Posted on 10/20/2021 6:43:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
As recently as late August, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said private businesses in his state were free to require that their employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. His press secretary explained that "private businesses don't need government running their business."
Abbott evidently reassessed that premise because last week, he issued an executive order that says "no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer." For anyone who genuinely cares about overweening government interference with free enterprise, Abbott's order is just as objectionable as the pending federal rule demanding that private companies with 100 or more employees require them to choose between vaccination and weekly coronavirus testing.
Abbott likes to brag about his state's "business-friendly climate." But even before last week's order, he was not prepared to let businesses decide for themselves how best to address COVID-19 hazards.
A state law that Abbott signed on June 16 says "a business in this state may not require a customer to provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain access to, or to receive service from the business." Here is how Abbott explained his support for that law: "Texas is open 100 percent, and we want to make sure that you have the freedom to go where you want without limits."
That position sacrifices property rights and freedom of association on the altar of an unlimited "freedom" that has never been legally recognized: a customer's right to dictate the terms on which businesses offer products or services. By Abbott's logic, any business that proclaims "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or sets other rules for customers is thereby violating their freedom of movement.
The June 16 law still allowed businesses to require that their employees be vaccinated. But now Abbott has eliminated that option as well.
In principle, Abbott's order, which he asked the Texas legislature to codify, is no less outrageous than President Joe Biden's plan to dictate employers' vaccine policies through a "emergency temporary standard" issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. While Abbott accused Biden of "bullying" private employers, the governor is equally unwilling to tolerate deviation from the one business policy he thinks is best.
The conflict between the OSHA rule (which has not been published yet) and Abbott's decree puts Texas businesses in an uncomfortable position. Large employers can either listen to him, risking federal fines by defying OSHA, or ignore him, risking state fines by flouting one of the governor's "emergency" orders.
The Houston Chronicle reports that "major corporations based in Texas, including Southwest Airlines and American Airlines," said "they would abide by Biden's rules over Abbott's." What about the owners of smaller companies who have concluded that requiring vaccination makes good business sense? Abbott thinks their opinions don't matter.
"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced," Abbott tweeted last week. But if someone is "forced" to do something whenever it is a condition of employment, all sorts of business decisions are ripe for second-guessing by politicians who deem them unfair or unreasonable.
"Texas is where liberty lives," Abbott's office says. "That's why the Lone Star State leads the nation in job creation over the last 10 years and in population growth over the last 14. As the 9th largest economy among the nations of the world, Texas offers a business-friendly climate -- with no corporate or personal income tax -- along with a highly skilled workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure and predictable regulations."
Those "predictable regulations" apparently include Abbott's unilateral ban on employee vaccination requirements, which came less than two months after he said such policies would be allowed. Despite what you might think, Abbott's idea of "liberty" clearly does not include the freedom to run your own business, unencumbered by arbitrary government edicts.
Umm, see Citizens United vs FEC. Apparently, corporations do have first amendment rights.
People like this need to shut the *bleep* up. He’s actually comparing what Abbot is doing in guaranteeing the liberty of the people to Biden’s tyrannical diktats? This is Mitt Romney level stupidity. But he, that’s Town Hall for ya.
~~~~
When you mandate what people must have injected into their bodies, something that is UNREMEDY-ABLE, employers are crossing a very critical line.
~~~~
If you see an employer hold down an employee, and forcibly give him a vaccination, you let us and authorities know. That’s called assault, and it’s a felony. But that scenario is just a lie, isn’t it?
~~~~
What if a private employer suddenly implemented a policy that all employees must take up smoking, and must smoke at least a couple of cigs on their breaks, verified by supervisors? Would you be okay with this?
~~~~
Then non-smoking employees would be free to find employment elsewhere, and the employer would face overwhelming odds against finding qualified employees for producing his product.
Simple.
You forget that many of these employer mandates are being pressed down on the employers by a tyrannical federal mandate.
You forget that many of these employer mandates are being pressed down on the employers by a tyrannical federal mandate.
~~~~
Wrong. Re-read my posts. Just because the title article favors Biden’s pro-vaccine mandate or Abbott’s anti-vaccine mandate doesn’t mean that my objection places me on the other side. All of these government mandates against corporation personnel policies are wrong.
If I’m forced to choose my tyranny, I’ll choose the one which allows for the most liberty.
Again, no one is being prevented from getting vaxxed if they want to. Abbott’s order doesn’t change this.
Again, no one is being prevented from getting vaxxed if they want to. Abbott’s order doesn’t change this.
~~~~
Sure. I’ve never said otherwise. This is about whether or not government entities have a right to mandate that companies require or not require that their employees get vaccinated.
Governments have no such right.
I understand your reticence to endorse any government mandate, and I too am against any government entities mandating a position. In a perfect world this would not be the case. But Abbott is merely pushing back against a greater tyranny of the federal government.
What about government employees? Do you favor vaccine mandates for government employees, many of whom are approaching retirement tenure when they would be vested in a retirement account, or do you want those governments to be able to mandate a vax for continued employment?
Thanks, I’ll stay on topic.
I like many Libertarians. There are some really good ones like Dave Smith.
This guy is not one of the good ones.
I did a quick Google search and I can’t find any articles by Mr. Sullum after Biden proposed the vaccine mandate criticizing his decision but now that a state wants to DEFEND freedom, he has a problem and needs to let his voice be heard.
I couldn’t find any articles from this guy from 2020 over the forced business closures by state governments either. For some reason, the state telling a business to close is fine with Mr Sullum but not allowing them to fire employees who don’t participate in medical experiments is goberné men that overreach.
I also see that he is ok with mask mandates in schools but I can guarantee you he would be against the 10 Commandments being in the schools.
What a creep and a grifter.
I really don’t think you are thinking this through. The original aggression was by the Federal Government. They said the businesses MUST enforce the mandates.
Gov. Abbott’s decision was a form of defense.
If the Federal government made a rule mandating that all businesses must immediately fire all Christians and a Governor passed a law saying that it was illegal to do that, would you criticize the Governor? Because that is what you are doing here.
Well, unless that person owns a business.
Preventing kill shots is SO authoritarian omg next thing they’ll be coming for my sex slaves!
Tin-pot-dictator wannabees come in all flavors...
Did you check from the list that I posted. There might be something. I have no idea.
I have no idea if he is a libertarian or not. I have never read him mention it. The only one who does is John Stossel.
As I asked in another post....
If the Federal government made a rule mandating that all businesses must immediately fire all Christians and a Governor passed a law saying that it was illegal to do that, would you criticize the Governor?
I don’t see the difference between these scenarios.
The federal government made the initial aggression against the liberty of the business owners. Sometimes acts of defense aren’t pretty nor would they be legitimate without some other instigating act.
Well, your scenario would be illegal because neither the government nor private business can discriminate on the basis of religion, but I agree with your basic point that both the federal and state laws infringe on the rights of the business owners.
I guess the question is is there compelling public health interest in firing Christians. I don't see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.