Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination

[HoughMade]

Well, we'll agree to disagree.

If you benefit from exercising freedom, the exercising of freedom that harms others must have consequences. If a person exercises reasonable care and still spreads a communicable disease, no consequences, but if they do not exercise reasonable care- consequences. That's the way the rest of law works, why should anti-vaxxers get special treatment? If the jury believes that not vaccinating and then exposing the public (in whatever way it occurred), is reasonable, no problem. We believe in juries don't we?

If there are personal choices we make and our lack of reasonable behavior (whatever that is determined by a jury) causes harm, there must be consequences. Anything else creates it's own dystopian society called anarchy.

Rights aren't only for those who wish to refuse vaccines.

 

[rambone]

If you benefit from exercising freedom, the exercising of freedom that harms others must have consequences. If a person exercises reasonable care and still spreads a communicable disease, no consequences, but if they do not exercise reasonable care- consequences. That's the way the rest of law works, why should anti-vaxxers get special treatment? If the jury believes that not vaccinating and then exposing the public (in whatever way it occurred), is reasonable, no problem. We believe in juries don't we?

If there are personal choices we make and our lack of reasonable behavior (whatever that is determined by a jury) causes harm, there must be consequences. Anything else creates it's own dystopian society called anarchy.

There are so many crazy scenarios when we trod down this road, I barely know when to begin. I am not just being rhetorical here, if you truly believe in punishing sick people, then please indulge me. What do you think:

Influenza is exponentially more prevalent and deadly than any obscure communicable disease, so lets use the Flu in every hypothetical situation. I insist.

Are you comfortable with being sued because you sneezed in public? Just because you thought it was pollen allergies doesn't make it OK, does it?

How about if your sneeze infects 2 people, and their sneezes infect 4 people, and their sneezes infect 8 people, and so on? Should all the subsequent sick people run a class-action lawsuit against you, patient zero?

How about vaccinated people that shed live viruses in public? Is that OK, or are they exempt from legal harassment?

Who decides what is "reasonable care" in preventing disease? Should we let the experts from the pharmaceutical industry dictate that the ONLY reasonable precautions involve taking booster shots few months? Because we know that's exactly what they want.

How on earth does anyone prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the exact source of the germ particle that caused someone else to get sick?

Rights aren't only for those who wish to refuse vaccines.

What "rights" do you think are being violated? The right to never get sick? This is truly bizarre to me. Talk about a right that never existed in history -- the right to eternal health tops the charts.

This is like science fiction, and upsetting to me after my own family's awful vaccine experiences.

 

[jamil]

Are you comfortable with being sued because you sneezed in public? Just because you thought it was pollen allergies doesn't make it OK, does it?

How about if your sneeze infects 2 people, and their sneezes infect 4 people, and their sneezes infect 8 people, and so on? Should all the subsequent sick people run a class-action lawsuit against you, patient zero?

How about vaccinated people that shed live viruses in public? Is that OK, or are they exempt from legal harassment?

C'mon, do you honestly think a jury would hold someone like that responsible? How is that the same thing?

Who decides what is "reasonable care" in preventing disease? Should we let the experts from the pharmaceutical industry dictate that the ONLY reasonable precautions involve taking booster shots few months? Because we know that's exactly what they want.

How on earth does anyone prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the exact source of the germ particle that caused someone else to get sick?

Then what is the problem? Case closed, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What "rights" do you think are being violated?

The right to life. One should not be injured because another's lunatic ideas about vaccinations that come from models and radio ranters.

Reason simply acknowledges the right to life that vaccinations protect.

 

[steveh_131]

I'd like to clarify this discussion a bit. I think some distinct points are being muddled together.

1. Should the government prosecute sick people for transmitting diseases with no force involved?

2. If the government did prosecute someone, under what criteria would you vote 'guilty'?

3. Should people be allowed to sue sick people for transmitting diseases with no force involved?

4. If someone does sue another for transmitting disease, under what criteria would you award damages?

Note: I exclude 'force' in these questions because jabbing someone with an infected needle or purposefully contaminating their body or property is certainly an initiation of force and subject to prosecution.

For me, 1 and 2 are a definite 'no'. For 3, I'd probably say 'yes' because any injured party should have an avenue for seeking restitution. For 4, I'm not sure, but it would be pretty darn limited and some form of malicious intent would probably have to be demonstrated.

 

[rambone]

How about if your sneeze infects 2 people, and their sneezes infect 4 people, and their sneezes infect 8 people, and so on? Should all the subsequent sick people run a class-action lawsuit against you, patient zero?

C'mon, do you honestly think a jury would hold someone like that responsible? How is that the same thing?

How on earth does anyone prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the exact source of the germ particle that caused someone else to get sick?

Then what is the problem? Case closed, right?

Jamil, I would say that roughly on a weekly basis I read about some event that I never thought could happen or should happen in America. A lot of them are absurd court rulings. Courts make decisions based on feelings, not on logic or laws. Just look at how that bakery got fined over $100,000.00 for exercising their rights. What an abysmal perversion of justice.

Do I think a jury would accept this argument? Definitely. Never underestimate the levels of injustice of which your neighbors are capable. I regularly read commenters ranting about how CPS should be used against unvaccinated families.

What is the problem? Americans' unlimited ambition and imagination for expanding the government security blanket.

The right to life. One should not be injured because another's lunatic ideas about vaccinations that come from models and radio ranters.

Sounds a lot like "mye ryeeeeeits."

 

[foszoe]

As long as the ACA pays for all my vaccinations including annual flu shots, I have no issue with mandatory vaccinations. At least they would be free.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sounds a lot like "mye ryeeeeeits."

No. Your position is that there is no right to life?

 

[steveh_131]

Let's discuss the lady who died from the measles. She was taking pharmaceuticals that suppressed her immune system, making her susceptible to it.

Because of these meds, she could have easily spread measles to someone else.

Should she be held liable for taking medications that made her a measles-spreading agent?

 

[HoughMade]

Let's discuss the lady who died from the measles. She was taking pharmaceuticals that suppressed her immune system, making her susceptible to it.

Because of these meds, she could have easily spread measles to someone else.

Should she be held liable for taking medications that made her a measles-spreading agent?

Only if she was negligent in doing so and thereby caused identifiable harm to an identifiable victim.

Sounds to me like the anti vaxxers want no consequences for their personal choice....I'm shocked. A plaintiff would still have to prove that a person negligently caused their injury. Why should there be special rules...enforced by government, to insulate some personal choices from consequence?

 

[rambone]

prove that a person negligently caused their injury.

What does this mean in the context of this discussion???

From Reason Magazine I take it to mean that anyone who isn't fully vaccinated with every vaccine available is being "negligent," since, at any point, they could unknowingly drop an invisible microorganism that affects someone else.

Agree?

I had a lot of other questions too...

 

[rambone]

Today at "FreedomFest," Reason Magazine Editor-In-Chief Matt Welch will moderate a debate called "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory." Reason's veteran science correspondent Ronald Bailey will deliver the case for forced vaccinations.

Because nothing says freedom better than using the state to mass-medicate the "herd."

DEBATE "Should Vaccines be Mandatory?" Ronald Bailey vs Dr. Bob Sears; Matt Welch, mod.

 

[steveh_131]

Only if she was negligent in doing so and thereby caused identifiable harm to an identifiable victim.

Sounds to me like the anti vaxxers want no consequences for their personal choice....I'm shocked. A plaintiff would still have to prove that a person negligently caused their injury. Why should there be special rules...enforced by government, to insulate some personal choices from consequence?

I don't know who you're calling 'the anti-vaxxers'. I specifically said in post #165 that a person should be 'allowed' to sue over it, if they want. But I'm not an 'anti-vaxxer'.

 

[steveh_131]

From Reason Magazine I take it to mean that anyone who isn't fully vaccinated with every vaccine available is being "negligent," since, at any point, they could unknowingly drop an invisible microorganism that affects someone else.

I think it would have to go a bit farther than this. Have you had titers done recently to demonstrate that your immunity is up to par, and you don't need more vaccines? What other immune suppressing activities could be negligent? Eating sugar? High stress lifestyle?

Again, I support a citizen's right to pursue damages in court, but I'd put an extremely high burden of proof upon their claims.

 

[Fargo]

Only if she was negligent in doing so and thereby caused identifiable harm to an identifiable victim.

Sounds to me like the anti vaxxers want no consequences for their personal choice....I'm shocked. A plaintiff would still have to prove that a person negligently caused their injury.

Why should there be special rules...enforced by government, to insulate some personal choices from consequence?

Your argument would be much stronger if the courts were open to people injured by vaccines. Instead, they get barred from state and federal courts of general jurisdiction by 42 USC 6a and instead get this wonderful federal program!

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

It is almost as if there are special rules, enforced by the government, to insulate some from legal consequences.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-11

 

[steveh_131]

Your argument would be much stronger if the courts were open to people injured by vaccines. Instead, they get barred from state and federal courts of general jurisdiction by 42 USC 6a and instead get this wonderful federal program!

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

It is almost as if there are special rules, enforced by the government, to insulate some from legal consequences.

Oh snap.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Your argument would be much stronger if the courts were open to people injured by vaccines. Instead, they get barred from state and federal courts of general jurisdiction by 42 USC 6a and instead get this wonderful federal program!

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

It is almost as if there are special rules, enforced by the government, to insulate some from legal consequences.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-11

HoughMade, why do the vaccine manufacturers get special rules that infringe on an individual's right to a jury trial for damages?

 

[T.Lex]

Bump.



Stumbled on this thread in a search. Wow - some old time names in it and some interesting perspectives post-2020.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Missed this before... the original pre-dated me. So I looked up the article and read it:

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk

A pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination

reason.com

I have to say that the Reason article fails even within the four corners of it's assumptions. The worst of these is that refusing a vaccination amounts to swinging one's fist at another's nose - and connecting with microbes - which is a huge leap of faith - but even if you accept that (which I do not) their reasoning fails.

All instances they present originated with intentionally unvaccinated travelling abroad and bringing illness back, which nearly exclusively spread amoung other intentionally unvaccinated.

Both constitutional edicts that allow only the least intrusive means, and the libertarian approach of granting only the least power necessary for an agreed upon good - fail. In both cases, the "least" would be requiring vaccinations for citizens travelling abroad AND for non-citizens seeking entry. Again, I don't agree with their starting assumptions, so I don't endorse where they could rationally lead, but even then, it doesn't support population-wide coercive vaccination.

So, even within the bounds of their own argument (which I disagree with) the Reason article fails in their reasoning.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this is a really tricky policy decision. One in which "appeal to authority" looms large.

Because science.

I kinda liked where we were as a culture pre-pandemic. I don't think we are "there" any more, though.