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

[Christian Liberty]

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?

It isn't.

Sometimes "libertarians" are our own worst enemies.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Methane is nontoxic on its own .

The Smell of Farts
Flatus often stinks! There are several chemicals that contribute to the smell of farts:
•skatole (by-product of meat digestion)
•indole (by-product of meat digestion)
•methanethiol (a sulfur compound)
•dimethyl sulfide (a sulfur compound)
•hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor, flammable)
•volatile amines
•short chain fatty acids

http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/f/What-Is-The-Chemical-Composition-Of-Farts.htm

 

[Anti Federalist]

Very nicely done.

+rep.

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 the Reason author is grossly distorting the definition of force: Force is about making a voluntary choice to use your free will to subjugate others, or to negligently but actively contaminate 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) with pollution on the level of corporations contaminating nearby properties to an unlivable condition.

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. 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."

 

[Ender]

Ben Swann fans the flames...

Ben Swann is Da Bomb!

 

[donnay]

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

Well said. +rep

 

[Contumacious]

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.

James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

 

[Contumacious]

James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

 

[juleswin]

James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

This post is an example of what happens when NAP and herd immunity is taken to its logical extremes. I am speechless

 

[mosquitobite]

Besides which, if taken to the next logical conclusion...
If vaccines work, then they are essentially wearing those "bullet proof" vests.

If it makes them feel more in control of an out of control world....well bless their little hearts. Might as well wear a bike helmet while driving too!

 

[Contumacious]

This post is an example of what happens when NAP and herd immunity is taken to its logical extremes. I am speechless

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

 

[mosquitobite]

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

Does the state have the authority to mandate that everyone wear a bullet proof vest? Because that's what this thread is about.

 

[angelatc]

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.

Not moral high ground. Intellectual high ground.

The vaccine inserts do not show that vaccines cause harm. The vaccine inserts show that vaccines, like anything else you put in your body, can have side effects.

Like it or not, the number of people who develop side effects to vaccines is incredibly minute. You're more likely to get hit by lightening if I may cherry pick a statistic. And compared to the number of people who would have been maimed or killed if the vaccine did not exist, it's simply ridiculous to walk around smugly claiming that vaccines cause more harm then the diseases they prevent.

MiniMe had the best post. It's a personal risk v reward, but the risk isn't only a personal one. Sick people spread diseases. And when they eventually decide to make vaccines mandatory, the people here trilling that they are dangerous will be the ones to blame. They handed them the ammo.

 

[juleswin]

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

No to all 3 questions. He committed a crime and should face judgement for it.

 

[Contumacious]

Does the state have the authority to mandate that everyone wear a bullet proof vest? Because that's what this thread is about.

Some of the previous posters have taken the position that by visiting public places your are ACCEPTING the risk of being exposed to pathogens and WAIVING any objections.

.

 

[mosquitobite]

Some of the previous posters have taken the position that by visiting public places your are ACCEPTING the risk of being exposed to pathogens and WAIVING any objections.

.

Everyday you step out of your bed is a risk. Life is full of risks.

Only control freaks think it is possible to eliminate every risk. The war on terror is just such an example.

The current vaccines in use came about only in the middle/latter half of the 20th century. After we had plumbed water, indoor toilets, washing machines, cars (no more horse manure in the streets), and germ theory (washing hands).

It is an utter illogical leap to pretend that if EVERY SINGLE vaccine was outlawed today that we would all suddenly keel over from infectious disease. We have better sanitary conditions than much of the world where such disease might still be prevalent. We have better MEDICAL advances and access than over half the world does.

So if you wish to live in fear, fine. But do not try to force your fear onto me or mine.

 

[Contumacious]

No to all 3 questions. He committed a crime and should face judgement for it.

Is it an act of aggression to infect me with a pathogen?

Had Mr. Holmes pumped Sarin or some other nerve gas into the theater equally convince you that was guilty of a crime?
.

 

[mosquitobite]

Is it an act of aggression to infect me with a pathogen?

Had Mr. Holmes pumped Sarin or some other nerve gas into the theater equally convince you that was guilty of a crime?
.

If you are wearing your bully proof vest or your gas mask (which is what vaccines would supposedly be in your analogy) then do you still feel this pity for these innocents who are not?

 

[rambone]

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?.

You believe in myths. Neither of these can be "prevented."

Incorrect it is the SAME FORCE

Are you saying that if you are coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you are not going to infect me with an airborne communicable disease?

If that is "force", by your standard, do you think it should be a crime to cough while in public?

So, if you know the dangers of not being vaccinated, but you still choose to not get the shots, and as a result you do indeed end up causing harm, why should you be entirely exempt from the consequences of that choice?

YOU make the choice to step out of your plastic bubble and walk into public.... into an uncontrolled environment where risk and disease exist. You can't expect the world outside your bubble to be controlled like a prison so you can avoid NATURE.

So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?

Quarantine? Oh you mean indefinite detention without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

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

My sister blacked out and had seizures for several minutes -- in the clinic -- immediately after getting her last vaccine. Vaccines maim, paralyze, and kill people every year. That's a documented fact. There is no way to have a "legitimate debate" with someone who denies that side effects exist.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Quarantine? Oh you mean indefinite detention without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

We established a long time ago that the poster in question doesn't give a crap about freedom or liberty.

Comparing diseases that a human CANNOT control with nerve gas DELIBERATELY released into the air is an absolutely stupid argument. But then, he knows that. He just doesn't give a crap about freedom. Dennis Kucinich probably supports more actual freedom than he does.

 

[Contumacious]

Everyday you step out of your bed is a risk. Life is full of risks.

Only control freaks think it is possible to eliminate every risk.

So when it comes to your RIGHT to spread pathogens well I don't really have a right to stand my ground.

.