Self-identified Libertarians and Mandatory Vaccines (take 2)

[Estellea]

I don't because private schools and homeschooling is not a viable option for all families.

I won't argue this point. Vaccination requirements for certain jobs are reasonable and appropriate and people can change jobs if they want.

You are inconsistent if you agree that certain jobs require vaccination but parents can't seek alternatives to public, i.e. paid for with tax monies education.

The harm of establishing that the government is entitled to make personal health care decisions for individuals. The harm of forcing injections on citizens or their children against their will. I consider both of these to be significant harms. I can understand if you don't share these values, but I don't consider the potential harm of allowing people to decide against the current vaccines to be sufficient to justify those harms. As I said earlier, outbreaks of the diseases tend to result in people reconsidering their personal cost/benefit of the vaccine and deciding that they are worthwhile.

You haven't qualified any harm, again you're merely asserting it. There are already two states which only allow medical exemptions. Where are all the harms there? The law is also pretty clear on this and has been used in a recent NY court case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/n...accinated-students-during-illnesses.html?_r=0

See above.
I do understand this. I'm not disputing it. I've asked you to quantify it and compare it to other harms that people are allowed to inflict on others in our society.

I really don't get why you insist that vaccination be compared to other risks in order for you to accept that non-vaccination is a growing problem.

I'm generally in favor of vaccinations. I agree that the risk to an individual from vaccinating is far lower than the risk of their getting the disease. That's irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the harm of allowing them to choose not to vaccinate is sufficient to justify overriding their ability to make such choices for themselves.

When people are making irrational decisions based upon faulty information then it is at the very crux of the argument of compelling an action for their own and societies' good. As for vaccination, this is a case where an individual decision affects others and as such is cannot be treated as infringement of individual liberties. I hate the idea of mandatory vaccination and there are several EU countries who have very high voluntary vaccination rates. But they have a very different attitude than Americans do and feel more of an obligation to society. Unfortunately, sometimes stupid and selfish needs to be legislated.

Este

 

[Beth]

You are inconsistent if you agree that certain jobs require vaccination but parents can't seek alternatives to public, i.e. paid for with tax monies education.

I can see why you feel this would be inconsistent, but I think there is a difference in that a) parents are required to send their kids to public school if they are unable to homeschool (it's not legal for all parents in all states) and there are no affordable private school alternatives available. People who work in jobs that require vaccinations are aware that this is a condition of their employment before they start work. It's a somewhat different matter if it's sprung on people as a requirement for a job they been working in for some time, but I'm unaware that such is the case in the U.S. In short, parents may not have options for the children other than vaccination if no exemptions are allowed while employees have other options, typically before they even start training it.

You haven't qualified any harm, again you're merely asserting it.

I'm not sure what you are asking for in terms of 'qualifying' harm. If I assert someone is harmed by the requirement that their child says a particular sectarian prayer in school and they object to it, how could I 'qualify the harm' in order for you to recognize it as a harm?

There are already two states which only allow medical exemptions. Where are all the harms there? The law is also pretty clear on this and has been used in a recent NY court case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

This link is about a compulsory smallpox vaccination. And included this quote "Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable but that those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated. At the end of his decision, Judge Harlan acknowledged that for certain individuals, the requirement of vaccination would be cruel and inhuman and therefore an overreach of government power."

There are situations where I would agree with Harlan that "personal liberties could be suspended given external circumstances. During an outbreak, for example, the state can encroach on those liberties when "the safety of the general public may demand." There are no current VPD's that are both as contagious and as lethal as smallpox, so I don't see current circumstances as being sufficient to encroach on those liberties.

and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/n...accinated-students-during-illnesses.html?_r=0

This case was about restricting students, who had a religious exemption, from attending public school during an outbreak of measles, which is easily transmitted. This seems a reasonable limitation on non-vaccinated children for both their own health and for the sake of reducing the spread of the disease.

I really don't get why you insist that vaccination be compared to other risks in order for you to accept that non-vaccination is a growing problem.

I accept that it is a problem. It's the solution I have issues with. That's why I ask for the comparison. What risk of harm do we currently allow citizens to impose on society without penalty or restriction? How does the risk of harm from not vaccinating compare to those risks. It seems a reasonable question to ask prior to taking a step that will infringe on other people's rights.

When people are making irrational decisions based upon faulty information then it is at the very crux of the argument of compelling an action for their own and societies' good. As for vaccination, this is a case where an individual decision affects others and as such is cannot be treated as infringement of individual liberties.

I think I said this earlier, but I think the growing movement to not vaccinate is a symptom of a more serious problem. My perception is the problem is a lack of confidence in government health care committee recommendations. I think mandates are more likely to exacerbate this underlying problem which encompasses more than just vaccines.

I hate the idea of mandatory vaccination and there are several EU countries who have very high voluntary vaccination rates. But they have a very different attitude than Americans do and feel more of an obligation to society. Unfortunately, sometimes stupid and selfish needs to be legislated.
Este

I agree that sometimes stupid and selfish behavior needs to be legislated. I'm not convinced that our current VPD's justify such a solution.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I support voluntary opt out. Then take all the voluntary opt outees and quarantining them in a big coral and flying overhead in a crop duster with the real diseases sprayed out in copious amounts. Then of course to be compassionate send them all to a hospital and do the very best to save as many as possible.

Any who survive are free to go and join the rest of society without the risk of causing a plague.

Of course, there is the second option. Just get the damn shots and shut up!

 

[BobTheCoward]

If I can take off my crazy libertarian hat and put on my solutions-without-government hat...

This is a perfect place where us as a community and society can make everyone better off if the government gets out of our way. Why not we form a group that "pays" the holdouts? It doesn't have to be cash. We can put our money where our mouths are by offering massive payouts if they can prove in front of an arbiter that their child was harmed by a vaccine. I'm sure that piece of mind would sway quite a few.

It has the advantage that there are no losers. Everyone who participates does so voluntarily.

 

[Diogenes]

....offering massive payouts if they can prove in front of an arbiter that their child was harmed by a vaccine. I'm sure that piece of mind would sway quite a few.

It has the advantage that there are no losers. Everyone who participates does so voluntarily.

I don't see how this would produce a different outcome than easier exemptions already does. There's already a mechanism through which to sue for alleged vaccine injuries.

I would guess that the population that is convinced vaccines are poison would be unmoved by the offer of compensation. And wouldn't everyone be incentivised to be a "hold-out" if some group is offering something to get them to vaccinate?