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

[Anti Federalist]

From this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nation-is-broad-enough-to-cover-sterilization


Same logic, same legal principle, in a SCROTUS decision that has not been directly reversed.

If you grant the premise that the state can inoculate you against your will, then you grant the premise that the state can sterilize you against your will.

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the 8-1 majority in Buck v Bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

 

[pcosmar]

Compulsory vaxxers are eugenicists.
...

society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

THIS, was the inspiration for Hitler's "Master Race".
http://gedenkstaettesteinhof.at/en/exibition/02-racial-delusion-and-selective-breeding-humans

Those that do not remember History are doomed to repeat it.

http://hnn.us/article/1796

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries

Bold parts for the "traditional" Marriage supporters. This was what marriage licenses are for.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Do I have a right to life and to defend the same?
Do I have a right to stand my ground?
Is assertiveness authoritarianism ?


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In light of the Honorable Justice Holmes' other opinions, here recently posted, you might want to re-think that.

Or do you think the state has the right to forcibly sterilize people to freshen up the gene pool?

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Vaccines are so good for your health, we need to force you to take them. If your child doesn't get vaccinated, he/she can't go to school. If he/she does not go to school, you will be fined or imprisoned.

 

[PRB]

Vaccines are so good for your health, we need to force you to take them. If your child doesn't get vaccinated, he/she can't go to school. If he/she does not go to school, you will be fined or imprisoned.

exactly, whatever the government forces you to do, it's not good for you.

 

[RabbitMan]

The other 999,999 have nothing to worry about...they are vaccinated, therefore they should not care about the 1... right?

Um. There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap. You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate. Sorry.

 

[Weston White]

Um. There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap. You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate. Sorry.

1. So, you admit you are only concerned about kids, and in consequence once those children have grown into adults, who then could care any less about them than people such as you?
2. vaccinations are not guarantees, realistically they are more of a placebo option for the overly-paranoid.
3. In many instances there are other options available besides just vaccinations.
4. People that are compromised by allergies and other issues just have to come to terms and face the unfortunate reality that they have to lead more cautious lives; that they are no exception to others who suffer lifelong illnesses, such as those that are blind, deaf, crippled, or have asthma, diabetes, seizures, high cholesterol, heart complications, peanut allergies, are lactose intolerant, etc.
5. Sorry.

 

[Madison320]

Dude- this I know:

If YOU were coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you would NOT infect me with an airborne communicable disease, and if you did, I'd soon be over it. I am healthy and do not succumb to illness.

Also- vaccines are BS. The AMA & Big Pharma distort to make it seem like they cure when they do not. Smallpox, for instance, was not wiped out by vaccine. It was wiped out by clean living. Countries that did not vaccinate had almost NO deaths because of smallpox, as compared to countries that used the vaccine and had 10's of 1000's of deaths.

If you want to vaccinated, go for it; you try and force me and mine and we'll have a serious problem.

If you got bit by a rabid dog, would you get the rabies shots?

 

[Madison320]

I don't think you should force vaccinations but if it could be proven that an individual knowingly infected someone else, they should be held liable. It would have to be a serious disease like ebola or something.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Um. There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap. You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate. Sorry.

You just made the case that it's OK (necessary, in fact) for the government to force one group of people to take action for the (perceived) benefit of another. How collectivist of you. If you make that case, what principle do you stand on to make the case that government shouldn't force you to turn over part of the income you've earned so those same kids can eat?

 

[Ecolibertarian]

I feel that this debate is better supported by libertarian principles than some have argued. On the one hand, yes, there is the collectivist aspect: forcing some people to do something to benefit other people. On the other hand, is it aggression if one person passes an infection to another, unintentionally? Or are viruses and bacteria technically the aggressors in that case?

The concept of herd immunity likewise raises questions about the individual and the collective. Should one person be allowed to endanger herd immunity and put others at greater risk of infection? Maybe yes, because inaction is not the same as positive action. Maybe not, because recklessness without malevolence can be aggression.

I should be able to decide if I take multivitamins. Or cannabis. Or whatever. But whether I should be allowed to make health decisions that can potentially negate the decisions of others to vaccinate is another question.

 

[Petar]

When you take away the competitive market function of being able to choose medications or not, then you open the door for a small group of eugenicists to intentionally poison people.

If you don't believe that government is capable of such action then you should probably do the world a favor and just remove yourself from the gene pool.

 

[mello]

It is You that is full of bullshit.

I have never been vaccinated and I will never vaccinate my family. Disease is fought naturally from by the body and can be overcome with proper nutrition when the natural anti-bodies are allowed to form. Vaccinations kill that process and destroy the bodies ability to fight disease.

And, yes, you do believe in government if you believe the vaccine propaganda. The truth is hidden on purpose, just like JFK, 911, ME Wars etc. And I didn't learn anything about health from Jones- so don't even go there.

Wow...just wow.

 

[PRB]

I don't think you should force vaccinations but if it could be proven that an individual knowingly infected someone else, they should be held liable. It would have to be a serious disease like ebola or something.

how do you hold them liable? fine? prison? beating?

 

[PRB]

Wow...just wow.

you're surprised the libertarian movement has crazy conspiracy theorists?

 

[PRB]

When you take away the competitive market function of being able to choose medications or not, then you open the door for a small group of eugenicists to intentionally poison people.

If you don't believe that government is capable of such action then you should probably do the world a favor and just remove yourself from the gene pool.

if you don't like eugenics, please do us a favor and eugenicize????

 

[Petar]

if you don't like eugenics, please do us a favor and eugenicize????

It sounds kinda funny when you put it that way.

 

[PRB]

It sounds kinda funny when you put it that way.

Did I misunderstand or misinterpret you? I hope I did. because it sounds like you're not against eugenics, you just don't like somebody else doing it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You just made the case that it's OK (necessary, in fact) for the government to force one group of people to take action for the (perceived) benefit of another. How collectivist of you. If you make that case, what principle do you stand on to make the case that government shouldn't force you to turn over part of the income you've earned so those same kids can eat?

Exactly my point and why I posted that and revived this thread.

There is no middle ground.

If you grant that the state has the right to shackle you down and inject a drug into against your will, for some perceived greater good, then the state has the right to do pretty much anything it wants to you.

 

[Petar]

Did I misunderstand or misinterpret you? I hope I did. because it sounds like you're not against eugenics, you just don't like somebody else doing it.

The world would definitely be a much better place if a whole lot of people would just commit suicide, or at least get spayed/neutered.

Nonetheless, no one should be in a position where it would be too easy for them to make that kind of decision for others.

That would be the "bad kind" of eugenics, as opposed to the "nice kind" that people should also teach their children about.