Reason Magazine supports forced vaccinations; "no libertarian case for vaccine refusal"

[bolil]

Yet here we are debating. I guess it isn't real to some people unless it is followed with a dot gov. I don't give a fuck if every doctor in the world said, "Vaccinate everyone," the fact remains that if you are going to stick a needle in me, you better fucking kill me... we know how that ends.

Vocal minority? When do you get off? Yeah? No debate? Then why did I almost die before i even started recording memories on account of a vaccine? Sepsis is a bitch, all it takes is a penetration. How do needles work again?

Now, lets talk about antibiotics. What is happening, now that they are being over prescribed? (It goes into the pro forced vaccination crowd's ridiculous, and blatantly hypocritical, sentiments about public health

HAHA! If there was no debate, why are you typing? I guess there is debate.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's just one person's opinion, the magazine is not monolithic.

They do represent the magazine, though. Companies hire employees with the knowledge that every employee will, in one way or another, represent the company. This is especially true in writing.

 

[bolil]

If you think a piece claiming that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccine program was ineffective and shrouded in mystery should be debunked in a thread about mandatory vaccines, then I can only assume your brain organizes information much differently than mine does. Because logically, I can't make any sense out of your position.

And you would stand behind coerced vaccinations? Tell you what, you have been designated an intellectual virus. The only cure is culling. Now, how do you feel about forced vaccinations? It doesn't really matter. If it comes down to that, fuck it, death is freedom.

 

[bolil]

It's all hypothetical, but my answer is the person who made the choice not to get vaccinated and then spread the disease is to blame. The precedent is there in the case of STDs. If Bob gives Jane herpes, she can sue him. He could try to collect damages from the person who gave him the disease, but that does not alleviate his responsibility to Jane.




But the anaolgy was not that getting drunk was contagious. The analogy was that getting drunk was akin to not getting a vaccine, in the respect that your choice could end up causing harm to another, albeit inadvertantly.



We were talking about civil court last time I checked.

and the fuck it is. A person DRINKS, that is, TAKES and ACTION to get drunk. A person is not infected by their own volition. Are you that ignorant as regards NAP? Shit, holding man culpable for nature conjures up the precum of monsanto. They will fuck you, and then send you a bill.

 

[angelatc]

Yet here we are debating. I guess it isn't real to some people unless it is followed with a dot gov. I don't give a fuck if every doctor in the world said, "Vaccinate everyone," the fact remains that if you are going to stick a needle in me, you better fucking kill me... we know how that ends.

Vocal minority? When do you get off? Yeah? No debate? Then why did I almost die before i even started recording memories on account of a vaccine? Sepsis is a bitch, all it takes is a penetration. How do needles work again?

Now, lets talk about antibiotics. What is happening, now that they are being over prescribed? (It goes into the pro forced vaccination crowd's ridiculous, and blatantly hypocritical, sentiments about public health

No we are not debating. Like the last sentence says, a debate requires both sides to have evidence.

Of course genuine debates do exist in science, but they end up being resolved through more experiments and better theories.

 

[angelatc]

and the fuck it is. A person DRINKS, that is, TAKES and ACTION to get drunk. A person is not infected by their own volition. Are you that ignorant as regards NAP?

I don't believe in the NAP. Try again.

 

[angelatc]

And you would stand behind coerced vaccinations? Tell you what, you have been designated an intellectual virus. The only cure is culling. Now, how do you feel about forced vaccinations? It doesn't really matter. If it comes down to that, fuck it, death is freedom.

Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

I've come to realize that that line, "There is no debate!" is the signature of someone who is trying to hide the real debate.

 

[bolil]

I don't believe in the NAP. Try again.

LOL .don't believe in the NAP, well, I don't believe in gravity and yet am subject to it.

Don't believe in the NAP? What, you believe in coercion then? That's nice, makes for a peaceful world, too.

Shit, I can even call myself a unicorn? Don't make it so, though, does it?

So you can say, stupidly, that you don't believe in the NAP (WHAT THE FUCK?!?!LOL) but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Would you knock on my door and force a needle into my kids arm? No, I think not, such behavior isn't good for ones health. But you can't be one of those who would send others to do a thing you lack the stomach for, could you?

 

[donnay]

Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

You do speak out of both sides of your mouth. You should be a politician--Eduardo could be your PR person.

 

[bolil]

Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

If you want to use my native tongue, use less big words. You don't support them, but you do. Have you considered running for congress? The vulgarity you have down, now work on the finer points. Get the vernacular right, knowhaIsayin? Or come off like a fucking retard. Its up to you.

I'll send a primer on basic grammar to you, pronto. "Speaking of ignorant, I've already told you my position of mandatory vaccines. Sure, I prevaricate when I say I do not support mandatory vaccinations, because I only support forced ones. We all know forced and mandatory are two different things entirely, don't we?" FIFY.

Right, we forced our troops into the Stan. There was nothing mandatory about it. smh.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen. Nobody here is arguing for mandatory vaccines, so you can stop trilling about that.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM, not because the government lies about everything just because it can, but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

"Just because it can..."? Are you seriously trying to say that the government has no interest in controlling the health of the population? You see the government's agenda on other things, but in this case you just give it a pass because, well, the government doesn't control things "just because it can." What makes it so arbitrary just on this issue? The government has a vested interest in Obamacare, school funding, etc, but when it comes to vaccinations, all of a sudden they would have absolutely no reason to try and control health. Never mind the FDA eliminating competition and providing a market of billions for the pharmaceutical industries. I mean, surely you're not too blind to see that the pharmaceutical industry is being supported by government, but then agian, if you did see that, then you would have to be absolutely stupid not to make the connection to vaccines.

 

[moostraks]

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen. Nobody here is arguing for mandatory vaccines, so you can stop trilling about that.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM, not because the government lies about everything just because it can, but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

The vaccine inserts show that vaccines do cause harm. it is disingenuous to act as if your position is one of moral high ground because the die off of those who are harmed isn't significant by your standards.

 

[mosquitobite]

Contumacious's post just shows you the culture of fear that vaccination "science" has created by stipulating that "herd immunity" is a must. Now, it's all of a sudden everyone's business whether you choose to inject yourself because, hey, it affects everyone, right? No, but it's a convenient way to get everyone to comply, isn't it? Now, instead of the clear lines we have between aggression and non-aggression, we have self-proclaimed libertarians who choose to muddy the waters by quantifying airborne pathogens as a type of force. God help us all.

Amen.

They WORSHIP their herd immunity.

 

[bolil]

Amen.

They WORSHIP their herd immunity.

Same dumber-than-shit herd that bred super bacteria for... errr. public safety reasons? LOL, yeah, vaccinate. Make sure you give your children a copy of the Chicago Tribune so they have a resistance for pandered bullshit. If I ever have a child, Ill be dead before a stranger sticks ANYTHING in them. Old school, I am, just lingering on. If you were not arguing for mandatory state administered vaccines, then why doth thou protest our protestations?

Cause disease can kill you? Welcome to fucking life. (If you would try to use my vernacular, make sure you accent only major points with vulgarity

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Just look around at the health of your average man. A lot of good those vaccines are doing, eh?

 

[DamianTV]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

Taking a Subjective Opinion and twisting it to be an Objective Truth does not make it the truth.

Thou shalt not kill.

But somehow, its IS okay for one person to order another person to end the life of anyone. That somehow makes the order to kill both Moral and Lawful. Loopholing.

Theft and Collection of Taxes is similar. It is generally not considered to be moral for me to come directly to you and deprive you of money I want for Welfare. But get someone else to do it suddenly makes it both Moral and Lawful.

So lets cut the crap. If you want me to be Forcibly Vaccinated, then cut out the Middleman and the excuses that so many people hide behind, and have YOU come to my front door and have you try to Forcibly Vaccinate me. I will warn you that I will fully resist your Forced Actions on to me or my Family with minimum necessary force that I am willing to extend to become Lethal. I do not want to, but I am willing to put a bullet in your skull to stop you from forcing a Vaccine on me.

(Not trying to threaten, playing out a Hypothetical worst case scenario, youre perfectly safe from me and I wont touch your family, period.)

Im not going to come to your door, and again, cut out the Middleman (Govt) and try to hide behind a series of excuses to take something from you or try to force you to do ANY action. Why? Because I know I would be in the Wrong to do that because it infringes on your Rights, and you would fully be within your Rights to defend yourself and your Family against ANY aggresses that I could possibly make on to you.

Now, if you think that you are so correct in Forcing Vaccinations, you come to my front door and just try it.

This PLANET has survived for BILLIONS of years without Vaccines. The very concept that we will not survive without Vaccines is complete BS. So for anyone to think that our Science of today is as modern as we are going to get is a load of crap. Most people understand that. The shit that currently exists in our world is toxic. Hell, we cant even take the safest of things like Water for granted any more as it is so loaded up with toxic chemicals that even our water, and very air we breathe is killing us.

Our food is Toxic. Our clothing is Toxic. Our Paint is Toxic. Our Toys are Toxic. Our Medicines are Toxic. Damn near everything in our lives is becoming or has already been turned Toxic. What makes Vaccines so magically safe? Biased Studies? Im not going to bother trying to debate with you on the legitimacy of those studies as we both know that some vaccines can be both safe and effective, but not all, and its not necessarily the vaccines itself. I think it is very possible it could be the preservatives that could be dangerous. You are right on a lot of accounts, but you miss the point on others that Studies are Unbiased, thus, they cant be considered to be truly Objective.

I think it is this "Blind Faith" in these Studies and other statments that has gotten us into the problems we have today in so many different aspects of our lives. Banks are perfectly safe and protect the Value of your Money, according to the Bankers. We wont abuse our Powers of Surveillance on the German Citizens, until we find out someone is Jewish, according to Hitler. We wont abuse the Power we have over the people, unless we find that a person opposes our Total Control, according to Mao. It is that "Blind Faith" that I think we can agree causes many of those that are "still asleep" to "stay asleep". War is good for the Economy, according to the Warmongers. Pot should be outlawed, according to anyone who stands to lose money due to Pot being legalized, both Dealers and Legal Industry.

Do I trust every Industry claim that their products (not just vaccines) are safe? Fuck no. Do I trust every claim where the Industry knowingly distributes something that is toxic? Fuck no. If I were, that would be on me because I'd be following that same set of actions I just condoned. Blind Faith. I need to do my own damn research. Thats on me if I do or dont. I dont have all the correct answers. I can admit I flat out dont know. Make your claims that such and such a study says this thing or method is safe, thats fine, but its still on me to validate your claims one way or the other.

At the same time, I do expect that you may take the time to validate any claims that I make through your own efforts. Even if I did have the "correct answer", even something as saying 111 x 111 is 12,321, I would actually HOPE that you dont take it at face value and check it for yourself (which is simple enough to plug into a calculator to either validate or invalidate my statement). Figuring the solution to that problem can be just as easily calculated in your head, it just requires a slightly different perspective in the way a person thinks about math. Another trick is with Elevens. 43 x 11 = 473. Just add the two numbers together and put the sum in the middle. Sums going over ten are a bit harder, 87 x 11 = 947. Blind Faith is the problem, and if you take the time to check my facts I just stated, you'd find one of those math statements is incorrect (I did that on purpose), just to prove the consequences.

Point is, what it seems like you are doing here is claiming that ONLY your answer can be the correct one, and you seem to EXPECT me to exhibit that same pattern of "Blind Faith" in your claims. Any responsible person can not do that.

I went off on Zippy too, and it wasnt intended as a Personal Attack on him, but his ideas. Its not that I want to start a fight with anyone. What I'd like to see people do instead of only trying to discredit any claims anyone else makes is to offer up Solutions or Possible Solutions. I know Im just as guilty of that as well, not offering Solutions to Problems, so Im trying to hold myself to a higher standard. You and Donnay have been going back and forth on this Credit / Discredit cycle, and Im mostly staying out of it. Donnay consistently tries to offer Alternatives and Solutions. I know I need to offer more Solutions. I think You, Zippy, and ME would all do better if we try to offer Solutions that offers our Respect to each other even when we disagree. But if we do not try to come to a Solution that works for anyone, we are no better than the Warmongers.

We both need to Lead by Example by our behaviors, even if we do not agree on everything.

/vent

 

[Thor]

Ben Swann fans the flames...

 

[Mini-Me]

There's a lot of fighting going on here between Angela and other board members about the merits of vaccination, but I think it's important to recall that someone did call for mandatory vaccination, and it came from Reason of all places. That is where the outrage is coming from.

Ultimately, I think Ronald Bailey is grossly distorting the definition of force and aggression: Aggression is about making a voluntary choice to use your free will to subjugate others, and it can be extended to include recklessly but actively contaminating the environment (other people's property, air, etc.) on a scale that exceeds the "wear and tear" of ordinary living (like dumping chemicals into the water supply, or pumping toxins into the air, etc.). Bacteria and viruses have always infected us and spread through us, and they've been the norm of human life since before history began, so I find it hard to imagine how anyone could conflate someone walking around with an illness as usual (let alone just walking around with greater probabilistic susceptibility to an illness) with pollution on the level of corporations contaminating nearby properties to an unlivable condition.

On the subject of force, this author may be able to engage in enough sophistry and mental gymnastics to reframe the notion of disease transmission as some form of "force," but that cannot hide the blatant use of force that mandatory vaccinations require. Stabbing someone in the arm against their will is force by any libertarian's definition, and you don't need any mental gymnastics to see it. Moreover, preemptive force cannot be construed as defensive force when you're using it against a mere potential threat of force. In a standoff or hostage situation, libertarians can justify shooting first as defensive force when they are defending against a credible and imminent threat of force greater than or equal to the defensive force used. Mandatory vaccines do not qualify. Instead, the kind of preemptive force required by mandatory vaccines is the same kind of preemptive force advocated by the Bush Doctrine in the context of preemptive warfare. In other words, Ronald Bailey is quite literally arguing for the Bush Doctrine in the context of preemptive vaccination. I thought there was a reason we aren't neoconservatives?

It is surely possible to spread diseases by "force," i.e. on purpose, like if you get infected by something and deliberately cough in people's faces (or have sex with as many people as possible if you're HIV-positive - just an example of course, so no need for an HIV debate here ). However, most of the time, diseases spread by complete accident. Sometimes, that's just life. We call it force when you shove someone, but we do not call it force when you trip and fall into them. A victim may be entitled to restitution nevertheless (if you accidentally knocked them into a table and gave them a concussion or something), but how would it be libertarian to preemptively force the purchase of extra-balance-preserving shoes from e.g. New Balance (not that I dislike New Balance) as a preventative measure? That is after all the very kind of thing this author is suggesting, except in the case of New Balance it's a lot less invasive. If you take this "preventative" logic to its natural conclusion, you can justify literally ANY amount of force in the name of "keeping people safe," up to and including enacting laws that ban you from leaving your house (because you might track water onto the convenience store floor, which an old lady will slip on and die from).

It seems to me that the mandatory vaccination crowd is not a fan of either individual liberty or even democracy but pure institutional authoritarianism and paternalism. After all, a small handful of refuseniks is never going to be enough to seriously damage "herd immunity." The only way "herd immunity" could ever be damaged is if a LARGE percentage of people chose not to take vaccines. If that ever happened, the forced vaccination crowd would say something like, "So what if so many people disagree with me? No matter how many there are, even if it became a majority, their opinions about what to do with their bodies don't matter. Only OUR opinions about what to do with their bodies matter, because we side with Science (TM)...and don't give me that tripe about science being about the scientific method. Science is about faith in the authority of the most prolifically journal-published scientists!" So...by that logic, why don't we let appointed institutional leaders in ALL areas make autocratic decisions for everyone about what's best for them? It worked well in the good old USSR!

For the record, I'm mostly vaccinated. I believe in the utility of vaccines, but the benefits of probabilistic immunization have to be weighed against the potential risks, and that's a personal decision. In many cases, the benefits outweigh the risk to me. In others, they don't. I can't weigh in on the autism debate, but I do know that people have occasionally died from vaccines. That's a fact I have never seen contested, and I think it lays bare the obvious: Forced vaccines are about stripping people's free will to make their own risk/reward judgments, supplanting it with your own, and violating their ownership of their body to stab them with a needle, for your own presumed benefit. You can sugar-coat it all you like, but at the end of the day it is not libertarian in the least.

Even aside from the issue of personal liberty, the coercive vaccination crowd seems to forget: Putting all of your eggs in one basket and creating a monoculture is rarely a good idea. Nature is VICIOUS when it comes to annihilating monocultures in one fell swoop. Here's some science for you: Monocultures are how extinction happens. If something ever goes *really* wrong with a particular vaccine, you don't want it to be the vaccine everyone was forced to take under pain of rape cage. "Whoops, we didn't know this mass-manufactured vaccine was contaminated with extra DNA bits that would accidentally sterilize everyone. Here's your $2 settlement stake after the class action lawyers' cuts. Enjoy watching humanity's extinction."

 

[otherone]

I'm confused. Some people believe that mandatory vaccination is a legitimate excuse for the existence of the state? That vaccinations are a power granted to the state to "protect" people without regards to their Rights? How is this any different than seat belt laws or the TSA?