Hypothetical Threats

Professor Groeteschele: Do you believe that Communism is NOT our mortal enemy?
Brigadier General Warren A. Black: You're justifying murder.
Professor Groeteschele: Yes, to keep from being murdered.
--Fail Safe

A common argument among the pro vax mandate crowd goes like this. If you are not vaccinated, then you might infect others with the CV19 virus. Therefore you must get vaccinated to mitigate the threat that you pose.

Let's set aside the scientific issue of vaccine effectiveness for now--an issue that calls into question individual capacity to convey the virus regardless of vaccination status, and the extent to which vaccination protects individuals from infection.

Instead, let's focus on the legal issues. The argument proposes a hypothetical threat: that an individual could be carrying a virus that might be conveyed to others in a manner that could lead their infection. This of course, is purely speculation and conjecture. Accusations of wrongdoing framed in this manner would be quickly dismissed in courts of law.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property against unreasonable search and seizure by government. Any search and seizure must be preceded by a warrant, affirmed by a judge, that articulates the rationale (i.e., 'probable cause') that justifies government invasion, specifies the particulars of the invasion--e.g, the place to be searched, or the individuals or items to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections from the federal down to the state level.

It should be clear that a hypothetical threat, where someone wants to forcibly interfere with the pursuits of another individual out of speculation that the individual might harm them is not a legitimate reason for government intervention. Any forcible interference that does take place under such circumstances must be deemed as a criminal act of aggression.

The forced vaccination argument therefore proceeds along similar lines as the forced quarantine argument.

The pro vax crowd want to preempt a hypothetical threat by imposing forced vaccinations on individuals--with no probable cause nor due process. Similar to preemptive military strikes, such action is characteristic of aggression rather than of self-defense.