Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination

[88GT]

Well, that would be shocking...

He has a history of exaggeration, but in this case, the title of the original argument and the claim that there is no libertarian case for vax refusal seems to be pretty accurate.

I will add that the gist of the "libertarian's" argument seems to be the reduction in number of cases/illnesses/complications/deaths from contracting the diseases. That is always the basis for co-opting the government to coerce people into behaviors that they would not choose on their own.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, that would be shocking...

I don't know if you just missed this or if you have me on ignore.

A pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't know if you just missed this or if you have me on ignore.

That's the only place it's mentioned, in the small subtitle, and, I did not see it. The article body says nothing like that, so the subtitle may have been added by a tone deaf editor.

 

[steveh_131]

That's the only place it's mentioned, in the small subtitle, and, I did not see it. The article body says nothing like that, so the subtitle may have been added by a tone deaf editor.

Nevertheless, it's there and the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

An editor of Reason Magazine either added or approved that subtitle. I am comfortable with neither.

If a writer for an NRA magazine wrote an article about gun control efficacy and subtitled it "A pragmatic argument for Gun Control", would you have a problem with it?

 

[steveh_131]

There would be no argument against allowing people to refuse vaccination if they and their families would suffer alone the consequences of their foolhardiness. It would be their right to forego misery-reducing and life-preserving treatments. But that is not the case in the real world.

The subtitle sounds very accurate. As he explains the 'real world', he is clearly making an argument against allowing people to refuse vaccination.

 

[CarmelHP]

Nevertheless, it's there and the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

An editor of Reason Magazine either added or approved that subtitle. I am comfortable with neither.

If a writer for an NRA magazine wrote an article about gun control efficacy and subtitled it "A pragmatic argument for Gun Control", would you have a problem with it?

If the actual article just said, "don't be stupid and pint your gun at something you're not willing to destroy," then no, I probably would not. I would just think it floridly titled and forget it. You people do love to hold your witch hunts on who is and who is not a "true libertarian."

 

[ViperJock]

Yes, it's important to remember a few tidbits in medical diagnoses. One, autism isn't defined by the cause, but by the symptoms. So anything with neurological symptoms resembling the subset of autism's symptoms with no known cause will likely be labeled autism as a default diagnosis if nothing else can be identified. Second, what was once simple "mental retardation," "developmental disabilities," or "neurological impairment" is now ushered under the umbrella of autism. I have a 60y/o uncle with moderate-to-sever developmental disability. There's a good chance had he been born 40 years later he would be diagnosed on the Spectrum.

Same thing with thyroid cancer. Rates appear to be increasing, but analysis is showing that the actual incidence isn't increasing. It's just a matter of people seeking treatment for ailments that are later identified as associated with the cancer.

Well said.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk - Reason.com

I understand folks' view of forced vaccinations as being repugnant and, in theory, I agree. But I am struggling with what should be done with people that decline the vaccination but subsequently contract the corresponding disease. As the discussed in the article, I'm ok with it if they stay home and wallow in the misery of their own making. But it's when they go out and begin infecting others...

 

[steveh_131]

If the actual article just said, "don't be stupid and pint your gun at something you're not willing to destroy," then no, I probably would not. I would just think it floridly titled and forget it.

As I pointed out, the article did align with the subtitle.

You people do love to hold your witch hunts on who is and who is not a "true libertarian."

Forced injections are kind of a big deal to people who believe in liberty.

 

[steveh_131]

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk - Reason.com

I understand folks' view of forced vaccinations as being repugnant and, in theory, I agree. But I am struggling with what should be done with people that decline the vaccination but subsequently contract the corresponding disease. As the discussed in the article, I'm ok with it if they stay home and wallow in the misery of their own making. But it's when they go out and begin infecting others...

What about people who eat a steady diet of junk food and suppress their immune systems? What do we do when they go out and begin infecting others?

 

[rambone]

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk - Reason.com

I understand folks' view of forced vaccinations as being repugnant and, in theory, I agree. But I am struggling with what should be done with people that decline the vaccination but subsequently contract the corresponding disease. As the discussed in the article, I'm ok with it if they stay home and wallow in the misery of their own making. But it's when they go out and begin infecting others...

"What should be done with people"... a fundamental question. Maybe you think "infecting others" should be a like a crime? Let's discuss that.

 

[rambone]

You people do love to hold your witch hunts on who is and who is not a "true libertarian."

Reason is on the offensive in this case, running the witch hunt, claiming there is "no principled libertarian case..."

 

[CarmelHP]

Forced injections are kind of a big deal to people who believe in liberty.

Be all dramatic and poke holes in each other's coats all you want.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"What should be done with people"... a fundamental question. Maybe you think "infecting others" should be a like a crime? Let's discuss that.

I'm not sure. What responsibility do contagiously sick people have to their community?

 

[rambone]

I'm not sure. What responsibility do contagiously sick people have to their community?

Non-aggression, just like anyone else.

Now, do you think it is a form of aggression for a microscopic organism to drop off your body?

Do you think coughing and sneezing are acts of aggression?

 

[steveh_131]

Be all dramatic and poke holes in each other's coats all you want.

The premise of this thread is quite reasonable. Coerced vaccinations violate the very core of libertarianism.

I'm starting to wonder why your arguments are becoming less and less reasonable now that I've pointed out several of your errors.

You're usually better than this.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not sure. What responsibility do contagiously sick people have to their community?

You've jumped from 'possibly higher probability of becoming contagiously sick' to 'contagiously sick'.

Anyone with a compromised immune system has a higher probability of passing along illnesses. Much moreso than non-vaccinated people. Should any person with a compromised immune system be confined to their home?

 

[jamil]

Non-aggression, just like anyone else.

Now, do you think it is a form of aggression for a microscopic organism to drop off your body?

Do you think coughing and sneezing are acts of aggression?

To answer the question, if you know you're infected with a dangerous disease, and you deliberately go in public where people are likely to contract the disease, that's aggression. At least within my understanding of the NOP.

 

[BigMatt]

So, if this nasty lady at work comes in with a cold, and I contract it because she was coughing all over me, I could have her arrested for assault?

Could I sue her for medical bills?

 

[steveh_131]

So, if this nasty lady at work comes in with a cold, and I contract it because she was coughing all over me, I could have her arrested for assault?

Could I sue her for medical bills?

This goes far beyond even criminal and civil charges for infecting others.

This takes us into territory where we criminalize her failure to take proper steps to prevent the cold.

Did she eat doughnuts for breakfast? Sugary food suppresses the immune response.
Did she stay up late watching dancing with the stars? Sleep deprivation suppresses the immune response.
Does she take enough vitamins and supplements? Several vitamins boost immunity.
Does she exercise enough? Exercise is an immune booster.

Criminalizing any of these failures is no different than criminalizing failure to vaccinate. In fact, I think they are more likely to result in spreading sickness. Influenza is just as dangerous as the measles virus. There is no effective vaccine for most strains. Proper diet, exercise and lifestyle choices are the best ways to avoid it.

So? What do you say, INGO? Should we criminalize junk food, or should we let junk food eaters 'swing their microbes' at us?