People who advocate “mandatory vaccinations” make many assumptions.

They assume that some form of utilitarian ethic is correct.

They assume that cost-benefit calculations over the entire country or the world are at all possible.

They assume that actual calculations of total costs and benefits or pleasures and pains, if the vaccines work, favor forced vaccinations.

They assume that there are no long-term bad effects of the vaccines.

They assume that the actual vaccines presently available (which are unsafe and don’t work) will, when coerced onto people, in fact promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

And so on.

Shortages are popping up across the supply chain as the pandemic messes with the economy,” says CNN.

Lies. Government lockdowns have messed with the economy, not “pandemic.”

In addition, there are no “shortages” in the market economy. There is a rise in prices, but quantity suppled and quantity demanded still meet.

With the “vaccines” and genetic engineering in general, there is now a distinct danger of mankind corrupting its own nature through manipulation of genetic materials.

Women will be bearing monstrous children, goatmen will be rampaging through the streets, etc.

It would be a disgraceful end to the human race, even worse than nuclear annihilation, and we must not let this happen.

It’s true that “corrupt billionaires run the corrupt government,” but the libertarian point is that we should keep the billionaires (and allow new entrepreneurs to become billionaires in the future) and abolish the government.

I believe that a large part of the COVID-vaccinated population will die from the vaccines within a year or shortly thereafter, and that this outcome has been planned from the beginning.

Jakub Wisniewski writes,

The libertarian ethic says: aggression may occasionally be justified, but it always — though not necessarily permanently — makes the aggressor a criminal.

One of the examples he gives is “unless I threaten you with a gun, thereby coercing you to row a boat, we will all drown.”

The idea is that if I threaten you, I save our lives but become liable to be sued for damages and even punished. The other guy can forgive me, but he doesn’t have to. I think that’s a great point.

If you want to bring about the “greater good” by unlawful acts, why must you sacrifice others in so doing? What kind of an incentive does such a rule set for people, that they can use violence with impunity as long as they can claim some utilitarian result?

Instead, if one feels heroic, he should sacrifice himself. Coerce the other guy into rowing if you must, but be prepared to suffer the consequences yourself later.

It was Trump who gave us these evil and stupid “vaccines.”

The great would-be swamp drainer has a lot to answer for.

My guess is that Trump was simply naive, falsely thinking that he could make government work.

Mercola reports that the makers of the COVID vaccines are scrapping their clinical trials, hoping to bury any evidence that their poison does not work.

But of course. What incentives do they have to produce vaccines that are both safe and effective?

Even if they are not safe, they have no liability.

And even if they are not effective, the government, egged on by a fearful and ignorant mob, will still buy them.

So to quote Hillary, what difference does it make? In any case, the clinical trials are being conducted globally right now. As a commenter on the article says, I’m in the control group.