Self-identified Libertarians and Mandatory Vaccines (take 2)

[tyr_13]

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

Quarantine.

Of course things can be enforced without criminalization. Fines and penalties (such as be barred from some places like public schools, parks, and roads for deciding to put everyone else at risk by not getting vaccinated) can be imposed without criminalization.

 

[theprestige]

Quarantine.

Of course things can be enforced without criminalization. Fines and penalties (such as be barred from some places like public schools, parks, and roads for deciding to put everyone else at risk by not getting vaccinated) can be imposed without criminalization.

Would you make it a crime if I refused to pay the fine or abide by the quarantine?

Look, either "mandatory" means something, or it doesn't. Are you, or are you not, in favor of the government somehow forcing people to vaccinate and somehow forcing people to accept consequences if they refuse?

 

[tyr_13]

Would you make it a crime if I refused to pay the fine or abide by the quarantine?

Yes, if the person decides to take it that far. Same as parking tickets or driving without a license.

Look, either "mandatory" means something, or it doesn't. Are you, or are you not, in favor of the government somehow forcing people to vaccinate and somehow forcing people to accept consequences if they refuse?

I am. There are many ways to put others at risk. There are complicated risk/reward situations. There are situations where the risk, even to others, is worth the reward or just to avoid the drawback. Speech is like that. It's dangerous as all hell, but also equally rewarding.

Refusing to vaccinate (with obvious qualifiers) is not like that.

To head off the inevitable reductio ad absurdum, that's not for every risk to others as I have already stated, nor is it for every vaccine, nor every conceivable health procedure that has some sort of public benefit. I'm not talking about enforced calorie limits, nor children being force fed kale at gunpoint. There are some vaccines for some disease where we have overwhelming and comprehensive evidence of their safety, efficacy, and the deaths and maiming that results from low or non-existent vaccinated populations. We also know of the risks that people who for medical reasons can't get the vaccine are put under if not everyone who can does, and we also know that the vaccines don't work 100% anyway, making a herd immunity that much more important. In these cases, I'm for mandated childhood vaccinations.

I look forward to the onslaught of scenarios trying to poke holes in my points.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, if the person decides to take it that far. Same as parking tickets or driving without a license.

Criminalization it is, then. "Threat of government-sanctioned violence" for those who don't vaccinate. At least someone in this thread is being honest and open about the policy they prefer. Thank you for that.

I look forward to the onslaught of scenarios trying to poke holes in my points.

I have no desire to poke holes in your points. Your policy preference speaks for itself. I'm content to let it stand on its merits. I wonder if Gord or Diogenes will say the same.

 

[Diogenes]

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....

Which is effectively "accept" given that I didn't want to parse the options into a multitude of options.

I agree there should be a an educational component so that we have the idea that "informed consent" is being met for both those that want to accept and want to reject.

 

[Diogenes]

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

Then that would have had been the first option.

 

[Diogenes]

Would you make it a crime if I refused to pay the fine or abide by the quarantine?

Look, either "mandatory" means something, or it doesn't. Are you, or are you not, in favor of the government somehow forcing people to vaccinate and somehow forcing people to accept consequences if they refuse?

I don't actually know. The small, self-identified pool of libertarians came up with "non-force" options such as not allowing anyone on your property who wasn't vaccinated. Using "freedom of association" to ostracize non-vaxxers, denying medical treatment...in other words using non-government force to limit their "freedom" to not vaccinate...using, what, "peer force"?

The question I'm interested in at this moment is just how far self-identified libertarians will go ideologically against what we have for actual data and evidence to support that philosophy.

Just this morning one of them suggested that diseases are natural and we survived as a species so it will be alright to let vaccine protection for our population slide into much less-usefulness...just so long an no one was being forced to vaccinate. The "diseases are natural" argument, of course, being one of the rhetorical points common in the anti-vaxxer camp.

 

[Beth]

I think that the rights of others end at my skin. I'm not libertarian although I do have some leanings that way, but I think mandatory vaccinations are inherently wrong because people should have the right to decide on medical treatments for themselves and their children.

Vaccines are generally a good thing. I don't think the actual medical or religious objectors are sufficient to put herd immunity at risk. People who have no religious or medical reasons to avoid vaccinations decide against them because they don't trust the medical establishment regarding the risks and/or benefits. The solution to that is to persuade them by winning their trust, not force it on people against their will which will only increase their distrust of the medical establishment which will likely lead to other public health problems.

I don't have a problem with requiring them for things like public school admission, but I do think exemptions need to be allowed. I understand the issues of herd immunity, I just don't think that particular problem is worth imposing vaccinations on objectors. I don't have to agree with their choices to think that they deserve to be able to make that choice for themselves, not have it imposed on them.

The idea that the unvaccinated should be quarantined when they are not infectious strikes me as a ridiculous response. If you are truly afraid of their danger to the rest of society, it would be less troublesome and detrimental to just identify them with yellow stars or pink triangles required to be visible on their clothing. But I think most of us realize we don't actually want to live in that society.

The idea that parents who choose not to vaccinate should lose custody of their children strikes me as not only ridiculous, but far more harmful than to allow children to grow up without being vaccinated.

A society that would forcibly inject people with substances they don't understand and fear is no more palatable a society to me than one that would force those individuals to wear identifying symbols so that others might avoid getting close to them.

 

[Cleon]

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.

The problem is that it's not just about you. When you refuse to vaccinate, you're not just putting yourself at risk - you're putting other people at risk.

 

[Beth]

The problem is that it's not just about you. When you refuse to vaccinate, you're not just putting yourself at risk - you're putting other people at risk.

Every time I get in my car and drive to work or the grocery store, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Currently, those risks and harms are not considered sufficient to require that I get authorization before I can do so. The risks and harms of imposing that sort of control on the population eclipse the small risks and harms imposed by allowing people the freedom to drive when and where they want.

IMO, the risks and harms of forcing vaccination on the unwilling are worse than the risks and harms of letting herd immunity slip a little.

 

[deadrose]

You got authorization when you took and passed your driving test, yes? Proved you were capable of driving safely?

 

[dudalb]

The problem is that it's not just about you. When you refuse to vaccinate, you're not just putting yourself at risk - you're putting other people at risk.

That's the big problem with libertarianism. They think they can live in vacumme.

 

[Cleon]

Every time I get in my car and drive to work or the grocery store, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Currently, those risks and harms are not considered sufficient to require that I get authorization before I can do so.

Yes they are, which is why the law requires you to have a license and insurance.

The risks and harms of imposing that sort of control on the population eclipse the small risks and harms imposed by allowing people the freedom to drive when and where they want.

IMO, the risks and harms of forcing vaccination on the unwilling are worse than the risks and harms of letting herd immunity slip a little.

This is why we have pertussis and measles outbreaks.

 

[theprestige]

I don't actually know. The small, self-identified pool of libertarians came up with "non-force" options such as not allowing anyone on your property who wasn't vaccinated. Using "freedom of association" to ostracize non-vaxxers, denying medical treatment...in other words using non-government force to limit their "freedom" to not vaccinate...using, what, "peer force"?

The question I'm interested in at this moment is just how far self-identified libertarians will go ideologically against what we have for actual data and evidence to support that philosophy.

Just this morning one of them suggested that diseases are natural and we survived as a species so it will be alright to let vaccine protection for our population slide into much less-usefulness...just so long an no one was being forced to vaccinate. The "diseases are natural" argument, of course, being one of the rhetorical points common in the anti-vaxxer camp.

This is starting to seem like one of those call-out threads where the OP is trying to argue with people who aren't actually participating in the thread.

Anyway, if there's no compelling policy argument in favor of mandatory vaccination, then there's no special libertarian aspect to opposing it. We don't have mandatory vaccination today, and nobody seems to be very interested in making it mandatory today. So you don't have to be especially libertarian to oppose making it mandatory.

I'm not really a self-identified libertarian, but I do think it's a good general principle to not criminalize things that don't need to be criminalized. But you're not really here to have that discussion with me: You're looking for an argument with some libertarian who isn't even here at all, as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that your inquiry is essentially this: Do libertarians prefer personal freedom over scientific truth?

 

[Beth]

You got authorization when you took and passed your driving test, yes? Proved you were capable of driving safely?

Yes they are, which is why the law requires you to have a license and insurance.

Yes, those are reasonable minor limitations on my freedom. Likewise, I don't object to reasonable minor limitations on unvaccinated people, like they can't attend school during an outbreak of a vaccine preventable disease they aren't innoculated against.

It's the proposals that they should be forced to vaccinate or face unreasonable restrictions on their freedom and human rights, such as being quarantined or losing custody of their kids that gives me heartburn.

Yes, herd immunity suffers when people don't vaccinate. The solution is not to mandate vaccinations but to persuade those who don't have medical or religious objections but are not vaccinating because they are fearful of the risks of adverse effects.

 

[ehcks]

I think that the rights of others end at my skin. I'm not libertarian although I do have some leanings that way, but I think mandatory vaccinations are inherently wrong because people should have the right to decide on medical treatments for themselves and their children.

The problem is that I also think that the rights of others end at my skin, but because I understand germ theory, that means that I believe people who aren't vaccinated should be kept away from me.

I'd rather not catch their horrific but preventable diseases, and I shouldn't have to exist in a society of biological weapons who think they know better.

 

[Beth]

The problem is that I also think that the rights of others end at my skin, but because I understand germ theory, that means that I believe people who aren't vaccinated should be kept away from me.

I'd rather not catch their horrific but preventable diseases, and I shouldn't have to exist in a society of biological weapons who think they know better.

I don't think that an unvaccinated person is the equivalent of a biological weapon. If you are vaccinated, there is little danger to you from exposure to the unvaccinated folks, even if they are contagious. During an outbreak, there may well be more vaccinated people who are contagious than unvaccinated people - depending on the disease, the effectiveness of the vaccine, the current % vaccinated, etc.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't think that an unvaccinated person is the equivalent of a biological weapon. If you are vaccinated, there is little danger to you from exposure to the unvaccinated folks, even if they are contagious. During an outbreak, there may well be more vaccinated people who are contagious than unvaccinated people - depending on the disease, the effectiveness of the vaccine, the current % vaccinated, etc.

That may be true, but only for so long as the unvaccinated remain a tiny percentage of the population. Currently, the main driver toward vaccination is public school policy. If you want your child to get an education, get vaccinated or go through a hellish process of getting an exemption.

I'm pretty happy with this. It seems to be working well enough. The only thing you could toughen up is the religious exemption and that raises serious problems of its own.

 

[Beth]

That may be true, but only for so long as the unvaccinated remain a tiny percentage of the population. Currently, the main driver toward vaccination is public school policy. If you want your child to get an education, get vaccinated or go through a hellish process of getting an exemption.

I'm pretty happy with this. It seems to be working well enough. The only thing you could toughen up is the religious exemption and that raises serious problems of its own.

Yes, I'm okay with the current school policy about vaccination requirements.

 

[mgidm86]

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?

Go live in another country?