Wednesday, May 20, 2020

On the Alan Dershowitz Claim that the Government has a Right to 'Plunge a Needle Into Your Arm'

Alan Dershowitz
Kevin K. emails:
Alan Dershowitz says that the State has a right to 'plunge a needle into your arm' and that the Constitution grants the government power to forcibly vaccinate individuals.
Thoughts on this?

RW response:

Well, first, I am not a big fan of the Constitution. I support a private property society.

But if we move beyond this, I see a number of problems with Dershowitz's argument. According to the article, he says:
Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business...And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm.
First, this is pre-crime thinking. How does Dershowitz know that I will endanger the public, that I will get infected and then infect someone else?

If this is Dershowitz's thinking, that we must "protect" everyone at all costs, how can he not then argue for the banning of cars that occasionally hit and kill pedestrians if he supports the closing of businesses because of the virus?

But his biggest problem is that in his comment he is arguing like a statist who wants to central plan parts of everyone's life.

Why can't those who choose not to get vaccinated, to not wear masks, etc. stay in areas where people do not demand such and those who choose to be around vaccinated, mask-wearing people do that?

Problem solved. No authoritarian creeps needed.



  1. The issue at stake is the right of government to limit movements "presuming" that movements could "endanger the public".
    Such degree of arbitrariness would make any right utterly devoid of meaning.
    If there exists some kind of situations that allows for the withdrawal of rights, for sure those situations would be staged and exploited to withdraw rights.
    Let's see: shootings, terror attacks, contagious viruses...

  2. Instead of linking to neocon site "wnd," you can post the actual clip

    Full 40 minute interview here

    Also of interest, with all this fear of potential forced vaccines, on 5/15 Trump said COVID-19 Vaccine Is "for everyone that wants to get it! Not everybody's gonna want to get it"

    Please note that after Trump said that , he looked to an unnamed man and asked "is that a correct statement?"
    (First of all, Why does the president have to ask someone else if what he says is correct??)

    The very irritable and unnamed asswipe is then directed by trump to the podium and the man sternly declares that the covid vaccine is for "THE ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION," in direct contrast to what trump had just said literally 2 seconds prior.

    One week prior, Trump had issued polar opposite statements about the COVID vaccine 1 day apart:
    Donald Trump says coronavirus will 'go away without a vaccine'
    trump 'very confident' there will be a covid-19 vaccine by end of 2020


  3. Would Dershowitz support the government mandating only nutritious foods so people don't become obese, the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths per year--heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc.?

    1. No, these behaviors only endanger the actor not others.

    2. But those others that do not take care of their health so are more susceptible to infectious diseases should not be able to burden anyone else to protect them. Of course the same goes for the health nuts also.

    3. The government will and does intervene to protect the actor against himself: suicide, illegal drugs, and mental problems are just three areas
      in which the state intervenes.

  4. I'll go to jail before I let Bill Gates stick a needle in my arm. Let's see... Bill Gates believes in radical population reduction - essentially culling the population. Would you take a vaccine from someone who wants you culled?

  5. Maybe, just maybe these lawyers in robes, that are government employees, have a conflict of interest when it comes to government powers.

    Case Dershowitz is citing: Massachusetts Supremes held that vaccines can be mandated.

    Then the US Supremes affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

    What happens if after we receive proper directions and warnings we don’t want to take the drugs?

    Never discuss the risks of vaccines. Why is there are “vaccine courts” limiting compensation to $250,000?

    Never discuss that the flu vaccines are only about 50% effective and have side effects and there has never been a vax developed for a corona virus (remember corona viruses have been known to cause about 20% of common colds for decades). Is this what we are legally required to have put in our bodies?

    Who decides and how is it decided when or which infectious diseases warrant forced drugs and medical procedures? C-19 has affected regions and demographics differently. Drugs and medical procedures do not have the same effectiveness for all demographics. Did the Supremes and the likes of Dershowitz take these facts into account? Do they care?

  6. RW's response is excellent although I am not sure about his recommendation that Pro-Vax and Anti-Vax live separately.

    I am not a fan of the Constitution but am surprised by Dershowitz's statement. The Constitution was designed as a prohibitory document not an empowering document. I do not believe (even in the tenth amendment) that it empowers the states. The Constitution simply states the federal government has only those powers enumerated within it and any other powers remain with the states or the people, which I believe is what is meant by "police powers" as written in 1776. Sadly, the people have elected state legislators that have passed laws that give them the legal authority to "plunge a needle in your arm." In fact they already do this, in particular with children. Not because of the Constitution but because the consent of the governed has presumably been obtained in each of the states via elections. Mob rule trumps individual rights. Another reason to reject the current political system.

  7. In a PPS, the property owners could have enforced an immediate prohibition of anyone coming from China or anywhere else (the next subdivision) whom they suspected might have had the virus. They could be as safe or carefree as they chose. If they over or under reacted based upon all factors including safety and economics, it's their personal gain or loss. Instead, the wise and all-knowing state punishes you for refusing to interact with various people who might make you sick (discrimination) and also punishes you for visiting with your family and friends who live in other homes because you refused to follow their orders.

    Central planning is always brilliant.

  8. Yes. Private property rights solve this. If a business wants to prohibit non vaccinated from entering the premises, they can. But if a doesn't, that injures nobody. It isn't like people are forced to go anywhere. If people want to stay home and self quarantine, they have every right to do so. And if the vaccines work, then who would the non vaccinated pose a risk to other than other non vaccinated folks? All a person has to do is get a vaccine and they would be protected. Would they not? How does their health depend on me taking a vaccine? Why should I have to light myself on fire to keep somebody else warm?

  9. The argument will be “but what about those that can get vaccinated due to their frailty (or something else).” Then it can be phrased that being unvaccinated is aggression towards the frail. It will convince the Reddit population.

  10. If the vaccine works, why would a vaccinated person fear an infected person? They are safe. They've been vaccinated.