Gary Johnson Changes His Mind on Mandatory Childhood Vaccinations
Good for him.
Jim Thompson/ZUMA Press/NewscomLibertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has apparently had a change of heart with regard to requiring childhood vaccinations. In my earlier evaluation of Johnson's stands on various science policy issues, I reported that I could "find no statements from Johnson suggesting that he thinks that vaccination might cause autism. In 2015, Our America Initiative, a non-profit co-founded by Gary Johnson, announced that it supported a Mississippi advocacy group's effort to place "childhood vaccination decisions into the hands of parents and doctors." I gave Johnson a "PASS" based on the fact that he hadn't fallen for the scientifically false claim that vaccination causes autism.
Now, according to Vermont Public Radio, Johnson has rethought his views on mandatory vaccination. Johnson says in the interview:
I've come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective," he said. "So … it's dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine."
Johnson said he believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level.
"In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine," he said.
Johnson said his position changed recently.
"It's an evolution actually just in the last few months, just in the last month or so," he said. "I was under the belief that … 'Why require a vaccine? If I don't want my child to have a vaccine and you want yours to, let yours have the vaccine and they'll be immune.' Well, it turns out that that's not the case, and it may sound terribly uninformed on my part, but I didn't realize that."
Good for him. Johnson clearly recognizes that vaccinations safely protect people from diseases. In addition, he has now come to recognize the importance of herd immunity for protecting vulnerable people who are too young to be vaccinated, whose vaccinations have failed to take, and those whose immune systems are compromised.
For more background, see my article, "Refusing Vaccination Puts Others Risk," in which I explain that there is no principled libertarian case for free-riders to refuse to take responsibility for their own microbes.
For a broader debate, see "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?"
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
On select articles, Reason is testing a new comment promotion feature developed by SolidOpinion. Commenters can purchase points and bid to promote their comments and/or the comments of others. Winning comments are displayed at the top of the comment thread for each article, and are identified as “promoted comments.” Point purchases and bidding are handled SolidOpinion. Please send any questions and feedback to promoted-comments@reason.com.
-
Oh great...I suppose you are just soooo happy, Mr. Bailey, to start one these shitstorm threads.
*clambers down into shitstorm cellar*
-
I think Trump articles are starting to hit diminishing returns, so it's time for old reliables to come back and help out.
-
Is it locked yet?
-
I think, for shitstorms, the proper direction to clamber is up.
-
Wait until they get the 'Illegal immigrants sporting genetically modified circumcisions are fighting for the right to mandatory abortions at state expense, Trump may or may not have said' article.
-
So a parent (let's say 'he') decides he doesn't want his child vaccinated, for whatever reason.
Now, his local department of health pays him a visit and states that if he doesn't submit his child to vaccination, then what? I don't see any resolution that doesn't entail the threat of deadly force by deputized agents of the state upon a peaceful person. -
Yes, for all these people demanding mandatory vaccinations, please describe in detail what punishments and acts of violence you will perform on those who don't comply.
-
If it is anything beyond, "they cant attend a state school", then it goes too far.
-
I should also qualify that I'm cool with private entities and institutions refusing non-vaccinated children as well.
-
Well, yeah, of course.
-
That or work on a public building.
It also should be legal for employees to require vaccination in the workplace, especially as so many subsidize health insurance.
-
HM & JT: Why don't we begin with holding them legally responsible for any damages that their kids' vaccine-preventable disease microbes cause other people? You know, pay for hospital bills, missed work, pain and suffering, wrongful death, etc.
-
That is fine, the parents of the sick people can sue.
That is what the courts are for.
But they have to prove damages.
-
Parents or actual sick people, depending on case, this is usually about children so I went there.
-
r: You do realize that courts, even civil courts, involve state enforcement, right?
-
Yes. You realize I am not an anarchist?
Courts are one of the handful of required functions for a successful minarchy.
-
state enforcement of restitution for a wrong that has happened is quite different from state enforcement of compliance for a potential wrong that has not yet happened.
-
^This. It's not a hard concept.
-
^This and That!!
Seriously, this is coming very close to, "Well, sometimes, the mob wins because...'the needs of the many', or, something."
-
Yeah, the latter is often much more efficient and results in fewer dead people.
-
But notably the former would require much more government bureaucracy.
-
Prove my child got that child sick.
-
A person is only morally liable for damages another person suffers through their actions not their inaction. Standing by as a person jumps off a bridge is not quite the same as shouting "JUMP!"
-
Standing by as a person jumps off a bridge is not quite the same as shouting "JUMP!"
This isn't the same thing. If you don't get vaccinated you aren't just "standing by". If you become infected and you go out in public then you are actively spreading those germs around, increasing the risk of harm to other people. It's like going to a park and throwing rocks randomly up in the air. Maybe you won't hit anyone. But if you do, you are responsible for the damages caused by your reckless actions (ie. going around other people while carrying an infectious disease.)
-
Maybe when a person who is not vaccinated gets ill they should avoid other people. Or you know, get medical attention since these horrible diseases kill people. If someone infected, through negligence, infects other people they should be held responsible. But that does not change whether a person is vaccinated or not.
-
Typhoid Mary had no clue she was infected. They still quarantined her for 30 years.
-
Typhoid Mary was told she was infected. She refused to believe it since she didn't get sick.
-
That's not quite true. She was told it was possible she was infected, which she refused to believe. They didn't have proof until the police took her in custody and took urine and stool samples from her while she was in prison.
-
Maybe when a person who is not vaccinated gets ill they should avoid other people. Or you know, get medical attention since these horrible diseases kill people. If someone infected, through negligence, infects other people they should be held responsible. But that does not change whether a person is vaccinated or not.
-
C#, let me try another analogy.
If I don't maintain my septic system (inaction) and it starts to pollute my neighborhood, am I liable? I realize that this is imperfect but I think your thought experiment is as well.
A definition of freedom is the opportunity to be responsible for ones actions. I think this whole action/inaction things is splitting hairs a little too close.
-
Your action placed and filled the septic tank. You did not, presumably, lick a petri dish to get mumps.
-
No, but your failure to get vaccinated, and then getting mumps and then going out into public with it got other people sick and/or killed.
-
Your action placed and filled the septic tank. You did not, presumably, lick a petri dish to get mumps.
-
Your action placed and filled the septic tank. You did not, presumably, lick a petri dish to get mumps.
-
There is no such thing as inaction.
-
Tony - the brilliantly stupid gift which keeps on giving.
-
Just when I think he can't chime in with anything more insidious he comes up with that.
-
And how are you going to conclusively prove that it was that particular child that led to the harm?
Or will it be a class action suit, but in reverse?
Not against tort in theory, but I find it hard to see how one would apply it in this situation.
-
And how are you going to conclusively prove that it was that particular child that led to the harm?
Standard for torts isnt reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence.
If kid A has chicken pox and kid B sits next to him in school and gets chicken pox, its a damn good start. Showing that B wasnt around anyone else with chicken pox would probably help too. That should be enough for a tort.
-
But the only way Kid B could get chicken pox is if Kid B wasn't vaxed, no? Or is Kid A responsible for mutation as well?
-
Or what if Kid A was vaxxed, and never got sick, but was a carrier for a mutated version that the vax didnt prevent?
Its why you can't just have a mandatory law, you can't cover everything.
Torts for obvious damaging situations would be one thing, but honestly, I think the general principle should be protect yourself and hope for the best.
Get a flu shot and hope it works this winter.
-
Indeed. As I pointed out during the dark days of Ebola, epidemiology matters. Even taking Bailey's concerns into account, herd immunity doesn't require every single individual in the population to be vaccinated for the disease to cease to be endemic. Even if one doesn't take a deontological view and looks at the cold equations of cost-benefit analysis, the question remains if it is worth it to threaten the small number of anti-vaxxers with violence to achieve total eradication of a particular disease.
-
The free riding section makes for interesting game theory.
I am now thinking of how to design a board game around the concept.
Small costs to buying X. But if too many players dont buy X, some of those who dont get chance at large costs, up to elimination from the game.
Hmmmm....
-
The free riding section makes for interesting game theory.
It does. Perhaps kickstart an add-on to this game?
-
Pandemic isnt my favorite. Not into the cooperatives.
I was thinking of a game involving multiple different types of free rider situations. Combined with some prisoner delimna too.
-
Flu shots are moronic, anything you're likely to catch is either a different strain or mutated by the time the shot is available.
Further the majority of the time when people think they have the flu, it's really food poisoning.
Want to avoid seasonal viruses, eat well, sleep, wash your hands.
-
Vaccines don't work 100% of the time and can't be used by 100% of people. They only work often enough to prevent outbreaks. It's a very interesting statistical problem.
-
They only usually work often enough to prevent outbreaks
-
And the parents of kid B of course have absolutely no responsibility to ensure the safety of their own child.
-
It's a dumb approach and that's why mandatory vaccines are necessary.
-
Oh Tony. You tough guy beta male progs and your love of violence.
-
Alright, and why don't we actually be consistent and hold everyone responsible for the avoidable diseases they spread? Ever came into work sick Bailey?
-
Ron, what would your enforcement mechanism be for mandatory vaccination?
I think most people here are fine with not allowing kids in public schools who aren't vaccinated, and similar measures. Do you think anything more coercive than that would be acceptable?
It may be hard to make a libertarian case for the "free riders" not getting vaccinated. But it's also really hard to make a libertarian case for seizing someone's children and forcing needles into them, which is what "mandatory" sort of implies.
-
If we're going to do that then *they* should be responsible for paying the costs for these vaccinations.
They can get insurance (or assurance) to cover these costs. They should also arrange their affairs to keep out of contact with the unvaccinated and to reasonable notify people of the danger to them.
Your kid has peanut allergies - you don't use the power of the state to ban peanuts. But here you're willing to have people killed if they refuse to be vaccinated?
-
I paid $600 out of pocket for one series of shots for a 4 year old.
-
Bailey, you want people to go around sueing each other for giving each other colds? And how would you prove a direct link from one sick person to another in a court of law? I don't see how this logic doesn't lead to mandatory flu vaccines for everyone. You really want to go down this path of increased risk entails some kind of automatic tort? That is progtard heaven.
Mandatory vaccinations are not libertarian. Bailey continues to be the least libertarian writer at Reason.
-
Ron recently took the track that 'carbon taxes' are sensible which somewhat disappointed me. I saw his point but it just didn't jive with me.
-
So, if someone is vaccinated and they spread the disease anyway because the vaccine fails they remain responsible for "their kids' vaccine-preventable disease microbes", right? You are not responsible for spreading the disease as long as you have genuflected to "the science"?
You favor thought crime, Ron. No surprise here.
-
If such a claim were actionable, then no, they would not be, because they would not have been negligent.
-
Why don't we begin with holding them legally responsible for any damages that their kids' vaccine-preventable disease microbes cause other people?
The mechanics of this are not easy. You can't prove this exact kid made that exact kid sick, so its hard to do as a straight one-to-one hold harmless.
Or, you can collectivize! Everyone who doesn't get vaccinated gets taxed to fund care for others. regardless of whether they get sick, or make someone sick, etc.
-
RB: This is beginning to sound a lot like Rothbard's writing on environmental policy, particularly vis a vis air pollution. If you can't prove that sick person A infected healthy person B, how can you hold person A legally responsible? Failing that, you would have to treat something like this as a "commons" issue, and I think in that sense it would be unique for the very good reason that such issues typically results from positive action and are resolved by curtailing that action.
For the record, I'm vaccinated and I've had my daughter vaccinated. I'm just not comfortable with using the state to compel medical procedures.
-
So, just how many other people are there? You know - the ones who were vaccinated but ended up being damaged by Billy's microbes after all?
20,000? 2 million? How many?
-
Really? Which ones? Just kids of citizens? Or will immigrants and refugees also be held accountable for bills, missed work, suffering...?
-
Vaccines have risks. It's why we have government funds to pay the victims.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
Why is it ok to force me to assume this risk on behalf of someone else? However compelling the math might be.
-
Very simple and in effect in many states. No vaccination no school. If you want to endanger your child go for it, you don't however have the right to endanger my child's health. AKA, do what you want as long as it doesn't endanger others. In New Mexico we had a huge outbreak of whooping cough of all things a year ago. We have a huge amount of old hippies where we live and they go to Mexico all the time. Well they have brought back such wonderful things as whooping cough and TB. The local hospital was inundated by home schooled and hippie schooled kids. The public schools that require vaccinations only had a few cases.
-
HE'S LYING!
-
Bailey you are wrong on vaccinations.
As is Johnson, now, as his previous position was the correct one.
And before you even think of using the term: humans arent herd animals.
-
Bailey self identifies as a transhumanist, i.e. an atheist desperate for a technological heaven to save him from the icy nihilism of death. He'll drop libertarian principles the instinct they conflict with his idea of a technological enhancement to utopia.
-
It's just another "top men" ideology
-
How so?
As far as Bailey's transhumanist stuff goes (I don't really think this is part of that), he's pretty consistently saying that people should be able to modify themselves and make use of new technologies as they see fit, despite what supposed "top men" want to tell you.
-
In the case of vaccines, it's 'top men' in the sense that Bailey, upon recognizing the scientific validity of vaccines and their success, has decreed that they should be broadly applied for a greater good. And he's willing to twist and manipulate libertarian philosophy in order to do that. It's less about listening to top men and more about being one.
Transhumanism as a whole, however, is less about 'top men' and more about atheist insecurity about death and a desire to elevate science and technological progress to the level of 'Ahura Mazda/Gnostic Saviour/God/Nirvana who will save us from the suffering of material existence'. So really it's only 'top men' in the sense that it's crying out to constructed higher authority for salvation.
-
I can see it in the vaccine thing. I only meant regarding the transhuman thing.
So really it's only 'top men' in the sense that it's crying out to constructed higher authority for salvation.
Isn't that the same thing religion does (if you don't start with the assumption that religion is valid)?
Do you think it is really such an atheist thing? Why wouldn't God want people to figure out how to to all these amazing things?
I can only speak for myself, but the notion of salvation has always seemed ridiculous to me and is a big part of why I rejected religion and theism. Is it really a search for salvation in the absence of some other salvation narrative provided by religion, or is it just the same insecurity and angst about death that afflict almost everyone and which many religious people have allayed with stories of salvation in the afterlife?
-
No, that was my point, transhumanism uses a religious (and largely Judeo-Christian, I might add) faith in a technological context. I argue it's basically religion for atheists, a belief in the coming utopia that will save us from the nihilistic end that awaits us all. Hence why I ran down that list of various saviour figures, it's all about a rejection of the material world and its inherent suffering for some kind of salvation. For Christians, it's the potential of heaven, for transhumanists, it's the potential of being an immortal machine god.
-
Exactly, John Titor. For Bailey, libertarianism is a means to an end. If the means conflict with the end, he will drop the means. In this, he is no different from insular yokels, who will drop libertarian principles when they realize they can't help them keep out other cultures.
-
Isn't all of this a means to end? Ethical systems and political systems are all means by which we reach the ends of some type of society/civilization. Libertarianism simply for its own sake seems more like religion than a system of organizing a society.
-
Libertarianism is a moral/ethical system.
There are many different political systems that could be used to support it, I think constitutional federalism is among the better ones for a large country.
If libertopia is a small island, there might be a better choice.
-
I'll show my philosophical ignorance:
The base concepts of L. as a moral system would be self-ownership and NAP? Are there others? Are there 'positive' obligations that it entails (eg maximizing good in a utilitarian framework)?
-
Ethical system, I could be persuaded on.
Moral system? Eh, not really. Libertarianism at best tells me when I shouldn't interfere with others, or when I should have a reasonable expectation of not being interfered with. It doesn't say a thing about what the things me or others are doing are good or evil.
To put it simply, you can have two devout libertarians who adhere 100% to libertarian principles and philosophy and both think the other is Satan himself.
-
Yes. Which explains a lot of the kids these days and our pizza discussions.
-
humans arent herd animals
Sometimes the same word has different meanings in different contexts. I don't think that the concept of "herd immunity" only applies to what would properly be described as "herd animals". Call it "group immunity" if it makes you feel better.
I agree with you entirely about what would be appropriate vaccination policy.
-
I think what we really need to know is what Johnson's opinion of deep dish pizza is.
-
I am a big tent pizzaist.
Except for chicken bacon ranch. Ranch dressing makes it not pizza.
-
Where do you stand on pizzas with barbecue sauce?
-
Only on thin crust!
-
Borderline. At least its a tomato based sauce, so I will allow it. But its definately a PINO.
-
Are you people sick in the head?
BBQ sauce and ranch? On pizza?
I have to rethink giving to Reason this year.
-
He orders online.
-
At least now I get to stay home on election day since there is no one to vote for.
-
C: If you're a one-issue vaccine voter, you could always vote Trump or Stein.
-
Wow... I have no scientific problem with vaccines, but a moral problem with coercion. But thanks for the back-handed ad-hom. Are you sure you didn't study journalism at Columbia?
-
Not worth staying home over this. This is a process not a sudden coronation of received Libertarian orthodoxy.
-
Protected classes, carbon taxes, forced vaccination... We advocate for others not to vote for the lesser of two evils. Maybe we could follow our own advice.
-
We advocate for others not to vote for the lesser of two evils...when there is a 3rd choice available.
If there was a better choice this fall, I would vote for it.
I vote. If you want to stay at home, no problem, I get it. But I vote.
-
I may vote on local issues and offices, but I am beginning to feel like I am voting against the other guy instead of for a candidate i support. I've been justifying Johnson being "good enough" since he was nominated, but every day that passes I see less of a reason to vote "for" him.
-
Then don't vote for president. That's a perfectly good decision.
Or write in Almanian!
-
I am staying home.
-
Well said Titus.
-
Look, Ron - sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to teach people a lesson. Namely, leave the anti-vaxxers alone and let the latest outbreak "thin their herd". As a negative example.
Now, just how many anti-vaxxers get converted when confronted with the reality of seeing their fellow anti-vaxxer's child die?
I say you want to stop anti-vaxxers, give them a plague or two.
-
Are there any ways in which Johnson is actually trying to be a libertarian, any more?
-
LINO
-
Pot legalization?
Balanced budget? -
Pot legalization?
Yeah, of the "tax and regulate" variety.
Balanced budget?
While desirable from a fiscal sanity perspective, it's not exactly a libertarian concern per se. Although I will give credit that he generally seems inclined towards the "reduce spending" form of balancing the budget and not the "raise taxes" form.
-
Both are steps in the right direction, unlike his ACA or vaccination views.
-
I'm not saying Johnson isn't a good moderate Republican, I'm complaining about his libertarian bona fides.
-
Yeah, Im just saying he has a few issues that are steps in the right direction. He is a squish libertarian at best.
But my ballot this fall wont contain a real one.
-
Wait, what are his views on the ACA? Health care isn't one of the issue topics on his site, and I don't remember hearing any of his comments on the matter.
-
What I can dig up on Google looks very promising (he has, or had, a very negative view of the ACA) but it's all 4+ years old. The LP platform is solid on the matter, but when have party platforms ever mattered much to any party's candidates?
-
That is what I expect. I could see him trying to "fix it" in a way towards a more freeish market rather than killing it.
But then again, I dont see him vetoing a repeal bill that passed the House and Senate either.
-
But then again, I dont see him vetoing a repeal bill that passed the House and Senate either.
Putting on a Madisonian hat, Johnson is by far the best of the 4 "major or semi-major" candidates running. Let the Congress sort out the big issues. Put him in front of a right-wing Congress and he will generally not interfere.
Putting on a Jacksonian hat, Johnson is only marginally better than the other 3. His veto record is prodigious, but put him in front of a left-wing Congress and I could see several disconcerting "compromise" opportunities.
-
Except when it comes to the Bank of the United States, I prefer the Madisonian hat to the Jacksonian hat.
-
That seems accurate.
-
So Johnson changes his position to the unlibertarian position on vaccination, and R. Bailey applauds this?
WTF?
-
p: Maybe read some of the links?
-
Those links don't change the underlying principle any.
-
r: So you're not responsible for keeping your vermin off of other people's property and bodies?
-
Vaccination is a preemptive measure, no? Consequence follows harm, not failure to prevent the possibility of harm.
-
k: What about negligence? That is failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. ... If the injury is caused by something owned or controlled by the supposedly negligent party, but how the accident actually occurred is not known (like a ton of bricks falls from a construction job), negligence can be found based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself")
-
Its possible.
Negligence already exists, no need for any new laws.
Common law can work it out.
-
First of all, I neither own nor control a communicable disease that infects me. I could wield it maliciously, of course, but it remains an independent natural agent.
Second, you still have to suffer some injury. Me not getting vaccinated is not an injury to you unless and until you get a communicable disease from me. And there are other ways of preventing the spread of disease besides vaccination; do I also owe you a duty of care to wash my hands?
-
Ron, how on Earth can it be determined that Child A's "vermin" caused Child B's sickness?
You do realize that the whole scheme is unenforceable, right?
-
I've noticed Bailey likes to dip out of here when the questions get hard...
-
But at least he makes an appearance.
-
SoT: Or when his editors are incessantly demanding that he finish up other articles. Editors, can't live with them; can't live without them!
-
What about negligence?
Tort law 101 - Required elements for a negligence tort:
1) Duty of Care
2) Breach of Duty
3) Harm
4) Causation of Harm -
Idk where my link went:
-
5) Proof of Causation of Harm - Impossible, since you'd have to prove that the bugs which sickened Child B came from Child A.
Keep in mind that this involves proving a negative, namely that these bugs did not come from another child that Child B came into contact with. Anywhere, at any time, by any other vector.
The whole scheme is unenforceable.
-
Keep in mind that this involves proving a negative, namely that these bugs did not come from another child that Child B came into contact with. Anywhere, at any time, by any other vector.
I just had a PTSD flashback to Torts 1, where this isn't entirely true in our legal system. *vomits in mouth*
-
Negligence requires proof that the negligent act of A caused provable harm to B. You cannot prove such a thing WRT to vaccine-preventable diseases outside of controlled environments designed for the purpose.
-
You can't force people to inject themselves or their kids. You can nudge them by making it a requirement to attend public school. You can't enforce this law so it can't be mandatory. Are you going to take the children away from the parents who refuse?
There isn't a principled argument for mandatory vaccination anymore than their is principled argument for invading countries in the name of democracy. Remember when you wrote this gem? http://reason.com/archives/200.....-one-state
-
Mandatory hand washing? maybe...showers?...you know who else liked showers?
-
-
For whatever reason, I thought that was going to be Ms. Jackson.
-
Sorry.
-
R. Kelly?
-
If someone's dog bites me, I sue them, I dont lobby for mandatory euthanasia of all dogs.
-
r: So you're not responsible for keeping your vermin off of other people's property and bodies?
My daughter brought home a cold from the YMCA. I caught this cold and missed 2 days of work so far. If I sue, are you willing to help me out with an amicus curiae?
-
There is no vaccine against the cold.
-
That doesnt change anything. The offender shouldnt have gone to the Y.
-
And who's the offender? Your kid - that's who!
-
There is no vaccine against the cold.
Ron's argument is that we have a duty to "keep vermin" off of other people's property and bodies. Again, can I sue whomever infected my daughter with head lice in 3rd Grade?
-
can I sue whomever infected my daughter with head lice in 3rd Grade?
This is America, you can sue anyone you want!
/FUCK YEAH!
-
Again, can I sue whomever infected my daughter with head lice in 3rd Grade?
Furthermore, can we sue whomever has made head lice resistant to common treatments, thus creating a greater potential for transmission? How about antibiotic resistant bacteria? Bailey's only willing to apply his libertarian argument to the non-vaccinated, and absolutely refuses to actually apply it consistently.
-
On, great argument. If you took antibiotics and a strain evolved in your body that became resistant to that antibiotic, you are responsible for everyone that gets sick because of that new resistant strain.
-
Negligence requires that you act with reasonable care. It would be unreasonable to tell people that they had to be completely free of all pathogens. We are all covered in them almost all of the time and they are completely invisible. Telling someone to stay home while they were actively sneezing, coughing, vomiting --- well you could make a case for it.
-
Personal autonomy is a fundamental principle of liberty.
-
My vermin might not make me sick enough to seriously harm me. So - I'm responsible for hurting you because you responded in a weaker way?
-
Wait, if those "other people" are vaccinated, then what's the problem?
-
I tried, but you lost me right with the title:
"Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk
A pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination"What's next? A pragmatic argument for sensible gun control via coercive confiscation?
-
What's next? A pragmatic argument for sensible gun control via coercive confiscation?
Followed by an argument that prohibition is needed to keep the herd safe
-
I'm afraid this might be terribly unenlightened of me, but I just can't see where the NAP, individual liberty, and forcing people to have injections because you're afraid you might get sick all coexist peacefully.
-
The slipper slope of letting the camel into the tent
-
Why are you still here? You must be a masochist.
-
Not so much WTF for Johnson acting less libertarian, since politicians who think they have a chance of winning tend to disappoint hard, but for Bailey cheering on this development.
-
Exactly.
-
Why? Bailey is well known for liking coercion when it serves his utilitarian purposes.
-
He's doubling down! And trying to tell us he's still libertarian.
-
I've come to find out that without mandatory...
Aaaand, fuck off.
-
I've vaccinated my kids. But I have a big problem thinking other parents should be mandated.
Darwinism has its benefits . . . .
-
As would I, if I had kids.
But it's just one of the lines I draw -- not temporarily abducting people's kids in order to jab them with needles.
-
Maybe, as a compromise, we can require (suggest, mandate, nicely ask) the unvaccinated to wear big SCARLET "U"s on the foreheads as a warning to the rest of us.
-
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
------------ http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com
-
there is no principled libertarian case for free-riders to refuse to take responsibility for their own microbes
Yes, there is. Neither you or any scientist has any right to tell another person they have to inject something in their body
-
^THIS
-
I agree the gov't can't go around forcibly injecting people. But they can well say, "if you refuse to take this prudent precaution, you are not welcome in many of our private and public spaces." You can't respect your own autonomy and reject everyone else's.
-
I dont think anyone is arguing against that.
-
Maybe check for vaccination papers at the entrances?
-
They sure as hell check them at our public schools and I am ok with that. If some employer said: you can't work here unless you have been vaccinated for x, y and z (which is very common in medical establishments), I am ok with that too. I think that's all that people are talking about with talk of mandatory vaccination, but maybe I've missed something.
-
Nobody is forced by law to work for that employer.
-
At least my employer pays for my mandatory vaccines.
-
The do not check them at public schools in any meaningful sense. I think even California allows contentious objectors.
-
Not necessarily. HIPAA would factor in...
-
there is no principled libertarian case for free-riders to refuse to take responsibility for their own microbes
I'm having a little problem with "my own microbes". In what sense are they mine, so that I am responsible for what they do? I didn't acquire them intentionally, I don't want them, I can't control them, hell, I don't even know that any given microbe even exists. So I should be "responsible" for them?
If I own a 1,000 acre ranch, am I "responsible" for every groundhog, so that if my neighbor's horse steps in a groundhog hole on his side of the fence I have to buy him a new horse?
-
We've already told Ron this. He's still intransigent.
The Bailey Rule: When persuasion fails, call out the Mounties.
-
Seems like your problem is with pathogens and not vaccinations. Just eliminate them all and there's no problem. Pretty sure that's considered pat logic around here these days.
-
And we can't even effectively kill the mosquitoes in Florida or elsewhere. Bring back the DDT!!
-
DDT? You mean the chemical that saved millions of human lives? Environmentalists hate DDT.
-
A neutron bomb would fix this problem. Stat.
-
Ok, then. Fire up the neutron bombs! Live free or die!
-
As would SMOD.
So why the hell would I vote Johnson/Weld?
-
Messes up the landscaping. A nice gamma ray burst would work though.
-
DON'T VOTE 2016!
-
Can't even feel good about throwing away a vote this year. Thank a fucking lot GJ.
-
I am with you.
-
Vote Calvin Coolidge because the dead won't hurt you.
-
I understand your position on this, Ron. I agree with you that vaccination is effective. I actually even agree with you that failing to vaccinate when you can is immoral.
I just don't accept that government should be the arbiter of morals on vaccines, any more than I agree that types of dogs that have been known to bite strangers should be banned, or that the rare cases of someone immorally leaving a gun in reach of a child calls for guns to be purged from society.
My rights to my life, body, and property do not compel everyone to act in the best interests of my life and property at all times.
Johnson is wrong. He's definitely outing himself bit by bit as a true believer in the "greater good" who fortunately happens to think liberty is often for the greater good.
-
Clearly is more consequentialist than deontologist.
-
*sigh*
Never admit you're wrong! It shows weakness! Damnit, GJ!
-
"I've come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective," he said. "So … it's dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine."
No one should be proud of that bumbling statement.
1) Vaccines are ineffective unless everyone gets them?
2) Or vaccines are less effective at protecting those for whom they were ineffective unless everyone gets them?
The first statement will ring false to a lot of people depending on how they read it.
The second statement is true.
There's also an open question about what is meant by "mandatory".
1) Vaccinations should be mandatory for kids in public schools unless they have a medical condition that counterindicates vaccination.
2) Vaccines should be mandatory (with the same counterindication caveat) for all children--even if they're home-schooled.
The first statement is a pass.
The second is a fail.
Depending on what Johnson meant by "mandatory", he may have gone from pass to fail on my scorecard.
-
Jeez, it took you long enough
-
It wasn't that long.
Someday, one of you will accuse me of making things too long and complicated and another will accuse me of being prone to oversimplifying--both in the same thread.
. . . and I'll laugh.
Muhahahaha!
-
. . . refuse to take responsibility for their own microbes.
They're not *my* microbes. I didn't ask them to be there, didn't invite them there, didn't put them there, and - even if vaccinated - can't get rid of them. Yeah, I know, its a rhetorical flourish. Doesn't work though.
. . . protecting vulnerable people who are too young to be vaccinated, whose vaccinations have failed to take, and those whose immune systems are compromised.
If you were lying passed out, face down in a puddle, I would have no *legal* duty (even under our 'forced communitarian' legal code) to save you. Could, in fact, be facing legal repercussions if I were to intervene and you were injured during that intervention - repercussions that I would not face if I simply walked away. Yet you're going to tell me I have a duty under *libertarian* principles to coerce others to act when it comes to vaccinations?
Are you saying that libertarian philosophy requires me to help everyone in need? If not, then how do we derive where the cut-off should be? Who's worthy of state violence to protect and who is not?
-
Johnson is wrong on this - requiring vaccines will only increase the resistance to them. (Not to mention convince stupid people that 'autism' is a thing.) Nevertheless, I will vote for him, even though I am still shilling for Jill (which is not to say that Hillary isn't perfect - she's like a god in my eyes.)
-
Aren't vaccines just a gateway to IV drug use? Today the MMR, tomorrow heroin.
-
Precautionary Principle libertarians- my favorite kind.
-
Nothing an executive order can't enhance.
-
I don't even know why Johnson went down this rat-hole. He admits - it's pretty much a local issue. So why even go there, Gary?
-
I don't even know why Johnson went down this rat-hole. He admits - it's pretty much a local issue. So why even go there, Gary?
-
Another hill not worth dying on. Even less worth dying on than the gay cake hill.
Only scientifically illiterate nutjobs don't vaccinate their kids, so it's not even a religious conscience issue. it's just an "i'm a retard and I want to endanger my child's health" issue.
-
+1000
-
Tell that to my cousin, Chris and his wife, Robin. She breast fed her two kids until they were six and therefore, do not need to be vaccinated.
And they are not nutjobs - they believe vaccines are bad. He's a software engineer in Seattle. She's a teacher (home schooler).
-
The first paragraph is not consistent with the statement "they are not nutjobs."
-
Just to be clear, it's not true that breastfeeding is a substitute for vaccinations. Not sure if you actually believed it, or that was just Robin.
-
Sorry, but all of that post screams nutjobs.
1. They believe vaccines are bad - they aren't. They're pretty damn good. Everyone should get them. But no one should be *forced* to.
2. Breastfeeding will provide some limited protection - for a limited time and only to those diseases the mother has been exposed to (including through vaccination). Breastfeeding does not prime the child's immune system like a vaccine does and will not provide protection when withdrawn. This isn't arcana, its widely available information.
3. Six? That's pretty old. I would have thought that it was best practice to cut it off when the child can safely eat solid food. It is, functionally, the same as a bottle and no six year old should be on a bottle.
-
So Ron once again conflates the beneficial side effects of vaccination with the primary purpose in order to come up with the Statist position (or an approximation thereof). Using this logic, I can get "libertarian" positions FOR the war on drugs, sex work prohibitions, and virtually any other position if there exists any externality possible and coercive force can be used to ensure compliance from all of humanity.
-
I disagree with Bailey on this issue, but I think that's more an approximation for our objections than an accurate approximation of his position.
Bailey is not one to suffer fools gladly. If you're putting him and others at risk unnecessarily and for stupid reasons, then he's going to you doing that.
We should all be free to do anything so long as it doesn't harm other people, but if refusing to have your child vaccinated results in some third party suffering and dying, then what you're doing has harmed someone.
I think that's a correct approximation of Bailey's position. It is not my position.
-
And if you have religious objections to vaccination - what then? Screw your religion, the state is supreme?
Bailey's problem is that he too easily resorts to force and coercion when his efforts at persuasion fail.
Bailey - the scientific evidence of vaccination is clear.
Anti-vax - not to meBailey - what are you, nutz? The evidence is clear!
Anti-vax - God said no, so no.Bailey - You're not allowed to say no!
-
Bailey has a choice, get himself (or his children) vaccinated or not. How is my identical choice creating risk for him?
If he's vaccinated he's not at risk, if he's not vaccinated he's chosen to assume the risk just like I did. My choice did not create his risk, his did.
To go from there to my having an affirmative duty to mitigate his risks as well as my own cannot be done on libertarian principles. You must deny both of us autonomy and condone the pre-emptive use of force over possible scenarios however unlikely or costly.
-
"If he's vaccinated he's not at risk, if he's not vaccinated he's chosen to assume the risk just like I did."
We're getting into the science now.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. Their effectiveness varies by vaccine, but some of the common ones for really bad diseases are only 90% effective.
That means being vaccinated does not protect those children. They're still subject to the disease if they're exposed to it--even if they're vaccinated. In order to not get the disease, they're depending on herd immunity. That means that if anyone in the herd gets it, the chances of it spreading to someone who has been vaccinated but for which the vaccination was ineffective is very low--because the vector has been cut off by the immunity of the rest of the herd around them. The spread of the disease to the vaccinated but still vulnerable, in other words, is severely inhibited by the fact that everyone around them has been vaccinated and 90% of them are immune.
In some parts of the country where there are large groups of people who don't vaccinate their children, the effect can be devastating to children who were vaccinated but for which the vaccine was ineffective.
Not that it's acceptable for unvaccinated children to die of easily preventable diseases, but the fact is that by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, you really are putting other people's vaccinated children at much greater risk of infection--without their consent or input.
-
If you look hard enough, you will eventually find that everything we do or don't do has a negative impact on other people in some way.
Concentrate on why Wickard v. Filburn is wrong.
The Court ruled that a man cannot grow wheat on his own property for his own consumption because by growing his own wheat, that meant he was buying less of it on the interstate market. Therefore, the government was justified in prohibiting him from growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption because what he was doing was harming other people.
It may seem unnatural to argue that we have a right to harm other people, but that's what it boils down to.
The solution is not to deny that growing our own wheat on our own property doesn't harm anyone else. It does! That's the way markets work. Everything we buy or don't buy has an impact on the market. Every time we buy from one competitor rather than the other, we're hurting the company we rejected.
And that's okay.
-
Try to weave that into your vaccine narrative. Don't try to claim that what you do is okay because it doesn't have any impact on other people like Bailey. Everything you do or don't do has a negative impact on somebody like Bailey. The point is that you have a right to make choices for yourself--even if your choices negatively impact other people--be they wheat farmers or children who were vaccinated but for whom the vaccine was ineffective. Nobody likes to be the guy that champions something that makes babies get sick and die, but if that's what's right, I'll stand up for that.
I'm also in favor of respecting the Fifth Amendment in cases of arson. I'll own that.
-
Some vaccines can't be given to very young children.
If the "herd" isn't vaccinated, those children are at risk of harm, even if their parents want to vaccinate them.
To me, this is the most compelling argument. These children are at arguably unnecessary risk that their parents can't reasonably mitigate.
That said, the Baileys fail to acknowledge that vaccination has both monetary and biological costs. Vaccines are actually pretty expensive, and they do contain a finite risk of serious harm.
So, even if the "correct" answer is for everyone to assume the small risk to mitigate the large harm, how is it possibly libertarian to force me to accept the significant cost and the small but real risk of harm for the benefit of someone else?
-
There's also the question of how vaccines will affect children with a genetic proclivity to develop hyperactive auto-immune diseases.
The true cause of Crohn's disease, for instance, is mysterious. There are contributing factors like the Hygiene Hypothesis, but there are also indications that there are genetic proclivities involved.
For whatever reason, the victim's autoimmune system starts targeting their small intestine as if it were an invading virus. It often doesn't show up until people in their 30s.
Why do their white blood cells attack their own body? It's like your immune system is attacking something that isn't there--and it's really counterintuitive for people who have the disease to get vaccinated for anything. For one, even when patients get a cold or the flu, it triggers their immune system to go hyperactive and their Crohn's symptoms typically flare up.
Even apart from that, beefing up an immune system that's already hyperactive and fighting something that isn't there by way of a vaccine--to fight something that isn't there--is really counterintuitive by itself.
And what about people who have children with a genetic proclivity for an autoimmune disease like that? Just because no symptoms have shown up yet, shouldn't their parents be given the discretion to choose whether to beef up their child's immune system to fight a virus that isn't there?
-
To me, this is the most compelling argument. These children are at arguably unnecessary risk that their parents can't reasonably mitigate.
However - the *parents* chose for them to assume that risk. Its not incumbent upon me to change my behavior just because you've made a decision that increases your chance of harm from behavior I've already been doing.
-
I think Bailey is making the same mistake as Mill. The formulation that we should all be free to do anything so long as it doesn't harm someone almost gets it right. Scientific progress and misapplication of the commerce clause have shown us that everything we do (or don't do) harms someone in some way. The correct formulation is that we should be free to do anything so long as we don't violate someone's rights.
There's an important difference there. A right is the right to make a choice. We should be free to act so long as we account for other people's right to make a choice--for themselves.
But we can, do, and should be free to harm other people by our choices. I should be free to start a pizza business next to your and drive you out of business with better quality, better service, and lower prices so that you go out of business, the bank forecloses on your house, and your wife leaves you and takes the kids, and you eventually kill yourself.
I should be free to do anything--even if it harms you--so long as I don't violate your right to make choices for yourself.
It's my right to make choices for myself that should be paramount, too. Bailey should be free to do as he pleases so long as it doesn't violate my right to choose whether I'm vaccinated, too.
-
It seems like a "lose-lose" with vaccinations. I doubt anti-vaccers are deliberately going out to harm others. They may be ignorant but they're not malicious.
And there are religions who are against vaccination. Is Bailey against freedom of conscience?
-
"Is Bailey against freedom of conscience?"
No. Bailey isn't against freedom of conscience, and if you tell him you want to be free to do something that infects children with debilitating diseases and kills them, he'll probably inquire about your conscience.
I think Bailey might argue that people don't have a right to hurt and kill children because of the First Amendment any more than they have a right to shoot children because of the Second Amendment.
. . . but at some point, I think I'll have to let Bailey explain himself. I don't agree with Bailey on this issue, but I understand him well enough. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we can't understand their position.
Also, sometimes just because they disagree with a lot of libertarians doesn't mean their position is unlibertarian, too. Whenever I think what Bailey or Sullum are saying is unlibertarian, it's usually a good sign that I misunderstood what they were saying.
The great thing about being a libertarian is that once we agree that we should all be free to make our own choices, we don't have to agree on much else in order to be a libertarian.
-
The problem is that Bailey doesn't believe in his own science. Or he believes in a riskless society.
And honestly, how can you saw those are "your microprobes". My cat has fleas - they're not his fleas.
Bailey might as well blame God for creating the microprobes, because that is who the owner is. But Bailey doesn't believe in God.
-
When my cat gets fleas can I sue you for not using frontline?
-
If memory serves, I saw a statistic that said more people die of complications from measles vaccines than die of measles. If true, you forcing vaccination more risky for them dying then for them to cause someone to die. Therefore the policy Baile wants will cause more deaths than not.
-
I like this answer. It's not a very warm and fuzzy one, but it gets to the point that we do in fact harm each other on a regular basis. It's called "competition."
-
I don't understand why Johnson is taking a stand unnecessarily on controversial issues.
Why divide your support over controversial issues?
Dividing your tent into smaller pieces is no way to play the big tent game.
Taking a stand on issues that divide your support is no way to maximize yourself as a protest candidate either.
Next time somebody asks him about childhood vaccination, take a bold stand against infant mortality and in support of suffering parents.
-
You consider being pro-mandatory-vaccination controversial?
Exactly what percentage of the population do you think are anti-vaxxers?
-
You consider being pro-mandatory-vaccination controversial?
Around here, a larger percentage.
Exactly what percentage of the population do you think are anti-vaxxers?
There is a 3rd category that is both pro-vax and anti-mandatory-vax.
-
Weird. It's like we want to legalize drugs and not do them all.
-
anti-vaxxer =/= those against the government forcing people to vax
-
This will cost Johnson votes. Watch.
-
This and just about everything else he says. Where's the 2012 Gary Johnson? I voted for THAT guy!
-
You consider being pro-mandatory-vaccination controversial?
Oh, yes it is. Texas was forced to abandon its mandate for HPV vaccination by popular demand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
He just lost votes in Texas, I guarantee it.
-
That wasn't about vaccines, per se. That was about the state encouraging girls to have sex.
Or something like that.
Key words: "sexually transmitted virus"
-
Do you understand the idea that women should be free to make choices about their own bodies in terms of abortion?
I'm not asking whether you agree with that argument, only whether you understand it.
If so, then you should also understand the argument that women should be free to make choices about what is injected into their bodies--regardless of whether it has an impact on third parties.
Also, as others have suggested, just because I'm not an anti-vaxer doesn't mean I don't care about the issue. Plenty of women wouldn't care about the abortion issue much--if no one were threatening to take their right to an abortion away.
There are plenty of people who only start caring about their right to refuse vaccinations as soon as someone decides they want to start making them mandatory.
-
Isn't it a local issue? Why go down this rat-hole?
-
Assuming this is calculated, this is a way to distinguish himself from the Greens for any waivering democrats. She is a wacky anti-vaxxer, while GJ is for science... Or he was just responding honestly to a question. Hard to tell with him.
-
As far as free-riders go - who's the free rider? The person who doesn't get vaccinated or the person relying on herd-immunity to boost the effectiveness of their vaccination?
-
Yes.
-
Anti-vaxxers are not dumb. They tend to be upper-middle class, well educated snobs. It's the same appeal as bitcoin: you get a kick out of showing off that you're smart enough to know you're an idiot.
-
I believe in vaccinations and yes, anti-vaxxers are Luddites. But, I am also a firm believer in Darwinism.
-
upper-middle class and well educated in no way rules out dumb...
-
My cousin and his wife . . . . Home schoolers (cuz, anti-vax), Democrats, Seattle residents.
-
Deep dish pizza... abortion... circumcisions...
-
That is the most disgusting pizza ever made.
-
I can think of nothing more 'libertarian' than forcing parents to inject their children with needles. Why should they have any say in how they raise their children?
Now, some crazies would say that people can choose to inoculate their children or not, but that doesn't prevent government from saying they cannot attend public school unless they do (you know, they way it works already in most states). That's CRAZY! Who are they do decide? The state knows best.
Seriously, I'm starting to think Reason is just trolling libertarians.
-
As ever, an Iron Law is apropos:
You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.
-
Yeah that one fails laughably here. It couldn't be more perfect a platitude to illustrate the stupidity of your beliefs in this context. Your freedom to be wrong here means the illness and death of children. Be wrong with your own health.
-
My cousin & his wife and as liberal as you are. Moved to Seattle. Software engineer. Progressives. Vote Democrat. And anti-vaxxers because vaccines are medical conspiracy perpetrated by a racist, misogynistic society.
-
Witness the most free person in existence under that Iron Law.
Thanks for the demonstration Tony
-
Yet your freedom to be wrong has already killed tens of millions in multiple nations around the world.
-
Obviously it's such an intrusion for government to require you to submit your child to being stabbed with a needle! The visual is outrageous!
But of course everyone's just fine with all of society being subjected to norms of property rights and the enforcement apparatus that secures them. What if I want to be an anti-propertarian? I think property is a demon concept. Oh, but you're going to use the full force of United States law and order to enforce herd acceptance of the legitimacy of property? To solve the problem of, what? People not having that good American feeling of owning shit?
If you're okay with government guns enforcing anything, then employing them to prevent the spread of deadly pathogens shouldn't be a problem.
-
That's the most inane logic I've ever heard. You need a better comparison. No one is forcing you to own property through the barrel of a gun
-
No one is forcing you to own property through the barrel of a gun
Obama?
-
Indecent exposure. There is a bare (ha!) minimum of property that must be owned.
-
And of course Tony has to jump on here and bellow out an emotional, rambling screech of incoherence that is largely unrelated to the subject at hand.
We prefer to use the force of law to defend property, because (and you can throw as much of a tantrum as you want about the government enforcing the notion of property) the opposite of that is not no property. It's me defending what I consider my property by martial means, and taking what I wish from others via martial means. And somehow I doubt you have the means to prevent that.
However, the beauty of a society that enforces property rights is that, if you really wanted Tony (which is why I actually think you're full of shit and just emoting like a pathetic child) you can purchase land and enact a weird communalist society of your own. Communes have been set up throughout American history Tony, and the only people who would prevent you now is the people who you love, the regulators and the taxmen. So have fun with that.
-
You're completely free to reject property at any time. Just walk away. I am perfectly free to protect my property.
-
Remember when Reason was a libertarian site? I am seriously asking. It has been a while. Reason's new name should be Reasonbart. These defenses of Gary Johnson are getting just as ridiculous as Breitbart's shilling for Trump.
I guess the Gestapo will now be taking Amish kids away from their parents. Carbon tax? Mandatory Vaccinations? Bake the cake? WTF?
-
Pithy, in a good way
-
This guy makes Bob Barr look like a principled libertarian by comparison. Voting for the least of three evils is no better than voting for the least of two. The LP is just as lost as the Republicans and Dems.
-
The difference is that there is no risk of GJ actually becoming president.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for better ballot access for the Libertarian Party. And maybe an invitation to future debates.
Those are good things and well worth a vote for GJ.
-
That's why I've always voted LP in the past. But what good is being invited to the debates, if we send someone who can't even argue our position? I'd pay good money to keep him out, at this point.
-
If this turns out to be true and not another misrepresentation of the question and answer. Johnson will have destroyed ballot access in NC for future Libertarians. When California passed their mandatory vaccine law a similar one was attempted in NC and it went down in defeat. The people who fought so hard against that bill have a network of supporters through out NC. Supporters who could have been mobilized to do the ground work to support the LP ticket. Well Johnson and the LP can kiss that vital support good bye unless there is a clarification or a retraction.
-
The more I think about this topic the more disturbing I find the concept of mandatory vaccination in a free society. Forced vaccination is not compatible with the concept of nonaggression. There is simply no place in a society that respects the rights of the individual for compelling medical procedures in order to prevent possible harms to theoretical victims. You cannot believe in liberty and also believe that the state has a right to violate every individual's most fundamental human right--the ownership of their own bodies--in anticipation of potential harm to society as a collective whole.
I'm not a fan of No True Scotsman libertarianism, but this is one of those issues that really do act as a litmus test.
-
Ok, maybe he won't meet Harry Browne's goal of 5% of the vote.
Whine about polls and ballot access laws all you want. Snipe at Republicans even when they're not nominating goofballs like Trump. The LP is still its own worst enemy.
-
At this point I barely give a s*** whether climate change is real or mass immigration is beneficial or catastrophic to the future of the country. But I do care if politicians pander to the idiots who won't vaccinate their children.
-
I wonder why I don't see this talked about more: When you are able to fight off an illness, your immune system becomes stronger, and better able to fight off the next illness.
Some vaccines might/are probably necessary. Some aren't that effective (Flu).
Doesn't that mean that picking and choosing vaccinations carefully (not going for every vaccination that comes out) would keep our immune systems stronger?
Personally, for the past five years, I have been paying attention to the people around me who have received a flu vaccination, and the ones that get vaccinated get the flu. I haven't had the flu in about 12 years since I stopped getting the flu vaccination. I haven't been sick with much else since then, except for mild sore throats and one case of whooping cough (which I treated easily).
Instead of arguing whether or not vaccinations cause autism, I would like to see an argument about whether or not vaccinations lower our immunity?
If anyone has ever pondered this, please comment!
-
I think the amount of sugar in our diet is also a big national health crisis. So lets all come together and make it illegal to eat more than some number our best scientists can come up with as the allowable amount of sugar. Some states have already started with banning big gulp sodas. Oh wait I believe in freedom so lets not. Same thing with vaccines. Leave people alone to make their own choices.
-
Call me a rube or whatever but are the people at greatest risk the ones who don't vaccinate? They can carry whatever infection but it shouldn't impact those who are vaccinated, no?
So why the need to make it 'mandatory' if we accept the 'public at large menace' is questionable? If a person chooses not to do so (however irrational it is - and it is) it's their peaceful right to do so. Just like a baker refusing to bake a cake for gay couples or Catholic institutions refusing to give out free contraception - even after being bullied by Obama (God bless those Nuns) - are free to make such decisions.
Why must we demand the government to step in and exact punitive measures against people? Sometimes ruining lives and businesses.
This is justice?
Bah.