Self-identified Libertarians and Mandatory Vaccines (take 2)

[Diogenes]

An informal poll about the intersection between self-identified libertarianism and, well, epidemiology, I suppose.

 

[ravdin]

I don't agree that the government knows what's best for you. In principle I believe that you are in the best position to make informed medical decisions for yourself. I'm sure that there are scenarios where I would agree that using the threat of state sanctioned violence really is necessary to coerce as many people as possible to inoculate against some disease. But those would be exceptions to a more general rule that it's your right to opt out of a medical treatment that you don't want.

 

[Diogenes]

"...using the threat of state sanctioned violence..."

interesting phrasing.

".. In principle I believe that you are in the best position to make informed medical decisions for yourself..."

Except actual data from actual diseases right now indicates that when you allow for easier exemptions more people opt-out despite the medical science supporting the overall benefit of vaccinations.

" But those would be exceptions to a more general rule that it's your right to opt out of a medical treatment that you don't want. "

Aside from the already overwhelming evidence that vaccines work for populations one's right to "opt out" wrt to vaccines directly increases risk to others.

 

[maxpower1227]

I immediately tune out anybody who uses phrases like "state-sanctioned violence" to describe anything other than militarization of law enforcement.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't self-identify as a libertarian... although I'm probably *closer* to libertarian than to any other identifiable political cluster out there. I just happen to hold a number of blatantly not-at-all-libertarian views on a few select topics.

Vaccinations aren't a personal freedom issue; they're a herd immunity issue. Mandatory all the way with exception only for medical complications. It's the only way herd immunity works for those few exceptions.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. Refusal to vaccinate should be a federal crime. Law enforcement agencies, in coordination with the FBI, should be authorized to subpoena medical records and take biological samples of anyone who cannot produce vaccination records on demand. Violators should be arrested, imprisoned, and compelled by force if necessary to undergo vaccination in the prison hospital.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be forced to give those children up to CPS, obviously.

Failure to vaccinate should be a crime.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes. Refusal to vaccinate should be a federal crime. Law enforcement agencies, in coordination with the FBI, should be authorized to subpoena medical records and take biological samples of anyone who cannot produce vaccination records on demand. Violators should be arrested, imprisoned, and compelled by force if necessary to undergo vaccination in the prison hospital.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be forced to give those children up to CPS, obviously.

Failure to vaccinate should be a crime.

Don't be silly.

 

[fuelair]

Note that the answer I selected (4th) is not quite my choice, just closest. My actual choice would be (for the second part of the statement): and I fully support required vaccinations with no religious or other outs.

 

[ravdin]

Yes. Refusal to vaccinate should be a federal crime. Law enforcement agencies, in coordination with the FBI, should be authorized to subpoena medical records and take biological samples of anyone who cannot produce vaccination records on demand. Violators should be arrested, imprisoned, and compelled by force if necessary to undergo vaccination in the prison hospital.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be forced to give those children up to CPS, obviously.

Failure to vaccinate should be a crime.

This pretty much fits my definition of "mandatory"- i.e. noncompliance means a heavy fine and/or a prison sentence.

 

[Loss Leader]

I just had a chiropractor call me today to ask if I would represent a woman getting her child into school without vaccination. He told me that he knows that an unvaccinated child is no danger to public health. I almost hung up on him but, well, work is work.

 

[Diogenes]

...

Vaccinations aren't a personal freedom issue; they're a herd immunity issue. Mandatory all the way with exception only for medical complications. It's the only way herd immunity works for those few exceptions.

I agree with this as does, as we know, epidemiology.

Yes, medical exemptions I'm hoping are understood under the "mandatory" label.

What I've seen from the (non-random) few self-identified libertarians outside of here, so far, is that nothing should be mandatory and that people would (magically, apparently) decide that vaccinations are in their best interest...which fails in light of actual data right now. (ETA: only 6/8, super small, non-random sample, so not intending to infer anything about the population, obviously)

 

[deadrose]

I generally don't identify publically as libertarian because I'm more left-lib/minarchist and because the word currently carries some really unpleasant connotations and associations that aren't anywhere near my beliefs.

I'm also a strong believer in immunizations. I saw the kids a little younger than me who were affected in utero during the early 60s rubella epidemic. I was lucky enough to get immunized for measles before getting it, but I had chickenpox and mumps.

My paternal ancestors were almost wiped out by diphtheria epidemics in the 19th century.

At least when my kids were in school, all a parent had to do was sign a form saying they had ethical or religious objections to immunizations, and that was that. I'm hoping after the pertussis epidemics and measles outbreaks that have swept the area the past few years that they're cracking down on those. There are enough things out there we *can't* immunize against (like the midwestern enterovirus outbreak that appears to have arrived here as well), why should we risk the ones we *can* protect against?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I neither "accept" nor "oppose", I "fully support" mandatory immunization.

I think there should be some an educational component if you feel you have a reason not to have your child immunized. People are conned and we should treat them as victims, not criminals. But I don't see think we should all be put at greater risk just because a con-man was successful. I do think the con-men should be treated as criminals.

 

[Loss Leader]

I neither "accept" nor "oppose", I "fully support" mandatory immunization.

I think there should be some an educational component if you feel you have a reason not to have your child immunized. People are conned and we should treat them as victims, not criminals. But I don't see think we should all be put at greater risk just because a con-man was successful. I do think the con-men should be treated as criminals.

You do run into the problem of freedom of religion. The number of unvaccinated children who actually die from preventable disease is exceedingly low. It makes it hard to argue that the parents are harming their children in the same way as, say, the parents who pull their child out of the hospital during cancer treatment.

Still, those religious ant-vaxers are free-riding on the public health efforts and expenses of everybody else. Their argument depends on them remaining in the vanishingly small minority.

It's a tricky issue.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm a libertarian. I fully oppose government subsidizing vaccines, regulating their use, researching them, or even studying or taking a position on them.

 

[theprestige]

I neither "accept" nor "oppose", I "fully support" mandatory immunization.

I think there should be some an educational component if you feel you have a reason not to have your child immunized. People are conned and we should treat them as victims, not criminals. But I don't see think we should all be put at greater risk just because a con-man was successful. I do think the con-men should be treated as criminals.

Mandatory education, then?

And if people refuse to sit in a classroom and imbibe Correct Thought, will you criminalize them then?

If they sit still for your Correct Thought, and then decide they don't want to vaccinate anyway, will you criminalize them then?

 

[theprestige]

I just had a chiropractor call me today to ask if I would represent a woman getting her child into school without vaccination. He told me that he knows that an unvaccinated child is no danger to public health. I almost hung up on him but, well, work is work.

Taking such work should also be a crime. Vaccines are Proven Science for the Greater Good. Why should any civilized society tolerate a Lawyer willing to flaunt that obvious fact?

 

[theprestige]

Don't be silly.

I'm being deadly serious. If you want vaccination to be mandatory, then by all means make it mandatory, and make criminals of anyone who fails to comply.

Diogenes stumbles on the threat of state-sanctioned violence, but what does he think mandatory means, if not exactly that?

If we are going to make vaccination mandatory, what do you suggest should be the consequences for noncompliance, if not criminalization?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm being deadly serious. If you want vaccination to be mandatory, then by all means make it mandatory, and make criminals of anyone who fails to comply.

Diogenes stumbles on the threat of state-sanctioned violence, but what does he think mandatory means, if not exactly that?

If we are going to make vaccination mandatory, what do you suggest should be the consequences for noncompliance, if not criminalization?

Public shunning?

 

[theprestige]

Public shunning?

We have that already, without the need to involve the government, or make anything mandatory at all. Does this mean you are against mandatory vaccinations?