Measles vaccinations now compulsory in Germany

[Segnosaur]

As a libertarian I oppose these rules.

A failure to vaccinate means that an individual's negligence in not getting vaccinated can harm others through transmission of the virus to at-risk individuals (such as those who medically cannot take the vaccine, or who have received it but who have not yet generated the required antibodies.)

It seems like allowing such negligence to cause harm others would be a violation of libertarianism as well, since one person is affecting another.

How about we allow Libertarians to opt out, but if they get sick we allow everyone who has ever been in contact with them to sue them and drive them into the poor house (or even thrown them in jail for negligence).

ETA: Upon doing some googling, it seems like there have already been some Libertarians who have justified the idea of mandatory vaccinations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27402886

 

[BobTheCoward]

Having a child does incur an obligation. A child is dependent upon it's parents. It's a life created by the positive actions of two adults. Hopefully consenting. It's the known potential outcome for your actions. And you are responsible for your actions. Thus a kid you create does carry a legal responsibility to provide a level of care for the person you created until they reach an age where they can accept that burden.


I would also argue that you take on the burden to feed and water, and provide health care for a dog you take into your life. You do not have the legal right to take in a life and then turn around and deprive it of the necessities of life.


As to the matter at hand, I'm not overly fond of government dictates. But when the objections are despicable, dishonest, and dangerous, I can live with it.

I disagree

 

[Leftus]

I disagree

Still wrong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Still wrong.

You disagree and that we have different ideas about what constructs of obligations are formed. So what?

 

[Leftus]

You disagree and that we have different ideas about what constructs of obligations are formed. So what?

You are not responsible for your actions?

Sorry, but that is a linchpin of libertarianism. So you are still wrong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are not responsible for your actions?

Sorry, but that is a linchpin of libertarianism. So you are still wrong.

First, that is not the linchpin of libertarianism. Non aggression is. If a set of actions did not violate non aggression but involved a person not being responsible for their actions, it is still in line with libertarianism.


Once the child is born it is an independent entity and the initial contract is satisfied if the two humans wish to form an additional contract, they can.

But "responsible for your actions" doesn't actually lead to either of our positions. There are more assumptions made to get there.

 

[Leftus]

First, that is not the linchpin of libertarianism. Non aggression is. If a set of actions did not violate non aggression but involved a person not being responsible for their actions, it is still in line with libertarianism.


Once the child is born it is an independent entity and the initial contract is satisfied if the two humans wish to form an additional contract, they can.

But "responsible for your actions" doesn't actually lead to either of our positions. There are more assumptions made to get there.

The child is not an dependent entity. It is, by definition, dependent. The child did not "contract" into being birthed. You are responsible for said child until it reaches the age of majority where it can contract. We don't allow 6 month old children to vote for a reason, and it's not because they would have trouble staying in the lines.

A linchpin, not the. You are responsible for your actions, and that includes creating a life. Starving your infant is reprehensible. Now you can "contract" your way out of this responsibility, via adoption, but it's still your obligation.

If it isn't, then kidnapping doesn't exist. Because you have no obligations, no rights to a kid.

How could a parent object to vaccinations? The "contract" is between the state and the child. How does a 15th month old make an informed decision?

 

[dann]

How does a 15th month old make an informed decision?

With great difficulty, but they may be better at it than many libertarians.

 

[Tolls]

Seriously, don't bother.

I mean, this line:
"the initial contract is satisfied if the two humans wish to form an additional contract, they can"?

Since one of those humans is a baby I can only presume anyone taking that stance is taking the piss, or has some serious issues that ought to be a concern to all around them. I mean, that whole concept right there is ****** up.

 

[luchog]

A linchpin, not the. You are responsible for your actions, and that includes creating a life. Starving your infant is reprehensible. Now you can "contract" your way out of this responsibility, via adoption, but it's still your obligation.

As a former libertarian who spent years studying the philosophy and politics, it's abundantly clear that personal responsibility is one of the three fundamental principles of libertarianism. To claim that parents have no responsibility or obligation to the children that they create is not only not a libertarian principle, it's fundamentally anti-libertarian, as well as being profoundly anti-human.

If anything, Bob's asserted lack of responsibility are more characteristic of a type of nihilist anarcho-capitalism that has infested and been slowly replacing true libertarianism since about the late-90s. Even hardcore Randroids still acknowledge some form of parental responsibility.

If it isn't, then kidnapping doesn't exist. Because you have no obligations, no rights to a kid.

This actually makes more sense if you look at it from the anarcho-capitalist worldview, which sees people as equivalent to property. When children become property, then the parents have no obligation to them, but "theft" of their "property" via kidnapping is still objectionable and a crime.

 

[dann]

Im Infektionsschutzgesetz ist genau festgehalten, für wen und weshalb die Ausnahme vom Impfzwang gilt: nur aus medizinischen Gründen. Wenn also jemand durch die Impfung mehr gefährdet wird, als man ihm zumuten kann, dann hat er einen Anspruch auf diese Freistellung. Zu diesen Gründen gehören aber Glaubens- und Gewissensgründe nicht.
"Es geht um den Schutz anderer Menschen" (Tagesschau, March 30, 2019)

The Protection-from-Infection Act states exactly who is exempt from mandatory vaccination and the reason why: only for medical reasons. Therefore, if someone is more endangered by the vaccine than is acceptable, then they have a right to be exempt. However, religion and conscience are not acceptable reasons.
"It is a question of protecting other people"

 

[Leftus]

This actually makes more sense if you look at it from the anarcho-capitalist worldview, which sees people as equivalent to property. When children become property, then the parents have no obligation to them, but "theft" of their "property" via kidnapping is still objectionable and a crime.

I almost went down that line, kids as property, but I'm uncomfortable placing humans in the property category. For reasons I hope i don't have to explain. But I'd wager that Bob wasn't thinking about the humanity in an infant. To him, the "contract" exists between the man and woman. The child isn't even an afterthought.

But if wants to emancipate the child at birth due to the act of being born, then there is no rights between child and parents. The state, or hospital, or whomever, could take the child and the parents would have no recourse.

I like some of the ideas of libertarianism, small L for a reason. But if this was more widespread than a single loon, society itself would collapse. A nation raised by wolves.

Edit - Let the infants sue for any violations of their body. But they would be required to testify.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I almost went down that line, kids as property, but I'm uncomfortable placing humans in the property category. For reasons I hope i don't have to explain. But I'd wager that Bob wasn't thinking about the humanity in an infant. To him, the "contract" exists between the man and woman. The child isn't even an afterthought.

But if wants to emancipate the child at birth due to the act of being born, then there is no rights between child and parents. The state, or hospital, or whomever, could take the child and the parents would have no recourse.

I like some of the ideas of libertarianism, small L for a reason. But if this was more widespread than a single loon, society itself would collapse. A nation raised by wolves.

Edit - Let the infants sue for any violations of their body. But they would be required to testify.

You stated my position. It isn't given that the parent has any right to dictate how that child is provided for. The child is neither the parents responsibility not their property. I don't care one lick about "parental rights." Those are not things.

My issue with the law is cases where it violates the child's autonomy....not because the parents disagree.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As a former libertarian who spent years studying the philosophy and politics, it's abundantly clear that personal responsibility is one of the three fundamental principles of libertarianism. To claim that parents have no responsibility or obligation to the children that they create is not only not a libertarian principle, it's fundamentally anti-libertarian, as well as being profoundly anti-human.

If anything, Bob's asserted lack of responsibility are more characteristic of a type of nihilist anarcho-capitalism that has infested and been slowly replacing true libertarianism since about the late-90s. Even hardcore Randroids still acknowledge some form of parental responsibility.

Sums it up perfectly, thank you. We are replacing it. I'm not making novel arguments here.

 

[luchog]

I like some of the ideas of libertarianism, small L for a reason. But if this was more widespread than a single loon, society itself would collapse. A nation raised by wolves.

It is more widespread than a single loon. It's why the GOP is in the mess that it is. The extremist form of Randian anarcho-capitalism has greatly infested American politics and business (Ron Paul and Rand Paul being the most obvious candidates, but the Koch brothers are also very much in this mould); and it morphs very quickly into the fascism of the alt.right, as we are seeing right now.

Incidentally, I need to correct one comment from Bob: "non-aggression" is not one of the lynchpins of libertarianism. The correct principle is "non-initiation of force", which seems a nitpick, but is actually a significantly different philosophical principle. Libertarianism is just one of the many things he utterly fails to understand.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How could a parent object to vaccinations? The "contract" is between the state and the child. How does a 15th month old make an informed decision?

Under the scrutiny of a immigration judge of course.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627082032/1-year-old-shows-up-in-immigration-court

Why should such court proceedings be limited to immigration?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is more widespread than a single loon. It's why the GOP is in the mess that it is. The extremist form of Randian anarcho-capitalism has greatly infested American politics and business (Ron Paul and Rand Paul being the most obvious candidates, but the Koch brothers are also very much in this mould); and it morphs very quickly into the fascism of the alt.right, as we are seeing right now.

Incidentally, I need to correct one comment from Bob: "non-aggression" is not one of the lynchpins of libertarianism. The correct principle is "non-initiation of force", which seems a nitpick, but is actually a significantly different philosophical principle. Libertarianism is just one of the many things he utterly fails to understand.

What are you talking about?

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

I didn't state NAP (where aggression is defined....) because I wanted to save the big phrases for Reddit.

There are places where, "do you even NAP, bro?" are appropriate. This wasn't the place for vernacular.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm an atheist.

I agree those things happen. But the fact something occurs does not make it correct.

You may very well be if what you mean by religion is irrational faith in a supernatural power. You don't have that belief, that I know of, but you do seem to have faith in principles that strike me as irrational. Or at least, not-rational, because your axioms seem arbitrary to me.

I'm no expert on what you believe, but I think it has to do with individuals being as free as possible from coercion. From there you can conclude that while a parent has no right to kill a child, because that is coersive, they do have the right not to feed it, because making them do so is coercive.

What I don't get is how you chose as your highest ideal the idea that humans should be free of all coercion. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise to start with that assumption, but I don't see the assumption as any truer, or more defensible, than competing assumptions. So why start with that?

ETA: I feel like I've been ninja'd by others in the thread. Probably you have heard this all before. But I needed to work out for myself what my objection is to your philosophy, or at least the philosophy that you seem to assume for the sake of argument.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You may very well be if what you mean by religion is irrational faith in a supernatural power. You don't have that belief, that I know of, but you do seem to have faith in principles that strike me as irrational. Or at least, not-rational, because your axioms seem arbitrary to me.

I'm no expert on what you believe, but I think it has to do with individuals being as free as possible from coercion. From there you can conclude that while a parent has no right to kill a child, because that is coersive, they do have the right not to feed it, because making them do so is coercive.

What I don't get is how you chose as your highest ideal the idea that humans should be free of all coercion. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise to start with that assumption, but I don't see the assumption as any truer, or more defensible, than competing assumptions. So why start with that?

A) faith in what principles? That they would produce positive consequentialist outcomes? Because they won't.

B) by definition axioms are self evident. If you have axiom X and I have axiom Y, we don't really have a way to resolve that if the other is not self evident to you. I would not call that arbitrary.

I wish these axioms were not self evident to me. I hate them.

 

[Minoosh]

A) faith in what principles? That they would produce positive consequentialist outcomes? Because they won't.

B) by definition axioms are self evident. If you have axiom X and I have axiom Y, we don't really have a way to resolve that if the other is not self evident to you. I would not call that arbitrary.

I wish these axioms were not self evident to me. I hate them.

Faith that what strikes you as self evident is in fact true.

I too have assumptions that strike me as self evident, different from yours, but with similarly unimpressive results. It probably affects my emotional well-being. To the point that I find myself somewhat willing to set aside my assumptions, if that would make me happier. But I don't really know how to do that.