![]() |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There are clearly negative externalities....if YOU get sick, I am more likely to get sick. And if you want to make the 'voluntarily allow' argument, then the negative externality is that there are now fewer girls I can [censored]. [/ QUOTE ] cervical cancer is not contagious. either you didn't read my posts or you don't have a basic understanding of market failure and externalities. based on your last sentence, i would say the latter is true at the very least. [/ QUOTE ] Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point. First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case. Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you? If you still need help, google "vaccine externality". |
|
|