A tyranny by any other name

[yukoncpa]

[ 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?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Constantine asked, "What tyranny could pop out here ?" I gave a specific example of what happened in the past with compulsory vaccination laws. My quote was from the Ruling of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Holmes.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Constantine asked, "What tyranny could pop out here ?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpreted his question. He was asking what about government forcing children to be immunized qualified as tyranny, not what some judge might think is the same as this.

It's possible I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

[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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As always, none of this would be an issue if parents had school choice.

[/ QUOTE ]


So one then can properly tag the teacher's unions as being the de facto perpetrator of forced immunizations. It's so refreshing to see nanny-state dems be blamed for violations of personal rights instead of religious repubs.

[bobman0330]

Do you anti-vaccination crowd believe that you should be able to sue unvaccinated children if they get you sick?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you anti-vaccination crowd believe that you should be able to sue unvaccinated children if they get you sick?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're vaccinated, how is my unvaccinated child going to get you sick? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[JammyDodga]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you anti-vaccination crowd believe that you should be able to sue unvaccinated children if they get you sick?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're vaccinated, how is my unvaccinated child going to get you sick? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the full benifit of vaccinations require that a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated...

I.e. a vaccination might only be be 90% effective if a child comes into contact with the virus, but if more than 85% of the population is vaccinated, then the virus is unable to spread properly, so the vaccinated child will be much less likelt to come into contact with the vrisu, and tehrefore be less likely to be infected.

[xorbie]

This is one of those issues I have to completely disagree with what appears to be AC consensus. Children are not old enough or knowledgeable enough to make these calls, and having them immunizing is a decision that affects them, other children and society as a whole.

This isn't a tough, risky decision with a lot of downswide and limited upside. It's, IMO, a clear decision with many, many benefits and extremely limited downside. Having children be immunized seems to be within both the child and school's best interest, and I fail to see why even under a free market system you would end up with many schools that don't require it.

You might say this means the government isn't necessary for this, and I don't necessarily disagree. Immunization is such an obviously good thing that it would hopefully continue under any circumstance. It seems to me that this is simply a case of arguing tyranny for the sake of it.

[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.