Libertarians and vaccines.

[Undesired Walrus]

How do Libertarians feel about nationwide vaccinations? Would a Libertarian Government in theory refuse to implement a mass vaccination of schoolchildren, for example?

[Robster, FCD]

Considering what I have seen from libertarian commenters elsewhere, such a government would refuse this as part of health freedom (free not to be healthy, amirite).

[paximperium]

Freedom to risk the lives of others. That's the Libertarian way/

[GreNME]

Nice, two opportunities to use this video in a month.

7QDv4sYwjO0

[Richard Masters]

How do Libertarians feel about nationwide vaccinations? Would a Libertarian Government in theory refuse to implement a mass vaccination of schoolchildren, for example?

If you as a parent have a good reason to object (science-based evidence), it should be looked at.

As a consequentialist libertarian, I would support an inexpensive effort to educate parents about certain vaccinations, but I would not make them mandatory unless the lack of action (not vaccinating one child) put other schoolchildren at considerable risk.

ETA: warning: my views differ from deontological libertarianism, and may change given new information.

[Travis]

I'm guessing that Galt's Gulch will be relying on herd immunity.

[Arus808]

Im a liberal, but I want vaccines to be offered and conducted to those who opt for it.


Im split on public schools; where idiot parents who follow the advice of Jen McCarthy's out there, who allow their kids to attend without being vaccinated. Why should we, who want our kids to be safe be subjected to the moronic actions of those parents who refuse to protect their children? Putting our children at risk just so they can put their children at risk.

[dann]

If you make sure that your children are vaccinated properly, they won't be putting your children at risk, will they? (Unless you are thinking of the risk of having to watch their school friends die or be crippled from polio.) The point is what they are exposing their own children to. And I'm not sure that libertarians would object to that ...

[zooterkin]

a Libertarian Government

Isn't that a tautology?

[Professor Yaffle]

If you make sure that your children are vaccinated properly, they won't be putting your children at risk, will they? (Unless you are thinking of the risk of having to watch their school friends die or be crippled from polio.) The point is what they are exposing their own children to. And I'm not sure that libertarians would object to that ...

Actually, thats not correct. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so a certain percentage of people will still be vulnerable to the illness even though the have been vaccinated. If a very high proportion of the population is vaccinated, the virus cannot circulate, so these people are still protected. It's called herd immunity. If too many people opt out, herd immunity breaks down and you start getting outbreaks of the disease - with some of the vaccinated being vulnerable.

And then of course there are some people who cannot have some vaccines because of medical conditions - these are also protected by herd immunity.

[dann]

Thank you for the clarification, PY.
Do you have a link to a good article about this stuff?

[Professor Yaffle]

Thank you for the clarification, PY.
Do you have a link to a good article about this stuff?

http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/About_Immunisation/Science/Herd_immunity_-_animation
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-herd-immunity.htm


I forgot, also to mention the protection of children too young to have the vaccine.

[Toke]

I am all for mandatory vaccinations, the herd immunity bit makes it self evident.
But then, I am not a Libertarian.

[Travis]

http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/About_Immunisation/Science/Herd_immunity_-_animation
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-herd-immunity.htm


I forgot, also to mention the protection of children too young to have the vaccine.

There's also the fact that while the virus is allowed to continue circulating it will be constantly mutating. Eventually it could mutate into a variant that the vaccine is not effective against and then everyone is vulnerable all over again.

[Puppycow]

I forgot, also to mention the protection of children too young to have the vaccine.

I was going to mention that.

Here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/26/the-australian-antivax-movement-takes-its-toll/) is an actual example.

So this is not just a theoretical problem. People have already died as a result.

If you as a parent have a good reason to object (science-based evidence), it should be looked at.

As a consequentialist libertarian, I would support an inexpensive effort to educate parents about certain vaccinations, but I would not make them mandatory unless the lack of action (not vaccinating one child) put other schoolchildren at considerable risk.

ETA: warning: my views differ from deontological libertarianism, and may change given new information.

Does the above change your view?

[Richard Masters]

I was going to mention that.

Here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/26/the-australian-antivax-movement-takes-its-toll/) is an actual example.

So this is not just a theoretical problem. People have already died as a result.



Does the above change your view?

Should it? Homeopathy is not a science last I checked, so if you insist on Homeopathy instead of vaccines for your children, your children should be the first to be vaccinated.

Others are vocal advocates of nonsense, saying things that are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue.

If you can't defend your beliefs, or if they have been proven to be untrue, then your objections hold little weight. If your objections put others at considerable risk, per the article, then vaccination should obviously be mandatory. When possible, however, we should simply inform people and let them make their own decisions.

[drkitten]

As a consequentialist libertarian, I would support an inexpensive effort to educate parents about certain vaccinations, but I would not make them mandatory unless the lack of action (not vaccinating one child) put other schoolchildren at considerable risk.

I'm not sure how literally I'm supposed to take this, but it runs a grave risk of being an example of the heap fallacy (more formally the sorites fallacy). If you demand that I show that not vaccinating that specific child will put other school children at risk before I be allowed to make vaccination mandatory, then that's equivalent to making it impossible to vaccinate. It's equivalent to saying that I must be able to prove that that specific cigarette causes cancer, or that that specific barrel of toxic sludge poisoned someone.

Herd immunity is a statistical thing; the more people are vaccinated, the stronger herd immunity becomes. But if you're going to write rules, you can't write rules that say "at least 95% of children must be vaccinated" without being able to say which 95%.

[Richard Masters]

I'm not sure how literally I'm supposed to take this, but it runs a grave risk of being an example of the heap fallacy (more formally the sorites fallacy). If you demand that I show that not vaccinating that specific child ...

It doesn't have to be a specific child. Statistical analysis is enough in my book.

... will put other school children at risk before I be allowed to make vaccination mandatory, then that's equivalent to making it impossible to vaccinate. It's equivalent to saying that I must be able to prove that that specific cigarette causes cancer, or that that specific barrel of toxic sludge poisoned someone.

If 95% is good enough in theory, but not in practice, then make it mandatory.

Herd immunity is a statistical thing; the more people are vaccinated, the stronger herd immunity becomes. But if you're going to write rules, you can't write rules that say "at least 95% of children must be vaccinated" without being able to say which 95%.

I don't think herd immunity is a good enough reason not to vaccinate your child. Because as you mentioned, it's no longer based on science, but it is based on the assumption that everyone else will comply.

The only way to avoid the mandatory vaccination (as I see it), would be for a parent to show scientifically that it is just as risky to vaccinate your child (or more risky) as it is not to do so; without taking into account the advantages of herd immunity.

[Undesired Walrus]

Also, how would a Libertarian Government deal with a catastrophic epidemic sweeping through their nation? Would the free market be relied on to close schools and workplaces, manufacture vaccine, distribute it to the people, all in rapid succession?

Libertarianism is simply the mental state of those who believe the world is a more peaceful place as long as you are left alone.

[Minadin]

Usually, doesn't the realm of personal freedom stop at the point where one might cause detriment to others or infringe on their rights and their liberties? Even for Libertarians (Big 'L' and small 'l') I find that this is generally the accepted view.

[drkitten]

Usually, doesn't the realm of personal freedom stop at the point where one might cause detriment to others or infringe on their rights and their liberties? Even for Libertarians (Big 'L' and small 'l') I find that this is generally the accepted view.

Actually, the hard-cord libertarians tend to believe that the realm of personal freedom stops at the point where one does cause detriment to others. They tend to oppose laws that are are proactive and prevent something in anticipation of possible future harm.

For example, drunken driving laws. In Libertopia, the dominant view seems to be you should be able to drive however you like, but if you injure someone, you can be sued. I'm not sure how much money it is supposed to take to bring me back from the dead (or give me the ability to walk again),... but it would be an unconscionable limit on your liberty to pull you over just because you're driving erratically, seeing double, and unable to stand erect let alone walk a straight line.

[Beth]

I don't think herd immunity is a good enough reason not to vaccinate your child. I think he's talking about herd immunity as a sufficient reason to make vaccines mandatory, not as a sufficient reason to skip vaccinating your children.

The only way to avoid the mandatory vaccination (as I see it), would be for a parent to show scientifically that it is just as risky to vaccinate your child (or more risky) as it is not to do so; without taking into account the advantages of herd immunity.

I disagree. I think parents should be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their children (and adult individuals for themselves) for any reason they so choose, whether than be medical risk, religious objections, disagreement regarding the cost/benefit of having it, whatever. However, I would also require that they accept that they may be barred from some or possibly all public spaces as a result of their decision. Schools have a right to require vaccinations of students, etc. However, such restrictions can only apply to easily spread diseases where an infected individual poses a danger to others.

[KingMerv00]

I disagree. I think parents should be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their children (and adult individuals for themselves) for any reason they so choose, whether than be medical risk, religious objections, disagreement regarding the cost/benefit of having it, whatever. However, I would also require that they accept that they may be barred from some or possibly all public spaces as a result of their decision. Schools have a right to require vaccinations of students, etc. However, such restrictions can only apply to easily spread diseases where an infected individual poses a danger to others.

I consider the idea of government enforced shunning to be a greater evil than government enforced vaccination.

[ysabella]

I suppose in an extreme libertarian dream-world (like what my brother would favor), there wouldn't be public schools at all. And private schools would be free to require vaccines for all attending children if they want to.

[themusicteacher]

Isn't that a tautology?

No, that's a contradiction in terms.

[KingMerv00]

I suppose in an extreme libertarian dream-world (like what my brother would favor), there wouldn't be public schools at all. And private schools would be free to require vaccines for all attending children if they want to.

Gotta love free market child neglect.

[Toke]

I suppose in an extreme libertarian dream-world (like what my brother would favor), there wouldn't be public schools at all. And private schools would be free to require vaccines for all attending children if they want to.

I find it odd how private companies can get away with things that would have people scream facist police state if a goverment did it.
Guess it have something to do with the illution of voluntary contract, illution because every company does it, leaving no opting out.

[Beth]

I consider the idea of government enforced shunning to be a greater evil than government enforced vaccination. Interesting. You consider it a lesser evil to give government officials the authority to inject something into your bloodstream without your consent than for the government to give you the choice of accepting the injection or losing access to certain public spaces. Have I understood you correctly? If so, can you explain why you evaluate it that way?

[KingMerv00]

Interesting. You consider it a lesser evil to give government officials the authority to inject something into your bloodstream without your consent than for the government to give you the choice of accepting the injection or losing access to certain public spaces.

I don't like the use of the word "something". That implies I'd be OK with enforcing some other form of injection. Vaccines are not "something", they are perhaps the most effective health project in the history of history.

Have I understood you correctly?

Nearly. My real position is that adults should have the right to say no. Refusing to vaccinate your child without good reason (for example, allergies) is child neglect to me.

In a completely ridiculous scenario where I am forced to pick between forced vaccinations for everyone or forced removal from all public places, I pick forced vaccinations.

If so, can you explain why you evaluate it that way?

I assume you mean the hypothetical. It is a cost/benefit analysis.


Forced Vaccination
Cost #1: Unwilling citizens lose their autonomy for a few minutes while they are being injected.

Cost #2: A very small percentage of those unwilling individuals will die from reactions to the vaccine.

Cost #3: Increased financial cost to enforce the new rule.


Benefit #1: Thousands of the unwilling survive when they otherwise would not. Most are children.

Benefit #2: Vaccinations in rare cases fail to grant immunity. Forced vaccination would correct for this with herd immunity.


Forced Prohibition and Removal from Public Places
Cost #1: Unwilling citizens lose their autonomy to travel for the rest of their lives as they are barred from public places.

Cost #2: Thousands die. Most are children.

Cost #3: The financial cost to continuously monitor, remove, and imprison the unvaccinated for trying to get on public land.


Benefit #1: An expression of autonomy that gives you 5 minutes of freedom. (The time it would take to get vaccinated.)

Benefit #2: A very small percentage of the unwilling would survive the unlikely reaction to the vaccine.



The latter scenario more closely resembles a police state than does the former. The police would have more power to restrict and monitor your life.

You could try and say that their "loss of access" is their choice but it really isn't. The choice is in name only. While not physically forced to take the vaccination, they are emotionally and financially squeezed into taking it. "Live as a shut in or take the vaccine." Holding a metaphorical gun to my head negates the possibility of free choice.

[zooterkin]

No, that's a contradiction in terms.

You're quite right,the word I meant was, "oxymoron".

[Madouc]

Forgive me if I sound obtuse, but I don't know much about Libertarianism.

How do Libertarians propose treating parents who refuse to give their children medical care? Is it the parents' prerogative to deny their own children health care?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Your freedoms in the perfect libertarian state: You can refuse to be vaccinated. You can smoke six packs a day. You can drive drunk. You can use whatever substances get you to the desired mental state, no matter how they damage your health. All those freedoms.

My freedoms in the perfect libertarian state: I don't have to be compelled to help you. If you did it to yourself, fix it yourself. Or die. You've got that freedom too. I wouldn't dream of infringing on your freedom to harm yourself, so I'm hardly going to infringe on your freedom to die from it. On the other hand, if you still want me to do the doctorin, I'm going to charge ten times the going rate as a tax on stupid.

I predict that the same people who are clamouring for freedom to do what they want are the same people who would be clamouring for my lack of freedom to choose to help them or not. They'll be first in line to push for laws like EMTALA which say that they HAVE TO BE TREATED even if the condition is their fault.

The issue of parents making harmful choices for their children is a whole different matter. The arguments used to justify endangering a childs health make me think that these parents consider their children to be livestock, property, or slaves, to be done with as desired or as expedient. Mold them as you wish. Do anything you want to them. Use them as labor. Educate them or not. Decieve them. Refuse them medical treatment. Then cry to the state when they turn out to be poor citizens.

A

[Travis]

Your freedoms in the perfect libertarian state: You can refuse to be vaccinated. You can smoke six packs a day. You can drive drunk. You can use whatever substances get you to the desired mental state, no matter how they damage your health. All those freedoms.

My freedoms in the perfect libertarian state: I don't have to be compelled to help you. If you did it to yourself, fix it yourself. Or die. You've got that freedom too. I wouldn't dream of infringing on your freedom to harm yourself, so I'm hardly going to infringe on your freedom to die from it. On the other hand, if you still want me to do the doctorin, I'm going to charge ten times the going rate as a tax on stupid.

I predict that the same people who are clamouring for freedom to do what they want are the same people who would be clamouring for my lack of freedom to choose to help them or not. They'll be first in line to push for laws like EMTALA which say that they HAVE TO BE TREATED even if the condition is their fault.

The issue of parents making harmful choices for their children is a whole different matter. The arguments used to justify endangering a childs health make me think that these parents consider their children to be livestock, property, or slaves, to be done with as desired or as expedient. Mold them as you wish. Do anything you want to them. Use them as labor. Educate them or not. Decieve them. Refuse them medical treatment. Then cry to the state when they turn out to be poor citizens.

A

Bingo! The sociopathic nature of radical Libertarianism most definitely does lead them to not really care whether their children live or die. Making a political point is much more important to them.

[Beth]

I don't like the use of the word "something". That implies I'd be OK with enforcing some other form of injection. Vaccines are not "something", they are perhaps the most effective health project in the history of history. Vaccines are something are they not? My point in using that term is that you have established the principle that it's okay to do that. That you would not agree to it for any substance is, to me, implicit. That society has the right to overrule your choice on the matter is the crucial point you are agreeing with.


Nearly. My real position is that adults should have the right to say no. Refusing to vaccinate your child without good reason (for example, allergies) is child neglect to me.
Who gets to decide what is a "good" reason. Are religious objections a "good" reason? Opinions differ on that matter.

In a completely ridiculous scenario where I am forced to pick between forced vaccinations for everyone or forced removal from all public places, I pick forced vaccinations.
Okay. That point is clear.


I assume you mean the hypothetical. It is a cost/benefit analysis.


Forced Vaccination
Cost #1: Unwilling citizens lose their autonomy for a few minutes while they are being injected.

Cost #2: A very small percentage of those unwilling individuals will die from reactions to the vaccine.

Cost #3: Increased financial cost to enforce the new rule.


Benefit #1: Thousands of the unwilling survive when they otherwise would not. Most are children.

Benefit #2: Vaccinations in rare cases fail to grant immunity. Forced vaccination would correct for this with herd immunity.


Forced Prohibition and Removal from Public Places
Cost #1: Unwilling citizens lose their autonomy to travel for the rest of their lives as they are barred from public places.

Cost #2: Thousands die. Most are children.

Cost #3: The financial cost to continuously monitor, remove, and imprison the unvaccinated for trying to get on public land.


Benefit #1: An expression of autonomy that gives you 5 minutes of freedom. (The time it would take to get vaccinated.)

Benefit #2: A very small percentage of the unwilling would survive the unlikely reaction to the vaccine.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree. If you're interested, I'll try to put my cost/benefit assessment together for you.

The latter scenario more closely resembles a police state than does the former. The police would have more power to restrict and monitor your life. Not really IMO. After all, quarantines are legal and appropriate in certain scenarios, which is essentially what you are describing. Does that mean we live in a police state? Further, I doubt it would be the equivalent of total barring from public spaces. I imagine that there would be enclaves of people who choose to live together and eschew vaccines - the Amish for example. I would expect that there would still be public spaces open to the unvaccinated.

You could try and say that their "loss of access" is their choice but it really isn't. The choice is in name only. While not physically forced to take the vaccination, they are emotionally and financially squeezed into taking it. "Live as a shut in or take the vaccine." Holding a metaphorical gun to my head negates the possibility of free choice. I agree that the cost of refusal could be made quite high. That's the general idea. It's a way to both encourage high rates of vaccination and also decrease risk of contagion in public spaces. However, I don't see that as negating free choice entirely. The individual is still the final arbitrator of what substances may be injected into their body. A very important autonomy IMO.

[Madouc]

But the child is not the final arbitrator of what substances may be injected into their body in any other medical scenario. Why should vaccines, with a demonstrable record of efficacy, and high cost/benefit ratio, be different from injecting your child with antibiotics in the hospital for example?

In a libertarian scenario, is no one accountable for neglect of duty when it comes to a child's health?

[Beth]

But the child is not the final arbitrator of what substances may be injected into their body in any other medical scenario. Why should vaccines, with a demonstrable record of efficacy, and high cost/benefit ratio, be different from injecting your child with antibiotics in the hospital for example? I don't think they should be.

In a libertarian scenario, is no one accountable for neglect of duty when it comes to a child's health? Yes, the child's parents or guardians are responsible.

[KingMerv00]

Vaccines are something are they not?

Yes the word "something" is accurate but too general. It puts vaccines in the same category as mind control chips.

That society has the right to overrule your choice on the matter is the crucial point you are agreeing with.

I'm not agreeing with it. Adults should feel free to say "no".

Who gets to decide what is a "good" reason.

The same people who decide what is and isn't child neglect and child abuse. Is that perfect? No but it is better than the alternative.

Are religious objections a "good" reason?

For child vaccines? Hell no.

Opinions differ on that matter.

Yup but not all opinions are objectively equal. When you live in a society, some opinions don't get the force of law.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree. If you're interested, I'll try to put my cost/benefit assessment together for you.

Give it a shot.

Not really IMO. After all, quarantines are legal and appropriate in certain scenarios, which is essentially what you are describing. Does that mean we live in a police state?

I don't think quarantines are analogous.

Further, I doubt it would be the equivalent of total barring from public spaces. I imagine that there would be enclaves of people who choose to live together and eschew vaccines - the Amish for example.

Nit-pick. I think the Amish do vaccinate.

I agree that the cost of refusal could be made quite high. That's the general idea. It's a way to both encourage high rates of vaccination and also decrease risk of contagion in public spaces. However, I don't see that as negating free choice entirely. The individual is still the final arbitrator of what substances may be injected into their body. A very important autonomy IMO.

I think that autonomy is important too which is why I'm fine with adult refusal.

[KingMerv00]

Yes, the child's parents or guardians are responsible.

And when the parents are irresponsible? Surely you agree that some level of neglect demands you lose your right to decide for your child.

[Beth]

And when the parents are irresponsible? Surely you agree that some level of neglect demands you lose your right to decide for your child.

Yes. Abuse too. But I don't consider vaccine refusal neglect or abuse. I'll try to respond in more detail to your other post later.

[KingMerv00]

I'll try to respond in more detail to your other post later.

Take your time.

[Alt+F4]

Im split on public schools; where idiot parents who follow the advice of Jen McCarthy's out there, who allow their kids to attend without being vaccinated. Why should we, who want our kids to be safe be subjected to the moronic actions of those parents who refuse to protect their children? Putting our children at risk just so they can put their children at risk.

Well in a libertarian paradise this wouldn't be a problem since there would not be any public schools.

[Madouc]

But Beth, if not vaccinating is equivalent to not treating your sick child, and the parents/guardians are accountable for neglect, then how is the parent/guardian NOT accountable for neglect in cases of non-vaccination?

[Beth]

But Beth, if not vaccinating is equivalent to not treating your sick child, and the parents/guardians are accountable for neglect, then how is the parent/guardian NOT accountable for neglect in cases of non-vaccination?

How is not vaccinating equivalent to not treating your sick child?

[KingMerv00]

How is not vaccinating equivalent to not treating your sick child?

I think there is a distinction without a difference. They both put your child in the path of unacceptable danger.

[Beth]

Yes the word "something" is accurate but too general. It puts vaccines in the same category as mind control chips. Yes, it does. The action is the same, only the substance changes. Something to think about, eh? It's why I don't agree with your stance on the matter. To me, it is the action that makes it inappropriate; which substances you might agree with and which you don't are minor details to me.

I'm not agreeing with it. Adults should feel free to say "no".
My apologies. I misunderstood your position then.

The same people who decide what is and isn't child neglect and child abuse. Is that perfect? No but it is better than the alternative. Actually, I don't have a problem with this. Not vaccinating isn't considered child neglect or abuse.

For child vaccines? Hell no.
I'm not surprised. Fortunately, IMO, your position is a minority one in our society. I hope it stays that way.

Yup but not all opinions are objectively equal. When you live in a society, some opinions don't get the force of law. Right. Currently, it is my opinion that is in line with the law, not yours.

Give it a shot.
Okay. I think vaccines are generally well worth the risk. I get myself and my children vaccinated. The majority of people are willing to not only get them voluntarily, but pay for the privilege.

I think the cost of making them mandatory in terms of of loss of freedom and autonomy exceeds the benefit to society. I see that cost as high and the benefits as being rather low (you'll get an increase in the percentage of the population vaccinated but most of the population is already getting vaccinated without such a policy). If an increase in the percentage getting vaccinated is desired, I'd rather see an increase occur through making vaccines easily available and education about the benefits for individuals that make them worthwhile, not via making them mandatory.

I have no problem with making vaccines for contagious diseases mandatory with exceptions available for things like attendance at public schools - which is pretty much the current system in the US.

I think that autonomy is important too which is why I'm fine with adult refusal.
Cool. We agree. I just extend that autonomy to adults tasked with making such decisions for any minor children in their care - just like all other decisions regarding the routine health care of minor children.

[KingMerv00]

Yes, it does. The action is the same, only the substance changes. Something to think about, eh? It's why I don't agree with your stance on the matter. To me, it is the action that makes it inappropriate; which substances you might agree with and which you don't are minor details to me.

I think this is an unresolvable difference of philosophy. I'm guessing your morality is more interested in the act than the justification and consequences of that act. I am the reverse. To equate mind control chips to vaccines is well...way out there.

I'm not surprised. Fortunately, IMO, your position is a minority one in our society. I hope it stays that way.

I said "Hell no." because you should have GOOD reasons not to vaccinate your child.


Right. Currently, it is my opinion that is in line with the law, not yours.

Since we agree for the most part, so is mine. :p

I think the cost of making them mandatory in terms of of loss of freedom and autonomy exceeds the benefit to society. I see that cost as high and the benefits as being rather low (you'll get an increase in the percentage of the population vaccinated but most of the population is already getting vaccinated without such a policy).

You can't take the people who voluntarily get vaccininated into your cost/benefit analysis because they will get vaccinated in either scenario.

If an increase in the percentage getting vaccinated is desired, I'd rather see an increase occur through making vaccines easily available and education about the benefits for individuals that make them worthwhile, not via making them mandatory.

No argument here.

[Beth]

I think this is an unresolvable difference of philosophy. I'm guessing your morality is more interested in the act than the justification and consequences of that act. I am the reverse. To equate mind control chips to vaccines is well...way out there. I didn't equate them. You did. I said the details of the substance were not important to me, it was the action. As far as morality goes, the action, the justification and the consequences are all important to varying degrees depending on the issue. In this case, IMO, it is the action that is important as well as the consequences. I see the consequences as including setting a precedent regarding the limits of what is appropriate for society to impose on citizens.


I said "Hell no." because you should have GOOD reasons not to vaccinate your child.
Whereas I think you should have GOOD reasons to impose your evaluation of what risks are and are not worth taking on other people. In this case, I don't find your reasons sufficient.

You can't take the people who voluntarily get vaccinated into your cost/benefit analysis because they will get vaccinated in either scenario. Whereas I feel that you must take them into your cost/benefit analysis in order to get an accurate assessment.

No argument here.

Well, shucks. What are we going to argue about now! :p

[Undesired Walrus]

Consider there is a massive epidemic in the states, with millions upon millions threatened by a particular virus.

Would a hypothetical President Paul or Governor Paul still refuse to get involved in shutting the schools, the resturants, the cinemas and public transportation, all because of his Libertarian principles?

[Beth]

Consider there is a massive epidemic in the states, with millions upon millions threatened by a particular virus.

Would a hypothetical President Paul or Governor Paul still refuse to get involved in shutting the schools, the resturants, the cinemas and public transportation, all because of his Libertarian principles?

Probably. But that's one reason why he'll remain the "hypothetical" rather than actual governor or president.

[KingMerv00]

Consider there is a massive epidemic in the states, with millions upon millions threatened by a particular virus.

Would a hypothetical President Paul or Governor Paul still refuse to get involved in shutting the schools, the resturants, the cinemas and public transportation, all because of his Libertarian principles?

I'm pretty sure there are state and federal laws for mandatory vaccinations in such cases.

[KingMerv00]

I didn't equate them. You did.

I didn't equate them, I juxtaposed them. :D

I said the details of the substance were not important to me, it was the action. As far as morality goes, the action, the justification and the consequences are all important to varying degrees depending on the issue. In this case, IMO, it is the action that is important as well as the consequences. I see the consequences as including setting a precedent regarding the limits of what is appropriate for society to impose on citizens.

Whereas I think you should have GOOD reasons to impose your evaluation of what risks are and are not worth taking on other people. In this case, I don't find your reasons sufficient.

Whereas I feel that you must take them into your cost/benefit analysis in order to get an accurate assessment.

It all boils down to subjective opinion I'm afraid and I'm too busy in another thread to fight it out here.


Well, shucks. What are we going to argue about now! :p

Yo mama.

[Alt+F4]

Would a hypothetical President Paul or Governor Paul still refuse to get involved in shutting the schools, the resturants, the cinemas and public transportation, all because of his Libertarian principles?

Interesting question. Well I would think that under a Paul administration there would be no public schools or public transportation (or other places where people should not congregate during an epidemic - museums, public parks, etc.)

As for private schools, private roads, capitalistic retail establisments, what right would President Paul have to force any of them to close?