Anti-vaxers and libertarianism

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by gul, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    23,658
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +18,787
    Wouldn't the libertarian answer to this be to leave it up to the parents to choose whether to have their kids vaccinated, and then if their kid gets another kid sick, those parents can sue them into the gutter?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Captain X

    Captain X Responsible cookie control

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    14,611
    Location:
    The Land of Snow and Cold
    Ratings:
    +9,106
    Yes. Although I also support the school making vaccination a requirement for attendance, which means any parent choosing to not get their kids vaccinated would also be choosing not to send their kid to school.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Dan Leach

    Dan Leach Climbing Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    32,220
    Location:
    Lancaster UK
    Ratings:
    +10,285
    Wouldn't that be almost impossible to prove?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. garamet

    garamet "Conservative" according to RightySpeak

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    48,719
    Ratings:
    +29,871
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Anna

    Anna Sheithforge Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    34,923
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +37,384
    Doubtful, since even with the relatively high numbers of measles outbreaks, I can't imagine there being more than one kid in a class to initially get it.

    I did catch chickenpox from my best friend in 2nd grade because her idiot parents decided to send her to school after five days when the spots faded instead of wait out the two week incubation period. So did everyone else that sat at our table in class, and most likely so did these kids' siblings at home. Said friend also had two sisters in other classes that probably spread it to more kids. :jayzus:
  6. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    The argument for forcing--and that's what law is, like it or not--people to be vaccinated is to provide "herd immunity" for...people who are not vaccinated?
    I recommend he get his kid vaccinated.

    Don't misunderstand. I'm not against vaccinations. I've had all mine and if I had kids they'd have them, too.

    But, as always, there's a difference between a good idea and a mandatory good idea.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • teh baba teh baba x 1
  7. garamet

    garamet "Conservative" according to RightySpeak

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    48,719
    Ratings:
    +29,871
    No.

    What part of "the kid's immune system is compromised so that he can't be vaccinated" did you not understand?

    A year or so from now, when his bone marrow recovers, he may be able to be vaccinated, but not now.
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Anna

    Anna Sheithforge Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    34,923
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +37,384
    Holy fuck, did you miss the part about the kid going through FUCKING CHEMO?

    Last I checked, the body's immunity gets raped like a white chick at a Bill Cosby party when you're going through it. :borg:

    That being said, if I were this kid's dad, I would have moved our of this city of morons by now.
    • Agree Agree x 8
  9. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    Unless there's some realistic opt-out (i.e., vouchers for private school), this amounts to the same thing.

    If the law allows you to choose not to be vaccinated, but not being vaccinated prevents you from doing something else that is legally compelled, it is the same as if the law does not allow the choice.
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    Then explain why "herd immunity" justifies your position.
    Parents should be aware that not vaccinating their kids may carry some serious--albeit very low probability--consequences.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    23,658
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +18,787
    To protect people who cannot be vaccinated, for example children under the age of one year, and people who have been vaccinated, but might still be suseptible to the disease anyway.

    I think like five people have already explained this.

    :wtf: Even if getting them vaccinated will kill them?
    • Agree Agree x 7
  12. gul

    gul Revolting Beer Drinker Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    52,392
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +42,302
    Subtle difference, in that what I said was that the anti-vax position fits the same criteria as the standard libertarian position. Smarter, more thoughtful libertarians than you (eg O2C) can see that dilemma, but you think it means I believe libertarians are anti-science. I make no judgment on that particular issue. At any rate, do you disagree, that the libertarian position underlies the anti-vax concept? If so, how does it differ? Both ignore harm to social good in favor of individual free choice.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. gul

    gul Revolting Beer Drinker Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    52,392
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +42,302
    Which is, of course, the usual problem with libertarianism. It's rarely so easy as noticing whose fists hits somebody's nose.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    32,953
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +17,459
    Yep, there has been a lot of recent push back by public health advocates. The vaccination rules have got watered down in the last 30 years due to claims of religious freedom and due to anti-vaxxer misinformation but it seems doctors want the rules tightened up again because they are seeing old diseases which we had virtually eliminated making come backs.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. garamet

    garamet "Conservative" according to RightySpeak

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    48,719
    Ratings:
    +29,871
    It may surprise you to learn that there wasn't always a vaccine. A large portion of the population over 50 has had measles, but not all. Measles is a far more serious disease in adulthood than in childhood and, as has been pointed out repeatedly, not everyone in the adult population can be immunized.

    Some of those who had measles in childhood may have had mild cases that might not have provided 100% immunity. They're not eligible for the MMR vaccine (and why should they be obligated to compensate for Stupid Parent Syndrome?).

    Infants under six months (the earliest the vaccine can be given), people undergoing chemo, transplant patients, people with compromised immune systems for a host of other reasons cannot be vaccinated. Real Life sucks like that.
  16. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    32,953
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +17,459
    His kid was vaccinated but the chemo eliminates the antibodies as well as compromises his immune system. The doctors are saying the kids immune system won't be strong enough for newvaccinations until one year after chemo is over. So there is all the time while he is in chemo plus one year after the chemo is done where medically vaccination cannot be carried out.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    23,658
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +18,787
    Choices have consequences. :shrug:
    • Agree Agree x 4
  18. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    That's just it: if the law doesn't permit you to exercise a choice, you don't really have a choice.
  19. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    Understood. But the child's situation is highly exceptional: he's especially vulnerable to many diseases. If measles are a specific threat to him, he needs to be isolated from anyone who doesn't have an active measles immunity.
  20. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    23,658
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +18,787
    Not at all. If you choose not to have your kid immunised, a consequence is that you either need to find a private school that will take them, or home school them. Do you honestly believe that a person has a right to easy choices?
    • Agree Agree x 9
  21. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    32,953
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +17,459
    The law should not allow any choice. The unvaccinated result in innocent people dying. Your freedom of choice doesn't include getting other people killed. Vaccination needs to be compulsory and universal with only medical needs exempting someone.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 3
  22. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    I don't disagree.
    No, not at all. Especially where the rights of others are impediments to those easy choices.
    Other people's susceptibility to disease gives them no claim on my body.
  23. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    32,953
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +17,459
    No, if what you do results in other people dying then it isn't about your "freedom".
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 2
  24. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    If I go to work with the flu and a co-worker catches it and dies, should I be prosecuted?
  25. Archangel

    Archangel Primus Peritia

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,662
    Location:
    Gathering Place
    Ratings:
    +3,573
    I can't wrap my head around people being OK with knowingly endangering others based on a lie being OK.

    IOW, Paladin, you are just wrong.

    Period.
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    24,022
    Ratings:
    +22,975
    If you did this under some hugely unlikely and uncommon circumstances in which you knew that this was a very likely outcome, and you were asked to and easily able to refrain from infecting him, then definitely yes. Forcing peanuts down the throat of a man with an extreme peanut allergy isn't harmless just because it's peanuts.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  27. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    24,022
    Ratings:
    +22,975
    How so? (It's enough if you explain why you think it's a strawman, as hyperbole doesn't negate an argument.)
  28. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    77,989
    Ratings:
    +41,175
    See no evil.
    You can see bruises, cuts, and missing teeth, but you can't see microscopic germs, so it's not abuse.
    Out of sight, out of mind.
    It really is caveman thinking.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +41,661
    Sure.

    How about if it wasn't an unlikely/uncommon experience? You simply infected a vulnerable person and they died.
    Not the same thing at all.

    How about bringing a peanut butter sandwich near a person with a peanut allergy? Knowingly or unknowingly.
  30. Anna

    Anna Sheithforge Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    34,923
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +37,384
    So, I take it you're against mandatory vaginal ultrasounds as a requirement for abortion?

    :bergman: