Self-identified Libertarians and Mandatory Vaccines (take 2)

[Magyar]

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

I would actually forward that and charge any person or parent who is proven to be a carrier of any communicavle disease that makes any other person sick with assualt on up based on damage caused.

Your retarded delusions of state violence or sky faries or any other immaginary boogey man does not give you the right to threaten my, my children on society as a whole.

The reason that most of our antibiotics are becoming useless and diseases are mutating to the point where they no longer work is becasue of people who "opt out".
I dont see much of a difference between some one actively fighting vaccinations and someone actively trying to make a bio weapon (other than the one trying to make a weapon is more likely to be more effective). However. Just like if you fire a bullet at me but kill my neighbor- intent follows the bullet.

But if you feel that strongly about it, We can build a camp, you can live there and you can even come adn go as you please as long as you clearly identify that your not immunized and wear appropriate ppe.

 

[Magyar]

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.

Thats totally wrong, hurd immunitym plays a major part in keeping things like polio and tb at bay. The more people who are not vaccinated allows the disease to be exposed to the anti bodies and become either immune or to mutate. And can will infect people who were vaccinated years ago.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Vaccination's not magic. Life finds a way----even if that life's goal is to EAT US.

 

[Diogenes]

Vaccination's not magic. Life finds a way----even if that life's goal is to EAT US.

It has been suggested that the evolution of sex was in response to the ability of pathogens to evolve more rapidly. The Red Queen Hypothesis.

If vaccinations were magic then we wouldn't have to ensure as many people as can be vaccinated get vaccinated. If we could guarantee 100% efficacy then the "What are you worried about if you're vaccinated?" people would have a point.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm not sure where you would place me in the political spectrum, so I checked "as a non-libertarian" since that would include pretty much anyone who doesn't identify strictly with the libertarian platform.

I look at it this way,

A. Reasons to accept mandatory vaccinations:

1. Helps to protect my kids from other kids who contract diseases.
2. Helps to protect other kids from my kids if they contract diseases.
3. Helps to protect everyone from certain types of disease.

B. Reasons to oppose mandatory vaccinations:
1. The Big Cheese Cracker in the Sky said not to do it in His Big Book a' Rules.
2. Vaccinations are a plot by the Lizard People to control our minds.
3. I think I have a right to do whatever I want, even if it obviously harms other people or infringes on their rights.

I thought about this long and hard and decided on "A."
Hope the Big Cheese Cracker and the Lizard people don't get too mad at me.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The choice is not crime or nothing. There are many ways of encouraging compliance - school policy, lower health and life insurance premiums, public education, flat-out bribery.

Simply because a person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated at the point of a gun doesn't mean the person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated.

Of course! But the OP isn't asking us to consider the full spectrum of possible solutions. The OP is asking us to consider the mandatory solution in particular. Which is why I don't think the poll would actually provide the sought-for data: You don't have to be an anti-science libertarian to question the validity of mandatory vaccination.

 

[Diogenes]

...You don't have to be an anti-science libertarian to question the validity of mandatory vaccination.

To oppose the "mandatory" is to deny things we actually know about people right now.

The increase in measles is caused by people exempting from vaccinations.

The increase in pertussis is promoted by people not getting boosters (which are only required for specific professions).

When exemptions are easier...more people opt-out.

We have actual data for all that. That's not hypothetical.

Now to assume "mandatory" equals "criminal penalties for non-compliance"...well, I can't help you with that. I wouldn't think the word "mandatory" included that denotatively.

So...you don't have to be anti-science...you at least have to be willing to accept preventable deaths for the sake of "personal freedom"...to me that looks the intrinsically less ethical choice.

 

[Diogenes]

...Which is why I don't think the poll would actually provide the sought-for data....

This was never going to be a statistically valid poll. Um, obviously.

 

[theprestige]

To oppose the "mandatory" is to deny things we actually know about people right now.

Hrm. I think the problem may be that we each define "mandatory" differently. Probably everything you're saying will seem reasonable to me, once I understand how you define "mandatory".

Meanwhile, here's how I define "mandatory" in this context: The government requires you to vaccinate, imposes penalties on you if you do not comply, and ultimately criminalizes you if you do not pay the penalties for noncompliance.

I would also like to discuss some of your other points, but I think it's probably best if you start by telling me what you mean by "Mandatory Vaccines".

This was never going to be a statistically valid poll. Um, obviously.

I never thought you desired a statistically valid result.

 

[ehcks]

Hrm. I think the problem may be that we each define "mandatory" differently. Probably everything you're saying will seem reasonable to me, once I understand how you define "mandatory".

Meanwhile, here's how I define "mandatory" in this context: The government requires you to vaccinate, imposes penalties on you if you do not comply, and ultimately criminalizes you if you do not pay the penalties for noncompliance.

I would also like to discuss some of your other points, but I think it's probably best if you start by telling me what you mean by "Mandatory Vaccines".


I never thought you desired a statistically valid result.

Many of the worst symptoms of disease happen in children. A way to reduce those while making vaccines mandatory is to ban children who have not been vaccinated from enrolling in public schools. You might see that as a penalty, in that a private school that allows unvaccinated children is more expensive, or home-schooling is more time-consuming, but there's no criminalization or fine paid to the government.

 

[Beerina]

I voted libertarian/for for the same reason I'm fine with requiring liability insurance for cars -- you have a right to cream yourself, but not others.

I'm fine with the status quo allowing for religious or other rare exceptions. Per what others have mentioned, we should keep an eye on the herd immunity issue.

I was fine if there would be waves travelling through the idiots -- broadcast it loudly as a warning to others. But the possibility of vaccinated people getting it anyway, as well as occasional outbreaks possibly mutating a new version nobody is vaccinated for is disturbing.

 

[theprestige]

Many of the worst symptoms of disease happen in children. A way to reduce those while making vaccines mandatory is to ban children who have not been vaccinated from enrolling in public schools. You might see that as a penalty, in that a private school that allows unvaccinated children is more expensive, or home-schooling is more time-consuming, but there's no criminalization or fine paid to the government.

I would say that cutting off a citizen from a basic public service is effectively criminalizing them. It's similar to taking away a convicted felon's right to vote (ETA: Or own a firearm).

I do think that is a very narrow, very mild form of "mandatory". I would probably not support fines or jail time for people who refuse to vaccinate their children, but I might consider making public school enrollment contingent on vaccination--this is largely the case already, anyway.

But that's a very specific policy proposal. If that's all Diogenes has in mind, he's going to have a very hard time figuring out what libertarians really think. Using the much broader term "mandatory" will bring in all sorts of other considerations and misunderstanding. As we have seen in this thread.

Anyway, I'd guess a typical libertarian position on vaccination as a requirement for public schooling would be this: Mandatory education should be abolished. Government schools should be abolished. Private citizens should be free to set up whatever educational services they like, offer them to anyone they wish, and accept as many of those offerees as care to enroll. And finally, they should be free to impose whatever enrollment requirements they like, including vaccination.

 

[Beth]

Now to assume "mandatory" equals "criminal penalties for non-compliance"...well, I can't help you with that. I wouldn't think the word "mandatory" included that denotatively.

So...you don't have to be anti-science...you at least have to be willing to accept preventable deaths for the sake of "personal freedom"...to me that looks the intrinsically less ethical choice.

I have to say that 'mandatory' to me implies penalties for non-compliance.

As far accepting preventable deaths for the sake of "personal freedom" we do that all the time. We could prevent thousands of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents by simply reducing the maximum speed limit to 20 mph everywhere. We could prevent thousands of deaths due to lung cancer, emphysema, etc. by making the possession of any tobacco products illegal. Is it then intrinsically less ethical to support speed limits above 20 mph or the legality of smoking?

I don't think so, but I value individual freedom in society fairly highly.

 

[Diogenes]

...I might consider making public school enrollment contingent on vaccination--this is largely the case already, anyway.

And that was effective in the past. Currently, because of relaxed exemption requirements...eg. giving more "freedom" over a medical issue that reaches far beyond those individuals and their children, we're losing coverage and see more disease instances.

If that's all Diogenes has in mind, he's going to have a very hard time figuring out what libertarians really think. Using the much broader term "mandatory" will bring in all sorts of other considerations and misunderstanding. As we have seen in this thread.

Anyway, I'd guess a typical libertarian position on vaccination as a requirement for public schooling would be this: Mandatory education should be abolished. Government schools should be abolished. Private citizens should be free to set up whatever educational services they like, offer them to anyone they wish, and accept as many of those offerees as care to enroll. And finally, they should be free to impose whatever enrollment requirements they like, including vaccination.

At the risk of being accused of arguing against people not here I've had no discussion yet that even reached that point. Have yet to get past either they understand the risk of infection and current reality but are willing to accept mortality rate increases to vaccine-preventable disease OR have decided, somehow, that people will just "make better choices" in the absence of a mandate despite data we already have on-hand.

 

[Diogenes]

I have to say that 'mandatory' to me implies penalties for non-compliance.

As far accepting preventable deaths for the sake of "personal freedom" we do that all the time. We could prevent thousands of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents by simply reducing the maximum speed limit to 20 mph everywhere. We could prevent thousands of deaths due to lung cancer, emphysema, etc. by making the possession of any tobacco products illegal. Is it then intrinsically less ethical to support speed limits above 20 mph or the legality of smoking?

I don't think so, but I value individual freedom in society fairly highly.

I think this argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of basic epidemiology. I can't see how your comparison is relevant. (Keeping in mind that you'd never know who gave your newborn the whooping cough that led to that newborn's death.)

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

But, hey, that just puts you in the former category rather than the latter as outlined in my previous post.

 

[Beth]

And that was effective in the past. Currently, because of relaxed exemption requirements...eg. giving more "freedom" over a medical issue that reaches far beyond those individuals and their children, we're losing coverage and see more disease instances.

That's not an unexpected outcome. On the other hand, such outbreaks are leading to more people deciding to vaccinate against those diseases. It is a self-correcting problem in that regard.

I think this argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of basic epidemiology. I can't see how your comparison is relevant. (Keeping in mind that you'd never know who gave your newborn the whooping cough that led to that newborn's death.)

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

But, hey, that just puts you in the former category rather than the latter as outlined in my previous post.

I have a reasonable familiarity with epidemiology. It is the study of the spread of disease, with 'disease' being able to be defined quite loosely. I don't see how my understanding or lack of understanding of epidemiology has any bearing on this though. Why do you think that epidemiology is a argument that trumps allowing individuals to make their own choices about vaccines? It's not because of the risk to others, which is what my examples were about. So what is the reason?

 

[ehcks]

That's not an unexpected outcome. On the other hand, such outbreaks are leading to more people deciding to vaccinate against those diseases. It is a self-correcting problem in that regard.

Skydiving without a parachute is a self-correcting problem.

Avoiding vaccinations harms people other than yourself. The more people who do it, the more other people get sick. It is about as far from self-correcting as it can get.

 

[Chuckles]

Understanding the basic definition of a word is not the same as understanding the science that word represents.

 

[deadrose]

Oh, and just to be clear on immunizations, my daughter had to have a medical exemption to the old killed-cell pertussis vaccine after a reaction left her with a hard lump in her leg muscle for years.

But she got all her other immunizations on schedule, and as soon as the modern acellular pertussis vaccine came out, she got caught up with that. One bad reaction wasn't going to make me freak out about the others!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This position has an underlying premise of paranoia.

The CDC is not "the government", it's a government agency staffed with experts who are transparent about the vaccine recommendations they make. The science is there for all to see.

It's idealistic/unrealistic to say people should decide for themselves when some decisions harm other people.

There is no threat of sanctioned violence in any vaccine law consequence. Where did you get that misinformation from?