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

[angelatc]

There is no way to have a "legitimate debate" with someone who denies that side effects exist.

Nobody legitimately ever denies that side effects exist, but that doesn't ever stop the strawman from appearing.


So my point still stands - there is no legitimate debate.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

.

You're talking about pre-crime here, not to mention that pathogens act independently of the person "Spreading" them.

 

[mosquitobite]

Comparing diseases that a human CANNOT control with nerve gas DELIBERATELY released into the air is an absolutely stupid argument.

Besides, the latest study on DTaP shows the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers, so they should be the ultimate criminal. At least if I'm coughing you can avoid me.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Their position is that if they kill you with a silencer, it's ok. they still have the intellectual and moral high ground.

 

[juleswin]

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?
.

I dont think this is a black and white sort of issue. For example, for your first question, the answer can be yes, if the infected person came to my face and coughed when they know they have an airborne and contagious disease. This is an attack on my person when an infected person does that, on the other hand a person with influenza coughing with a contagious range, maybe covering his/her mouth is not committing an act of aggression.

Now this will be different for a more fatal and no curable, imaginary disease like HIV(or even Tuberculosis) like airborne disease. Now, a person with such should be banished from society just like they used to do to lepers in the olden days and you will get no objections from me if they refused to take the necessary precautions to protect others.

So, yea, it depends on what disease we are talking about and the actions/inaction taken by the infected person.

 

[angelatc]

Besides, the latest study on DTaP shows the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers, so they should be the ultimate criminal. At least if I'm coughing you can avoid me.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Their position is that if they kill you with a silencer, it's ok. they still have the intellectual and moral high ground.

Thanks for helping remind everybody why smart people can legitimately claim intellectual high ground. The FDA study does not say that the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers. It says they are capable of being asymptomatic carriers but only after being exposed to the disease.

Since the odds of coming into contact with the disease rises right along with the rate of unvaccinated population, smart people are able to conclude that the vaccines indeed limit the spread of disease even within a population of vaccinated asymptomatic carriers.

 

[Contumacious]

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


.

A libertarian argument for vaccination

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

 

[mosquitobite]

A libertarian argument for vaccination

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm


FEAR PORN!!!

 

[angelatc]

Bet her parents got vaccinated to protect her!

You'd rather talk than read, it seems:

a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated against pertussis is to protect infants, since they're the most likely to suffer death as a side effect.

 

[jtstellar]

here's the obama controversy where he wants to force buy everyone their own health insurance for their own good, while denying that claim you have LP guys stating it is for people's own good to force vaccinate every single person.. certainly helps making the argument in the libertarian perspective.. this is why i never buy into the purity fucking bs when ppl compare lp to republicans.. lesser evil at best and it depends on issues only

 

[mosquitobite]

You'd rather talk than read, it seems:

The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated against pertussis is to protect infants, since they're the most likely to suffer death as a side effect.

Except, I read the whole damned linked article and NO WHERE did they prove that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ation-extremists/story-fni0cwl5-1226650422913

Says she caught it in the hospital, where, I'm sure, medical care-givers must be immunized.

Keep on with your fear porn though. Works for the neo-cons!

 

[Mini-Me]

A libertarian argument for vaccination

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

Comprehensive response:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...refusal-quot&p=5339277&viewfull=1#post5339277

TL;DR version: You and the author are quite literally arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine's view on preemptive force against potential violent/forceful threats. There's a huge difference between "shooting first" in legitimate last-resort self-defense against an imminent and credible threat, and using arbitrary preemptive force against anything you think *might* threaten you in the future. Very careful you must be about conflating the two, or to the dark side it will lead.

here's the obama controversy where he wants to force buy everyone their own health insurance for their own good, while denying that claim you have LP guys stating it is for people's own good to force vaccinate every single person.. certainly helps making the argument in the libertarian perspective.. this is why i never buy into the purity fucking bs when ppl compare lp to republicans.. lesser evil at best and it depends on issues only

The issue isn't really about the author going wrong by being "too pure" of a libertarian and taking the NAP "too far." The issue is about him fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of defensive force altogether, to the point where his views on self-defense aren't libertarian at all but neoconservative. You can apply the same argument to preemptive warfare against uppity Middle Eastern countries...as some people notoriously do. Once you pervert a fundamental principle so thoroughly (often from trying to find an excuse to indulge in authoritarianism on some pet issue), there's no end to the kind of logical errors you can make.

 

[angelatc]

Except, I read the whole damned linked article and NO WHERE did they prove that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ation-extremists/story-fni0cwl5-1226650422913

Says she caught it in the hospital, where, I'm sure, medical care-givers must be immunized.

Says the person trying to change the subject after wondering aloud if the infant had been vaccinated. *snort*

I would like to point out that your source is the Australian anti-vax queen. It is unverified, and was in the article as evidence that these people are loons:

On May 3, 2009, Dorey wrote [on her anti-vax blog] that Dana caught whooping cough in the hospital as a newborn: "The only thing that is fairly certain, according to Dana's doctor, is that she probably did come into contact with pertussis in the hospital - not after she went home."

According to her mother, they don't know where she caught it, but the vaccine rate in the area was dangerously low and there was an active outbreak of pertussis that they weren't warned about;

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-mccaffery-whooping-cough-awareness/danas-story/302506833170327

We wrongly assumed our family was protected because we were all vaccinated at birth. However, we did not know that:
- The Northern Rivers region has one of the nation’s lowest childhood vaccination rates
- The vaccination wanes after 10-12 years, so almost 90% of adults are no longer immunised
- Vaccination is only effective if the majority of the community does it.

Dana contracted Pertussis in the first weeks of her life. No one else in our family has tested positive for Pertussis or had a cough. We have tortured ourselves with questions: Was it in the hospital? Was it from our son’s school or daughter’s childcare centre? Was it at the GPs? Was it at a birthday party? Or was it a loving relative or friend who doesn’t know they have the bacteria?

It doesn’t matter… we are all innocent victims in this.

We are devastated that Dana’s death is the catalyst for change and dearly wish we had the chance to wrap her in cotton wool as families across Australia are doing now.

Lismore Base Hospital has been admitting up to two children per week for Pertussis and Dana was the third newborn airlifted from this region to Brisbane in as many weeks. But, no one in our community knew.

So go ahead, tell the mother of the dead baby that she is wrong, and that her kid would be better of if nobody ever got vaccines.

 

[rambone]

The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated....

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that the side effects exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.

 

[mosquitobite]

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that they exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.

This is the disconnect that bothers me most.

Everyone knows there are some people who are allergic to penicillin and therefore we shouldn't give them that drug. Some people are allergic to formaldehyde. Some people are allergic to eggs. Some people are allergic to latex.

But vaccines? SCREW THE WORLD! One size fits all! For the greater good and all! Sounds purely evil, from my point of view.

They could at least TRY to figure out the common denominator on all those who have vaccine reactions so that children can be tested for such PRIOR to vaccination. But nope, that's just ignorance. Vaccines are 100% safe says the government! Now go get your flu shot!

 

[mosquitobite]

Says the person trying to change the subject after wondering aloud if the infant had been vaccinated. *snort*


According to her mother, they don't know where she caught it, but the vaccine rate in the area was dangerously low and there was an active outbreak of pertussis that they weren't warned about;

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-mccaffery-whooping-cough-awareness/danas-story/302506833170327




So go ahead, tell the mother of the dead baby that she is wrong, and that her kid would be better of if nobody ever got vaccines.

I said I bet her parents got vaccinated. Not the baby. Seems neither side has the intellectual high ground, huh sister!

 

[angelatc]

This is the disconnect that bothers me most.

Everyone knows there are some people who are allergic to penicillin and therefore we shouldn't give them that drug. Some people are allergic to formaldehyde. Some people are allergic to eggs. Some people are allergic to latex.

But vaccines? SCREW THE WORLD! One size fits all! For the greater good and all! Sounds purely evil, from my point of view.

They could at least TRY to figure out the common denominator on all those who have vaccine reactions so that children can be tested for such PRIOR to vaccination. But nope, that's just ignorance. Vaccines are 100% safe says the government! Now go get your flu shot!

Speaking of disconnect - People who are at high risk of having reactions to vaccines are not supposed to get them. But you already knew that.

And of course you know that there are indeed teams of people looking at the reasons some people have reactions while others don't.

You just decided to pretend you didn't so you could pretend to be smart.

Which is really pretty funny, when you think about it. What does it say about your belief system and your audience if you have to pretend to be ignorant to agree with them?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

 

[juleswin]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

I think majority of humans naturally have an authoritarian streaks in em, it just takes the right trigger to bring it out. I hate to see the day mine is exposed.

 

[angelatc]

I said I bet her parents got vaccinated. Not the baby. Seems neither side has the intellectual high ground, huh sister!

Oops -my bad!

But you were wrong about that too, so it all worked out.

Actually, it sort of works for you - allows you to change the subject again now that it's been alleged that the baby didn't actually pick up the disease in the hospital just because the anti-vaxxer said she did.

Great ploy to keep from admitting you are wrong, though. You are a slippery weasel!

 

[mosquitobite]

Oops -my bad!

But you were wrong about that too, so it all worked out.

Actually, it sort of works for you - allows you to change the subject again now that it's been alleged that the baby didn't actually pick up the disease in the hospital just because the anti-vaxxer said she did.

Great ploy to keep from admitting you are wrong, though. You are a slippery weasel!

Uh read the article, again I suppose. The DOCTORS told the parents that the baby most likely got it in the hospital.