Forcing and also coercing people to get the vaccine is against the Nuremberg code that says:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
I think you're oversimplifying
. Humans can't live together in society without coercion. We mandate which side of the street to drive on, when to stop and go. We mandate seatbelts and front brakes. We mandate multiple childhood vaccinations to attend school, we mandate the education itself. We mandate safety standards, food and water inspection, building codes,&al.
Are these all illegitimate? Again, what makes a law or regulation legitimate?
I'd say laws should be tailored to need and prevention of harm. They should be functional while impacting freedom as little as possible.
Were the covid restrictions functional? Did their benefit outweigh their restrictiveness?
If unvaccinated, unmasked individuals posed a real and serious public threat; why would proportional restrictions be wrong? Why would they be more objectionable than closing a flooded road or evacuating a town about to be engulfed in a forest fire?
Firing people, or preventing them to move is coercing, if done to make people accept the shot.
Weigh the costs and benefits.
I think it depends on what is the law. But, for example law that says, don't murder, has obviously purpose to prevent murder. I think laws that all people can agree on are legitimate. For example don't murder, no one wants to be murdered, so it is a legitimate law. And in all cases, I think the law should be equal for all so that, if for example a world leader brakes the law, he gets the same punishment as anyone
One may create the same lethal effect either by direct or indirect means, and by either commission or omission. Regulations should be based on analysis of complex and multi step effects. Knee-jerk regs risk unintended consequences.
What do you think is more feasible: that I show you that my God exists,
