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

[mad cow]

Do you think people should be shot for sneezing on you as well?

Hell no!
The post I quoted said that

Everyone must be vaccinated because science says that vaxes work. So, in order to be safe, everyone must be vaxed because some people who get vaxed still get sick because the vaxes don't work and But the anti-vaxers need to be imprisoned or forced to vax

along with a bunch of other lies.

There are many here who subscribe to this diet or that diet.OK,fine.I subscribe to 'if it tastes good,eat it diet'.

But if I started posting how Paleos,for instance,all claimed to want to throw me into prison or force me to eat nothing but grass-fed beef,free-range chicken and nuts and berries,I hope that you would think I was dumber than a rotten stump or lying through my teeth.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hell no!
The post I quoted said that along with a bunch of other lies.

There are many here who subscribe to this diet or that diet.OK,fine.I subscribe to 'if it tastes good,eat it diet'.

But if I started posting how Paleos,for instance,all claimed to want to throw me into prison or force me to eat nothing but grass-fed beef,free-range chicken and nuts and berries,I hope that you would think I was dumber than a rotten stump or lying through my teeth.

Oh good, see I'm glad to hear that, because you see there are some here who believe that "herd immunity" is enough of a "benefit" that you should be forced to take this or that medication.

http://www.skepdic.com/antivaccination.html

If everybody in a population is vaccinated, the chances of contracting the disease is near zero. But the more people in a population who do not get vaccinated, the more the whole population is jeopardized. Imagine a robust individual who is not vaccinated and gets mumps. Before his parents keep him home from school he infects half his classmates, some have been vaccinated and are not affected. Some have not been vaccinated and they get the mumps. Most recover. Maybe one of the non-vaccinated dies. There may also be a child who was vaccinated but who is not very robust and she gets infected by several people, some of whom have been vaccinated and some who have not. Both can be carriers of the virus. The weak but vaccinated girl dies.

Does this mean the vaccine doesn't work? No. It means that if some people don't get vaccinated they can jeopardize those who do. On the other hand, if most people have been vaccinated, those in the population who haven't been vaccinated benefit from the actions of the others and get protection against the disease without being vaccinated. If too many people take this free-ride approach, the group suffers.

They seem to equate it to a direct threat against their person, and, I'm assuming, should be met with lethal force to stop said threat.

 

[mad cow]

Do you think people should be shot for sneezing on you as well?

And how in the hell did you get this wild-ass idea out of my post?

Had I said that I'm a Redskins fan would you have concluded that I wanted all Dallas Cowboys fans shot, tortured and/or imprisoned?

 

[Anti Federalist]

And how in the hell did you get this wild-ass idea out of my post?

Had I said that I'm a Redskins fan would you have concluded that I wanted all Dallas Cowboys fans shot, tortured and/or imprisoned?

Read post #282

 

[PRB]

So, you believe that people should be shot for sneezing on somebody as well.

SMMFH...and people say the "conspiracy people" make "us" look bad.

I believe nobody should be shot, period.

 

[Scrapmo]

you have concluded that I wanted all Dallas Cowboys fans shot, tortured and/or imprisoned?

Not a bad idea.

 

[PRB]

And how in the hell did you get this wild-ass idea out of my post?

Had I said that I'm a Redskins fan would you have concluded that I wanted all Dallas Cowboys fans shot, tortured and/or imprisoned?

that's like Rule #1 in the Redskins fan handbook, isn't it? Obviously the logical conclusion of people who believe anybody who isn't as anarchist as he is, is a statist and fascist, will easily reach the same claim you made.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I believe nobody should be shot, period.

So, how would enforce your "right" not to be breathed on by germy people?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not a bad idea.

Have some +rep

 

[mad cow]

Oh good, see I'm glad to hear that, because you see there are some here who believe that "herd immunity" is enough of a "benefit" that you should be forced to take this or that medication.



They seem to equate it to a direct threat against their person, and, I'm assuming, should be met with lethal force to stop said threat.

angelatc,who you are quoting,has said multiple times,one time using a bunch of expletives for emphasis,that you have the liberty to not vaccinate your kids.

As one popular poster here often says:
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

 

[PRB]

So, how would enforce your "right" not to be breathed on by germy people?

we already established we don't have rights, didn't we?

 

[Scrapmo]

If there was a law mandating vaccines and I refuse, what then?
The governement would claim they have the right to extort money from me.
And if I refuse to pay?
Then the government would claim they have the right to kidnap me.
And if I refuse to go?
Then the government would claim they have the right to execute me.

Behind every law is the threat of violence.

 

[Anti Federalist]

angeltc,who you are quoting,has said multiple times,one time using a bunch of expletives for emphasis,that you have the liberty to not vaccinate your kids.

As one popular poster here often says:
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

See below:

If I want to fly from point "A" to point "B" I need to prevent you from infecting me . No ifs, but or however.

I have the right to prevent you from firing your weapon towards me or my property.

I don't want to hear any bullshit that I must move to make you happy. Nor will I make you happy by refraining from boarding an airplane.

I have a right to stand my ground and will do so.

There is no individual - or Libertarian - right to harm others.

.

Now, blindness notwithstanding, that statement implies a threat of deadly force would be used against me, if it were somehow determined that I was "germy" and posed a "threat" to this person's life and limb.

"Germy" would include, based on the conversation up to this point, deliberate and willful refusal to vaccinate, based on herd immunity theory.

Do you agree with this analysis of the discussion?

If so, do you agree with this method of "enforcement"?

 

[Anti Federalist]

we already established we don't have rights, didn't we?

No, we do not, if you believe that you have a "right" to control everything every single person you come into contact with, every day, based on what "threat" they may pose to you.

 

[mad cow]

See below:



Now, blindness notwithstanding, that statement implies a threat of deadly force would be used against me, if it were somehow determined that I was "germy" and posed a "threat" to this person's life and limb.

"Germy" would include, based on the conversation up to this point, deliberate and willful refusal to vaccinate, based on herd immunity theory.

Do you agree with this analysis of the discussion?

If so, do you agree with this method of "enforcement"?

No and no.

However,that is not angelatc's position or mine or the overwhelming majority of those here who think some vaccinations are a good idea.
Me,as far as I know,I've never had a flu shot in my life and don't plan to get one soon.

Can you name 5 other people in all the VAX threads over the last few months that share Contumacious' view?
4? 3? 2?
If not,maybe you will understand why Ender's post pissed me off so much.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No and no.

However,that is not angelatc's position or mine or the overwhelming majority of those here who think some vaccinations are a good idea.
Me,as far as I know,I've never had a flu shot in my life and don't plan to get one soon.

Can you name 5 other people in all the VAX threads over the last few months that share Contumacious' view?
4? 3? 2?
If not,maybe you will understand why Ender's post pissed me off so much.

I'm assuming PRB in this thread shares Contumacious' view...that's just an assumption though at this point.

So I'm not sure how many do...keep in mind I'm wading into this discussion fairly new, not my "area of concern" let's say.

But frankly, even a few are too many.

 

[mad cow]

I'm assuming PRB in this thread shares Contumacious' view...that's just an assumption though at this point.

So I'm not sure how many do...keep in mind I'm wading into this discussion fairly new, not my "area of concern" let's say.

But frankly, even a few are too many.

Her is angelatc's post from this very thread,#87,and you waded into this thread prior to that several times.

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?)

Here is one from her on 12/04/13:

Liar liar liar.

Never have i advocated for mandatory vaccines.

There are more.So can you at least apologize to her for your post #282?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Finally read the article, LOL and come to find out that is exactly the view held:

Vaccines do not produce immunity in some people, so a percentage of those who took the responsibility to be vaccinated remain vulnerable. This brings us to the important issue of herd immunity. Herd immunity works when most people are immunized against an illness, greatly reducing the chances that an infected person can pass his microbes along to other susceptible people, such as infants who cannot yet be vaccinated, immunocompromised individuals, or folks who have refused the protection of vaccination.

People who refuse vaccination for themselves and their children are free-riding off herd immunity. Anti-vaccination folks are taking advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen the minimal risk of vaccination, thus acting as a firewall protecting them from disease. But if enough refuse, the firewall comes down and other people get hurt.

To borrow Holmes’ metaphor, people who refuse vaccination are asserting that they have a right to “swing” their microbes at other people. There is no principled libertarian case for their free-riding refusal to take responsibility for their own microbes.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to assume that the next course of action is the application of force to achieve compliance against a person's free will.

So that is three.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Her is angelatc's post from this very thread,#87,and you waded into this thread prior to that several times.

Yes, and there are thousands of threads on this topic here.

Here is one from her on 12/04/13:


There are more.So can you at least apologize to her for your post #282?

Why?

I'm getting mixed messages.

I apologize for uncalled for personal attacks, not for attempting to get to the bottom of something.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ed Ucation|12.7.13 @ 3:47PM|#

No, horrible article. Completely anti-libertarian. You can't punish potentiality. Should we restrict people with genes shown to increase the predisposition for violence? What about those that drive less safe cars? It's one thing for an insurance company to charge more for a higher risk client, it's quite another for government to violate rights based on someone posing a higher risk. That's the road to Minority Report totalitarianism.

log in or register to reply