.”

Sanchez then poses the question: “Is it desirable to have a secure and reliable mechanism to determine who has been vaccinated against the coronavirus for at least some purposes?” To this, he answers “Of course. There are numerous contexts in which showing evidence of vaccination is either already required or has clear benefits. So a secure, easily verifiable record is self‐​evidently preferable.” This is in spite of the numerous reported problems with the vaccine, from blood clots, to heart attacks, to dementia, as well as widespread personal and moral opposition to getting it.

In order to ensure that everyone is vaccinated, Sanchez supports measures that would utilize encryption technology where doctors would upload our data to an app. That data would then be readable by a machine, most likely in the form of a QR Code. In other words, our information would not be gathered by the government, but rather by an app sponsored by big tech. The Cato Institute does not mention how the intelligence community and Biden Regime buy our data from big tech.

“Many seem to fear that vaccination certificates would quickly give rise to an authoritarian scenario in which Americans are expected to ‘show [their] papers, please,’ to engage in routine activities like grocery shopping,” Sanchez writes. He then says that such draconian measures are “neither necessary nor likely, and such concerns aren’t a good argument against the certificates themselves… in the absence of a government mandate for every business to check vaccination IDs, there is little reason to think this is a realistic scenario.”

Due to standing laws which prohibit mandatory vaccination and potential violation of HIPAA guidelines, the Biden regime is actively working with the private sector to impose mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports on the American people. Sanchez and the Cato Institute ignore this, and are thus in lockstep with the Biden Regime on the issue of mandatory vaccinations.

Thus, when Sanchez writes that “Government shouldn’t force anyone to be vaccinated, but it should also be reluctant to override private businesses’ decisions about how to best protect and satisfy their customers and employees,” he ignores the fact that those choices are ultimately the same thing.

Many are arguing against COVID vaccine passports, public or private, as an infringement of our rights and freedoms. Fox News Primetime host Tucker Carlson argues that “On the questions of vaccines, Joe Biden is not pro-choice. He is pro-mandate… Just because there’s no official federal requirement to take the coronavirus vaccine, does not mean that you and your family won’t be required to take it. With the full backing of the Biden administration, private industry and nonprofits may be forcing you to.”

More at: https://nationalfile.com/libertaria...ort-of-vaccine-passports-from-private-sector/

Globalibertarians are evil.
 
Why do libertarians waste their time being so passive? We sit here with all these dumb apologetics and ivory tower crap instead of being assertive.

The whole Corona thing was nonsense from the start. Here’s a peer reviewed study showing the death rate was inflated 16.7 times because CDC changed their criteria for death. There is another Danish study showing the infection difference between mask-wearers and non-mask wearers was not statistically significant. Cato should be talking about these.

Libertarians needed to get their passive asses in gear if they ever hope to get anywhere.
 
Well, like democrats [left jack boot] joining the republican party, republicans [right jack boot] join the libertarian party. It is always best to think independently, as an individual, and go by the Records and Data - unlike the paid OP.

Most Black Republicans Aren’t True Conservatives

The true libertarian would never advocate no-bid contracts, multi-lateral agreements, tracking of individuals and requiring papers please, and rejection of My Body My Choice. Plain and simple. Unlike republicans and democrats.
 
Last edited:
In order to ensure that everyone is vaccinated, Sanchez supports measures that would utilize encryption technology where doctors would upload our data to an app. That data would then be readable by a machine, most likely in the form of a QR Code. In other words, our information would not be gathered by the government...

Is there really anyone that naive?
 
There are numerous contexts in which showing evidence of vaccination is either already required or has clear benefits.

Completely irrelevant. Just because one historical vaccine works out well, with a very low risk vs. reward ratio (low risk, high reward), does not mean that every newly developed experimental vaccine is the right choice, especially with a disease that has a very low death rate, especially for relatively healthy people under 60 (high risk, low reward).

Not to mention the vested interests at play (pharma-government complex). Follow the money.
 
I am not surprised, really. We, individuals, need to drop these labels and say: "Being Free is a party all by itself." Standing for individual freedom take individuals to stand up, all by themselves--this is where leaders are born. All these groups support greedom not freedom.
 
The Cato Institute, a libertarian Koch Brothers think tank

Fixed that for ya!

Globalibertarians are evil.

Are Nazis capitalists? If so, then Cato are libertarians. Cato are globalists, posing as libertarians as part of yet another elaborate strawman by the globalists. If you have inifinity-cash (a central bank), as the globalists do, you can afford to buy up literally. everything. As they have done, at least, everything except what simply cannot be bought up -- those few souls who simply refuse to accept the deal-with-the-devil and sell out.

As far as I can tell, the only libertarians left standing are at the Mises Institute and it appears that even they, since roughly 2013-ish, have been surrounded from within by ranks and ranks of fake libertarians who I assume the globalists sent over to squat on the MI and wait until the current vanguard dies out so they can take the helm. These tactics go back many centuries, this is not a new playbook.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-IpQCoS1YA

Trump administration: Employers can require workers to get COVID-19 vaccine

Trump’s ‘operation warp-speed’ to create coronavirus vaccine pays off! Thank You President Trump

[h=1]Trump: 'Deep State' Delaying Coronavirus Vaccine[/h]

Libertarian Think Tank Comes Out in Support of Vaccine Passports From ‘Private Sector’

Globalibertarians are evil
.

EM.

Strong statement... invoking the word "evil" after putting "Libertarians" in thread title.

Since you feel so strongly on this issue, curious had you ever used such strong words as 'evil' in any of the above discussions on warp speed vaccine efforts by globalist deep pockets funded Trump...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Some points we should all be able to agree on:

1. The government should not issue vaccine passports, or fund them, or pass laws that require them for any purpose at all, including entry into the US from abroad.
2. The government should not ban private vaccine passports.
3. There probably is a market demand for private vaccine passports that some private entities would require on their property, which is their right. If these existed, they might also be accepted by foreign governments for entry into their countries, even if our state and federal governments didn't require them.

I can't say how much such a thing would actually take off. If government got out of the way and let the market work, we would find that out. Obviously a lot of people would refuse to get them. But there shouldn't be anything objectionable about allowing those who want them to get them.
 
1. The government should not issue vaccine passports, or fund them, or pass laws that require them for any purpose at all, including entry into the US from abroad.
2. The government should not ban private vaccine passports.
Either I am missing the point or you are...

If these vaccine passports aren't required "for any purpose at all", than nobody would want such a "passport", so there would be no need to ban anything!
 
Either I am missing the point or you are...

If these vaccine passports aren't required "for any purpose at all", than nobody would want such a "passport", so there would be no need to ban anything!

It's you who's missing the point.

They shouldn't be required for anything at all by the government, as I explicitly said in the very words you quoted. But private entities could reserve the right to require them for uses on their own properties. And again, the word "private" is right there explicitly in the words you quoted.

My point is that if private entities want to do that, it should be left up to them. And the market will either reward or punish them for it. But the government should stay out of it.
 
By this logic because property is private you can deny someone who is Black entrance. Public accommodations are not purely private and occupy a place somewhere in between public and private. They make money by advertising they are open to the public and so not really being open to the public is fraud.

Thus, when Sanchez writes that “Government shouldn’t force anyone to be vaccinated, but it should also be reluctant to override private businesses’ decisions about how to best protect and satisfy their customers and employees,”

So my customers are racist and they don't want to see Blacks. Is that ok?
 
Last edited:
No because as I explained a public accommodation business is not purely private. It is to be distinguished from, say, a home. CATO has been Deep State for awhile now.

Shouldn't it be up to the owner of the property to decide if they want the property that they own to be a public accommodation that's open to all or one that's only open to the people they choose to welcome there, and not the government to impose those categories on other people's properties?

That said, I do agree that those who do not believe that private vaccine passports should be allowed should, for the sake of consistency, also accept your argument that the government has a right to prohibit businesses from discriminating in other ways. I wonder if all the other folks railing against the Cato article have thought that through. I can't accept your statism. But I appreciate your consistency.
 
Last edited:
Some points we should all be able to agree on:

1. The government should not issue vaccine passports, or fund them, or pass laws that require them for any purpose at all, including entry into the US from abroad.
2. The government should not ban private vaccine passports.
3. There probably is a market demand for private vaccine passports that some private entities would require on their property, which is their right. If these existed, they might also be accepted by foreign governments for entry into their countries, even if our state and federal governments didn't require them.

I can't say how much such a thing would actually take off. If government got out of the way and let the market work, we would find that out. Obviously a lot of people would refuse to get them. But there shouldn't be anything objectionable about allowing those who want them to get them.
Nobody has the right to demand you inject experimental gene juice into your body.
We can't make the companies pay for the adverse reactions of customers who get the frankenshot so they have no right to demand it. (in addition to the basic moral problems with such a mandate)
 
Nobody has the right to demand you inject experimental gene juice into your body.

No they don't. And I never said they did, nor did that Cato article.

But they do have a right to refuse to do business with you if you don't inject that into your body, or for any other reason of their choice. And they have a right to do that without taking on any financial liability for any adverse effects of the injection. Those who don't consent to those terms could just refuse to do business with those who insist on them. The market would do all the work necessary of punishing that policy without any help from the government.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top