True and it wouldn't be a statistically legitimate poll, in any event. Maybe I'll remake with that option.
On Facebook (only in the past 3 days) in these conversations I have a total of 8 self-identified libertarians where 6 oppose mandatory vaccinations but most of that 6 are sure to let me know that in the absence of a mandate people in "Libertarian World" would vaccinate at the same or at a higher rate because of "property rights" and "freedom of association" and the ability to sue someone that got you sick with a vaccine-preventable illness (or your too young to be vaccinated child) would get other people to make the free choice to be vaccinated.
I point to the evidence showing where we allow non-medical exemptions we have increased incidents of vaccine-preventable diseases. Adding this to the lack of any mandate outside certain occupations to get boosters seeing us with pertussis outbreaks it seems obvious to the most casual observer that allowing people the choice to vaccinate with no form of mandate would likely destroy any benefit of herd protection to vulnerable people (and, of course the lack of 100% efficacy making the vaccinated population unnecessarily vulnerable).
Yet those few still insist, apparently by underpants gnome logic, that people would choose to vaccinate in "Libertarian World" just because people that seek non-medical exemptions now would (magically) not make that choice there.
