Forced Vaccination

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are a doctor in a crowded city and somebody comes in with what you identify as Ebola (no cure, no vaccine, 90% mortality rate). As far as you know he has not infected anyone else yet. When you tell him what he has, he says that since he's gonna die soon anyone, he's gonna hit the bars and strip clubs that night and go out with a bang.

What should you do with him, if anything?


[/ QUOTE ]
have him arrested for attempting to initiate force against others.

[/ QUOTE ]

How has he attempted to initiate force against others? He might not infect anyone else. I thought there were no probabilistic crimes (like drunk driving) in AC land without a contractual relationship? Don't you have to wait for him to infect someone first?

[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly I don't know much about the whole probabilistic crime deal with AC. I certainly haven't said they aren't crimes. I would assume it just depended on societal norms. I would see being around others while knowingly carrying a contagious and dangerous virus initation of force.

[ianlippert]

OP,

Its not like ACers are going to claim that government is bad 110% of the time. There are people that can be helped by government programs. The problem is, is that overall the government is a net negative. So giving government the ability to force people to get vaccinated might save more lives than the free market solution, but we have too look at the negative effects this force has in society. I wouldnt be an ACist if I didnt think the government was a net loss, ie if it was just for theoretical moral reasons.

As for your hypothetical, I'm not sure what its like in America but up here in Canada you can refuse to get vaccinated. Of course I dont think you can enroll your kids in public schools without getting certain vaccinations, but this would also occur under AC.

The idea that private insurance vaccinations would be spotty is pretty unrealistic. A company is going to pay much less in the long run by spending $200 on a vaccination than paying several thousand dollars later when you get sick. Private health care companies would be all about the preventitive types of medicine. You would become a resource to them that needs to be protected.

[7ontheline]

In real life (as opposed to AC fantasy) as a physician it is your obligation to notify proper authorities if someone like this comes in.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my biggest problems with AC, and one of my main reasons for supporting a minarchist government, is that in AC land innocent children are not protected from the stupidity or aggression of their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is the seed for the reasoning by all tyrannies that have ever existed, in my opinion. It's for the children.

[ QUOTE ]
This is still a problem that could not be completely solved by any government, but I think a government could alleviate the problem to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it could. But at what cost? You're only thinking it half way through. Now that the government has the right to come into your home and force an injection on your children... your are left hoping that this power is only ever excercised prudently in ways you approve. You're in for a big disappointment. The slippery slope you allude to below is very real. Aren't you a least SOMEWHAT concerned about what could happen to people under a malicious government with the rights you propose giving it?

[ QUOTE ]
I am fully aware that allowing the government to intervene in parent-child relationships is a very slipperly slope. But I think that there are certain instances, such as outright child abuse or willful failure to provide a child with medical treatment, which are objective enough to justify government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem lies in the act of making a definition of "abuse". If you give the government the power to make parenting decisions for you, then you are the mercy of whoever is in power. Do you really want bible-thumpers defining "abuse" which could easily be "not teaching the bible properly" cause that WILL happen in some place eventually. It has before. Don't be so short-sighted.

[ QUOTE ]
So the bottom line is that I am against the government protecting people from their own stupidity, but if someone is dumb enough to not vaccinate their kids against an infectious disease, I have no problem with government agression coming into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, "I support liberty except when people act in ways I find objectionable". Not good. That isn't liberty. Liberty is when people really can do things you find objectionable including religious practices that are idiotic, such as refusing blood transmissions. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Anything else just means you are "free" at the whim of government officials who can decide whether or not to coerce you however they like. (in fact, we live in a tyranny now because nearly every 'freedom' we possess is really just a permission from the govt which could take it away. for the children of course)

Bad parenting is one of the hardest things to accept in life. It is heartbreaking to see children who are raised by abusive, incompetent, irresponsible parents and you know those kids have hardly a chance to succeed in life. If you really truly believe it is right to allow people to live their own lives without govt coercing them either paternalistically or otherwise, then that seriously means you have to resort to NON-COERCIVE means of solving social ills. If you must recruit govt to alleviate social ills you are just giving up and accepting tyranny.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the person basically has to live in a bubble (who would hire an unvaccinated person, what HOA would allow an unvaccinated person to buy a house, what company would do business with an unvaccinated person, who would let an unvaccinated person into his home, what insurance company would insure an unvaccinated person) who's left for him to harm?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is purely theoretical. In the real world, some people and businesses won't care, unvaccinated people will form lobby groups, etc. The market can solve all problems, but it can't solve the problem of supplying goods to people who don't want vaccination? Something about that doesn't seem right.

BTW, if your superstitious grandmother doesn't want to vaccinated, are you going to hold her down and do it? Deny her food or housing? Stop her coming into your house? Is everyone else going to do the same?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
This is purely theoretical. In the real world, some people and businesses won't care, unvaccinated people will form lobby groups, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK well, if they want to take the risk that's their choice.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if your superstitious grandmother oesn't want to vaccinated, are you going to hold her down and do it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm, isn't *your* side the one that advocates the government doing this? if my grandmother doesn't want it she doesn't have to.
[ QUOTE ]
Deny her food or housing? Stop her coming into your house? Is everyone else going to do the same?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not. It's my/their choice. They can access their own risk/reward. If vaccination is as important as some here claim it to be, what makes you think people won't take precautions?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, isn't *your* side the one that advocates the government doing this? if my grandmother doesn't want it she doesn't have to.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not about sides. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. You claimed:

[ QUOTE ]
But if the person basically has to live in a bubble (who would hire an unvaccinated person, what HOA would allow an unvaccinated person to buy a house, what company would do business with an unvaccinated person, who would let an unvaccinated person into his home, what insurance company would insure an unvaccinated person) who's left for him to harm?

[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm simply saying that the argument appears unreasonable. You believe these people will be isolated and thus do no harm. I'm disagreeing with you. Children are the trivial example that prove this true.

[Girchuck]

In the real world, all vaccines come with side effects.
The side effect of smallpox vaccine is death with probability of about one in a million.
To forcibly vaccinate US population has a price of ~300 lives. Payable immediately.
To not vaccinate at all has a price of ~250 million lives with very small probability. Because the probability of smallpox release is small, a compromise solution is to not vaccinate but be prepared to do so if the probability of smallpox outbreak increases.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
This is the seed for the reasoning by all tyrannies that have ever existed, in my opinion. It's for the children.
"

Thats ridculous. Tyrannies exist because power abhors a vacuum.