A tyranny by any other name

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1200 parents could have fought if they wanted to. Even peaceful ways would have been powerful. Blame the tyranny yes, but also blame apathy, no working together and blind obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was asking for it! She should have fought off the rapist harder if she really cared about not being raped.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he's saying. He's saying (and I agree) that it's sad to see that people aren't willing to fight against the tyranny, they just roll over and accept it.

They may post about it on blogs and message boards but no real action is taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is what I meant so thank you for pointing it out. 1200 parents could have been a force majeure even if using using only assembly and free speech to protest. I understand that parents of small children must prioritize and will have difficulties using more severe ways of protesting.

[/ QUOTE ]




Can you blame them for not wanting to fight?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1200 parents could have fought if they wanted to. Even peaceful ways would have been powerful. Blame the tyranny yes, but also blame apathy, no working together and blind obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was asking for it! She should have fought off the rapist harder if she really cared about not being raped.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he's saying. He's saying (and I agree) that it's sad to see that people aren't willing to fight against the tyranny, they just roll over and accept it.

They may post about it on blogs and message boards but no real action is taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is what I meant so thank you for pointing it out. 1200 parents could have been a force majeure even if using using only assembly and free speech to protest. I understand that parents of small children must prioritize and will have difficulties using more severe ways of protesting.

[/ QUOTE ]




Can you blame them for not wanting to fight?

[/ QUOTE ]

in before analogyphobes.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you blame them for not wanting to fight?


[/ QUOTE ]
You're right there's a much better chance of effecting change by bending over and taking it and then posting on blogs and message boards later about how horrible it was.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natedogg & Others,

Do you guys reject wholesale the concept of public goods and externalities? I think that's silly. Our government has done a pretty good job with public health, and immunizations are a major concern of private charities working in poor countries. What tyranny should pop out at me here?

[/ QUOTE ]


The Supreme court ruled that forced sterilization laws were constitutional. In his ruling, Justice Holmes said, “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

So a woman who was thought to be an imbecile because her mother was an imbecile and who was thought to be promiscuous, was forced to be anesthetized, and operated on so that she could never have any more children. Is this tyranny enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

So that would be like... an entirely different tyranny?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys reject wholesale the concept of public goods and externalities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Public goods theory is a crock and externality as a justification for coercion is a non sequitor.

[ikestoys]

natedogg, i'm sorry, but your medical knowledge of chicken pox is crap.

Ignoring the fact that the vaccine is very safe and prevents chickenpox very effectively, there are many more advantages to vaccination that are clearly above your grasp. Chickenpox is pretty much a safe disease, but shingles isn't.

I'd bother arguing with you, but you'd probably be willing to say that immunizations for polio is tyranny, so I'm not going to bother.

[Borodog]

The entire pro-coercive immunization argument is simply argumentum ad ignorantium. Because you can't think of how the free market could provide for effective immunization, it must not be able to, therefore you have to force people to comply (a separate fallacy, but we don't even need to fet to that one). It's a ridiculous argument. Ten seconds of thought would generate a perfectly reasonable free market solution that requires no coercion whatsoever.

Edit: Just to make clear, owsley below correctly identified the point of the OP; I'm just saying that people always tout immunizations as some sort of example of "market failure", and it's really just an example of the failure of their imagination to come up with the bleedingly obvious.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
natedogg, i'm sorry, but your medical knowledge of chicken pox is crap.

Ignoring the fact that the vaccine is very safe and prevents chickenpox very effectively, there are many more advantages to vaccination that are clearly above your grasp. Chickenpox is pretty much a safe disease, but shingles isn't.

I'd bother arguing with you, but you'd probably be willing to say that immunizations for polio is tyranny, so I'm not going to bother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that natedogg is saying schools shouldn't be allowed to require kids to get certain vaccines? Whether or not it is a correct policy for a school to require a vaccination for chickenpox or shingles isn't the question and the answer to that is irrelevant to the point. It would be perfectly fine if a school made the policy "if your kid doesn't have these vaccines, he can't attend" if families didn't have the choice of what schools they could send their kids to taken away.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be perfectly fine if a school made the policy "if your kid doesn't have these vaccines, he can't attend" if families didn't have the choice of what schools they could send their kids to taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]
that is the policy of nearly every school in the nation, they are just enforcing it strongly in this district.

and yes, i wouldn't be surprised at all of borodog argued the government has no right/need/w/e to require vaccinations in schoolchildren. At the very least, i'm sure the ACtards would be willing to.

My main point is that Borodog is about as good a doctor as Frist is, and has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the long term effects of Herpes virus 3.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be perfectly fine if a school made the policy "if your kid doesn't have these vaccines, he can't attend" if families didn't have the choice of what schools they could send their kids to taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]
that is the policy of nearly every school in the nation, they are just enforcing it strongly in this district.

and yes, i wouldn't be surprised at all of borodog argued the government has no right/need/w/e to require vaccinations in schoolchildren. At the very least, i'm sure the ACtards would be willing to.

My main point is that Borodog is about as good a doctor as Frist is, and has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the long term effects of Herpes virus 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I talk about Herpes virus 3, Brainiac?

Thanks for proving my point.

PS. Iron, Why is it that statists get to call me a retard but I can't call them a moron?

Bias FTW.