Vaccines: Public Policy or Personal Preference? (split from Election 2016 thread)
Quote: AZDuffmanPrior to the vaccine, 3-4 million cases of measles occured in the United States each year, of those 3-4 million cases, only about 450 people died each year from it in the years before the vaccine.
There are other complications than death, and those are worth avoiding, too.
I'm personally of the opinion that sparing someone from a week of itching is worthwhile.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html
Quote: CDCCommon Complications
Common measles complications include ear infections and diarrhea.
Ear infections occur in about one out of every 10 children with measles and can result in permanent hearing loss.
Diarrhea is reported in less than one out of 10 people with measles.
Severe Complications
Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die.
As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.
For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.
Quote: DieterThere are other complications than death, and those are worth avoiding, too.
I'm personally of the opinion that sparing someone from a week of itching is worthwhile.
Then get the vaccination. Just don't make people do it under threat of violence. Freedom.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen get the vaccination. Just don't make people do it under threat of violence. Freedom.
Fine by me.
Don't send your kid to school with mine if yours isn't vaccinated, however. Just in case my kid is one of the 3% that the vaccination didn't work for.
I see it no different than my kid not being able to take a peanut butter sandwich to school for lunch, since one of her classmates might be allergic to peanuts.
Quote: DieterFine by me.
Don't send your kid to school with mine if yours isn't vaccinated, however. Just in case my kid is one of the 3% that the vaccination didn't work for.
Sorry, if I am paying my taxes then my kids would have the same right to the school as yours. If you want your kid somehow totally protected then the best course is home-schooling. Otherwise look at the risk of even getting measles (near-zero) and then dying from it (near-zero after a near-zero chance of catching measles.)
Quote:I see it no different than my kid not being able to take a peanut butter sandwich to school for lunch, since one of her classmates might be allergic to peanuts.
This is a major flaw in thinking. The kid with the peanut allergy needs to make the bulk of the changes. We can't keep banning everything based on "one person might" thinking. If a kid has a peanut allergy then a peanut-free zone can be made.
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, if I am paying my taxes then my kids would have the same right to the school as yours.
Yes. Your children have the same right to get vaccinated and attend school as mine do.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will take the chance on the barking dogs in return for the freedom to paint my house and landscape my yard the way I choose. Why people give up so much freedom to live in an HOA amazes me. It is as if one tells the state, "I don't have enough laws governing my behavior, can I have some more, please?"
I grew up next to the neighborhood cat lady. Annoying, but my sister was allowed her basketball hoop. (Full Disclosure: I hate playing basketball)
But it does not affect "everyone's health," only their own. My retort is simple, if the vaccine is so great then why does the government have to use the threat of violence to enforce people getting it?
Threat of violence probably not. But they can do encourager-type laws like banning you from public schools and government employment without vaccination records.
And, the vaccine may very we'll be so great, but people often do things against their best health interest either out of ignorance or unfounded fear or they just don't care about their health (and the health of everyone around) to be bothered.
Quote: GandlerThreat of violence probably not. But they can do encourager-type laws like banning you from public schools and government employment without vaccination records.
"Probably not?" Correct me if I am wrong, but if you choose not to vaccinate your kids then CYS will eventually take them by force, no? To me that qualifies as violence.
Quote:And, the vaccine may very we'll be so great, but people often do things against their best health interest either out of ignorance or unfounded fear or they just don't care about their health (and the health of everyone around) to be bothered.
And if they do they are hurting nobody but themselves so what is the big deal? Like riding a motorcycle with no helmet.
Quote: DieterYes. Your children have the same right to get vaccinated and attend school as mine do.
So why can I not choose to exercise one independent of the other?
Quote: BoulderDamItThis is a tough issue for me as my baby is due March 24th (The Mrs. and I are still taking suggestions on Gaelic names if anyone has a suggestion.)
My child cannot be fully vaccinated right away and is at risk from those who choose not to. The science is very clear and any papers saying otherwise have been thoroughly thrashed and discredited.
I will be vaccinating my child. But I'm also of the opinion that the government has no right what to tell me to put in my body, or what not to put in it.
This is a tough issue for me and it's not one that I've made without scores or research. In fact I'm still on the fence where I stand on government mandation.
It obviously affects newborns and those who are unable to get the shot because of health reasons. But heard immunization has been proven to work.
If we allow this where do we draw the line?
Like I said, it's not an easy side to take up either way.
The science is sound but the moral decision is not.
I will continue to listen to arguments from either side.
The only thing not in debate is whether or not they work or cause Autism.
Congratulations to you and your wife on your new expected bundle of joy!
Boys: Kevin, Brandon, Aidan, Sean, Patrick, Liam, Colin.
Girls: Megan, Kaitlyn, Erin, Molly, Bridget, Shannon, Colleen.
At least one of my relatives has one of the above names. There are many more but these were the ones that came to mind first. Be sure that the child's three initials don't spell a bad word and don't assume that you know them all. My very best wishes to you both.
Quote: AZDuffman"Probably not?" Correct me if I am wrong, but if you choose not to vaccinate your kids then CYS will eventually take them by force, no? To me that qualifies as violence.
And if they do they are hurting nobody but themselves so what is the big deal? Like riding a motorcycle with no helmet.
So why can I not choose to exercise one independent of the other?
The problem is that it endangers others. And the other issue is you are harming a young child who cannot do anything other than be at the mercy of their parents views.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo why can I not choose to exercise one independent of the other?
Living as a part of our society requires giving up some liberties.
The community I live in has determined that vaccinations are generally harmless, generally beneficial to individual and community health, and should be required for children attending our public schools.
You are welcome to have your children not attend our public schools should your beliefs be more important to you than our community's beliefs.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd if they do they are hurting nobody but themselves so what is the big deal? Like riding a motorcycle with no helmet.
Our community also requires that persons under the age of 18 who are riding a motorcycle wear a helmet.
In my state at least, that requirement is withdrawn for properly licensed riders over the age of 18.
If you don't like the government laws
You can choose not to work and go live off the land or something even move to a different country Of course no one wants to do that because they actually like life in the USA government and all. No one forces you to live in normal society you choose that. You want to pick and choose what government rules to live by but that's not how it works.
Some rules/laws suck and some are good.
If you don't like them run for government and change them..... do something. If you don't have what it takes to do so, well someone has to.
I don't like a lot of what the government does. But unless I'm willing to do something about it I really shouldn't complain. My life doesn't suck with the way things have been for as long as I have been alive.
The problem with not getting your children vaccinated or proper care. When something serious happens you will have a change of heart and run your child to the emergency room whether or not you can afford it or not.
When I say you I don't. Mean you personally.
Quote: AxelWolfYes you can choose not to live in a HOA and Paint your house whatever color you want. Both non HOA and HOA have there advantages and disadvantages. People can allways go live in the country. HOAs are popular for a reason.
If you don't like the government laws
You can choose not to work and go live off the land or something even move to a different country Of course no one wants to do that because they actually like life in the USA government and all. No one forces you to live in normal society you choose that. You want to pick and choose what government rules to live by but that's not how it works.
Some rules/laws suck and some are good.
If you don't like them run for government and change them..... do something. If you don't have what it takes to do so, well someone has to.
I don't like a lot of what the government does. But unless I'm willing to do something about it I really shouldn't complain. My life doesn't suck with the way things have been for as long as I have been alive.
The problem with not getting your children vaccinated or proper care. When something serious happens you will have a change of heart and run your child to the emergency room whether or not you can afford it or not.
When I say you I don't. Mean you personally.
When someone says why don't you move to another country if you hate the government I typically respond why don't you move to north Korea (or some other place with lots of government) if you love government so much. It goes both ways. Anyways however much you want to believe you're free to move to another country you are wrong. It costs $2350 to renounce your US citizenship. You also have had to have paid taxes the last 5yrs and pay an exit tax. Then also the country you are moving to has to be willing to accept you as a citizen there. You have to detail what you plan to do in their country like what work you plan to do and how it will be beneficial for them. If you have any felonies on your record you also have to get a letter from the FBI saying you are not a threat to society. Simply put you are not free to leave.
As for changing the government by working in the government it doesn't work like that. One law might get repealed but dozens of new laws will be put in place. You can be genuinely noble and all your ideas are "good". But you won't get any support unless you support other politicians with their ideas. So you have to throw support towards dozens of other bills to get support for the bill you want to get passed.
Im not PRO government, I just don't think it's as horrible as some people are always complaining about. Half the people who complain just complain because they hear evryone else complaining. They really have no clue what's what. Just ask someone next time to elaborate on a View they have.Quote: rudeboyoiWhen someone says why don't you move to another country if you hate the government I typically respond why don't you move to north Korea (or some other place with lots of government) if you love government so much. It goes both ways. Anyways however much you want to believe you're free to move to another country you are wrong. It costs $2350 to renounce your US citizenship. You also have had to have paid taxes the last 5yrs and pay an exit tax. Then also the country you are moving to has to be willing to accept you as a citizen there. You have to detail what you plan to do in their country like what work you plan to do and how it will be beneficial for them. If you have any felonies on your record you also have to get a letter from the FBI saying you are not a threat to society. Simply put you are not free to leave.
As for changing the government by working in the government it doesn't work like that. One law might get repealed but dozens of new laws will be put in place. You can be genuinely noble and all your ideas are "good". But you won't get any support unless you support other politicians with their ideas. So you have to throw support towards dozens of other bills to get support for the bill you want to get passed.
People have a choice NOT to commit felonies. So that's really on them. Perhaps you could be wrongfully accused but that can happen anywhere.
Run jump or swim to Mexico or something, If they kick you out that's on Mexico apperantly their government isn't any better.
If someone gave you a free pass to go somewhere different would you take it?(obviously you have to find a Job or do whatever to survive and follow their laws) Most people I know wouldn't. People aren't dying to get into the United States just for the hell of it.
I know you prefer a place with no laws and everyone's running around with gun's taking the law into their own hand's. If that was a good system why didn't it catch on?
Quote: GandlerThe problem is that it endangers others. And the other issue is you are harming a young child who cannot do anything other than be at the mercy of their parents views.
If the other person has chosen the vaccine then there can be no harm. And you are not "harming" a young child by making a reward decision not to take a vaccine for a disease hardly anybody catches anymore.
Quote: AxelWolf
If you don't like the government laws
You can choose not to work and go live off the land or something even move to a different country Of course no one wants to do that because they actually like life in the USA government and all. No one forces you to live in normal society you choose that. You want to pick and choose what government rules to live by but that's not how it works.
Ah, the "go live in the woods" thing. I am not against all laws, I am against laws where there is no victim. Declining vaccination for a disease not a threat has no victim. To use threat of violence to enforce this law is just kind of crazy.
Quote: AxelWolfIm not PRO government, I just don't think it's as horrible as some people are always complaining about. Half the people who complain just complain because they hear evryone else complaining. They really have no clue what's what. Just ask someone next time to elaborate on a View they have.
People have a choice NOT to commit felonies. So that's really on them. Perhaps you could be wrongfully accused but that can happen anywhere.
Run jump or swim to Mexico or something, If they kick you out that's on Mexico apperantly their government isn't any better.
If someone gave you a free pass to go somewhere different would you take it?(obviously you have to find a Job or do whatever to survive and follow their laws) Most people I know wouldn't. People aren't dying to get into the United States just for the hell of it.
I know you prefer a place with no laws and everyone's running around with gun's taking the law into their own hand's. If that was a good system why didn't it catch on?
Its estimated that the average citizen commits three felonies a day without even realizing it. Its impossible to know all the laws so its extremely naive to think you have a choice. All governments are bad. Just because one may be better than another doesnt make it good.
It hasn't caught on because of the belief that government is necessary. When this country was founded they overthrew one government to replace it with another believing that somehow a piece of paper (the constitution) could limit the size and scope of a government which it has failed horribly to do so. Just look at the size it has swelled to and the continuing violation of rights this piece of paper was somehow supposed to protect.
Nowadays we have the ability to communicate ideas with just about anyone in the world with the Internet and social media. The liberty movement is growing as the people's eyes open up to what government really is. It is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Sure every criminal enterprise can do some good. The mob was well known for opening soup kitchens but that doesn't justify their behavior about extorting money from the community which is all a tax is. You can call it a tax all you want but that doesn't change the fact it is nothing more than extortion. Give us your money or we will harm you whether it's seizing your wealth/property and/or throwing you in a cage. And if you resist we will kill you. The belief that government is necessary is perpetuated by the government having a monopoly on certain services. A common question a statist asks is but who will build the roads? Probably the same damn people that are building them now except they would be paid voluntarily instead of coercively.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf the other person has chosen the vaccine then there can be no harm. And you are not "harming" a young child by making a reward decision not to take a vaccine for a disease hardly anybody catches anymore.
Ah, the "go live in the woods" thing. I am not against all laws, I am against laws where there is no victim. Declining vaccination for a disease not a threat has no victim. To use threat of violence to enforce this law is just kind of crazy.
AZ,
You're making a circular argument. The reason "hardly anyone catches" many diseases is BECAUSE of widespread mandatory vaccination in my and my parents' generations. Every unvaccinated person is susceptible to those diseases, and the unvaccinated numbers are growing, allowing the opportunistic infections to become widespread. You're depending on everyone else to be responsible without being responsible yourself.
Furthermore, organisms mutate as they spread, combining at the cellular level with our bodies and developing their own resistance to the antibodies our immune system generates. We have the answer to this or that particular version of measles or whooping cough NOW; but given enough opportunity in unvaccinated bodies, the organisms can change enough to render vaccinated people as susceptible as unvaccinated ones, essentially creating a whole new pathogen, which may well be deadlier than the original. The only answer is to eradicate the organism in its present form so it's not given the chance to change and become epidemic, and then continue to change further in a geometric progression.
The thing maybe some folks don't understand about vaccines is that they are a dead (inert) version of the pathogen, containing the "irritants" that cause the immune system to react by building antibodies, without containing the live mutable part that threatens the body directly by changing mitochondrial or cellular DNA. Those antibodies remain in your body and are what attack the live version if you come in contact with it, defeating it before it makes enough pathogen cells to overwhelm your immune system, not only sparing you the illness but keeping you from infecting others.
The organisms are parasitic, while the vaccines are symbiotic; one harms the host, the other co-exists. We know how to eradicate the parasites; it's pure foolishness (and IMO incredibly selfish) not to do it.
Quote: beachbumbabsAZ,
You're making a circular argument. The reason "hardly anyone catches" many diseases is BECAUSE of widespread mandatory vaccination in my and my parents' generations. Every unvaccinated person is susceptible to those diseases, and the unvaccinated numbers are growing, allowing the opportunistic infections to become widespread. You're depending on everyone else to be responsible without being responsible yourself.
Furthermore, organisms mutate as they spread, combining at the cellular level with our bodies and developing their own resistance to the antibodies our immune system generates. We have the answer to this or that particular version of measles or whooping cough NOW; but given enough opportunity in unvaccinated bodies, the organisms can change enough to render vaccinated people as susceptible as unvaccinated ones, essentially creating a whole new pathogen, which may well be deadlier than the original. The only answer is to eradicate the organism in its present form so it's not given the chance to change and become epidemic, and then continue to change further in a geometric progression.
The thing maybe some folks don't understand about vaccines is that they are a dead (inert) version of the pathogen, containing the "irritants" that cause the immune system to react by building antibodies, without containing the live mutable part that threatens the body directly by changing mitochondrial or cellular DNA. Those antibodies remain in your body and are what attack the live version if you come in contact with it, defeating it before it makes enough pathogen cells to overwhelm your immune system, not only sparing you the illness but keeping you from infecting others.
The organisms are parasitic, while the vaccines are symbiotic; one harms the host, the other co-exists. We know how to eradicate the parasites; it's pure foolishness (and IMO incredibly selfish) not to do it.
Excellent post.
+1
Even Megyn Kelly of Foxnew agrees.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/megyn-kelly-on-vaccinations-some-things-do-require/
As too all the AZ posts regarding this topic
facepalm :-)
Abortion - A woman should not have the right to medically care for her body how she chooses
Vaccines - A woman should have the right to choose to make medical decisions for themselves and their kids
Quote: AZDuffmanDeclining vaccination for a disease not a threat has no victim.
Your definition of "not a threat" is strange.
While you have pointed out that a small number of people who get measles die (I'm assuming directly from the measles infection), there are many possible complications. Those complications are quite unpleasant, and more common than dying directly from the measles infection.
Those complications include: blindness, hearing loss, pneumonia (and possibly death from pneumonia), and itching for a week.
"An' it harm none, do as ye' will." I get that. But not getting vaccinated might harm someone, and I think that would constitute negligence on your part.
Feel the same about influenza and pertussis? How many patients have incurred blindiness, hearing loss and pneumonia because of measles?Quote: DieterYour definition of "not a threat" is strange. While you have pointed out that a small number of people who get measles die (I'm assuming directly from the measles infection), there are many possible complications. Those complications are quite unpleasant, and more common than dying directly from the measles infection. Those complications include: blindness, hearing loss, pneumonia (and possibly death from pneumonia), and itching for a week."An' it harm none, do as ye' will." I get that. But not getting vaccinated might harm someone, and I think that would constitute negligence on your part.
We know the system is not perfect and it never will be.
What are your options? Some people seem to thrive even with this so called mob like government. People become rich and powerful starting from nothing and even in worst environments like you and I live in. People can at least make an easily life filled withnfun and enjoyment. If you can'tbeat em join em.
Quote: BeardgoatAm I right here AZ?
Abortion - A woman should not have the right to medically care for her body how she chooses
Vaccines - A woman should have the right to choose to make medical decisions for themselves and their kids
No, you are not correct. Abortion should have regulation, including a 3-day waiting period which is the same for me exercising my right to purchase a handgun, however.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt doesn't matter if getting vaccinated is a good idea or bad idea. Forcing someone to do something is wrong.
+1 and that is all I am trying to say!
Quote: SanchoPanzaHow many patients have incurred blindiness, hearing loss and pneumonia because of measles?
According to the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html
About 10% of people who get the infection get ear infections, getting them the potential of hearing loss.
About 10% of the people who get the infection get diarrhea (and possible dehydration from it).
About 5% of children who get the infection get pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
About 0.1% of children who get the infection get encephalitis, which can cause brain damage.
About 0.1% of children who get the infection will die from it.
One is too many, especially when it's so easy to prevent.
I think that the "high risk" people who are recommended to get certain vaccinations - like the flu shot - should.
Quote: AZDuffman
Declining vaccination for a disease not a threat has no victim.
Hurts the economy having lots of people with a highly infectious disease. Even if they feel well enough to go to work, other people won't want them there.
That's aside from the effects. And the occasional dead children and blinded.
Victims will be everywhere.
Quote: AxelWolfUssully if you get convicted of a Felony you dam well know it's a felony. If it was something innocent then the chances are that person would've had the charges lowered. Im sure there are rare cases someone gets shafted.
We know the system is not perfect and it never will be.
What are your options? Some people seem to thrive even with this so called mob like government. People become rich and powerful starting from nothing and even in worst environments like you and I live in. People can at least make an easily life filled withnfun and enjoyment. If you can'tbeat em join em.
Any rational person would never think it's a felony to send non-threatening emails yet here I am with one. And it's not rare. We have 4% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population. Plenty of people are getting shafted.
That's my whole point. We know the system is not perfect and never will be so why do we keep trying to make it work? Government is the martingale of social structure. It doesn't work. It never has worked. Quit attempting to make it work.
End the state. First step is to change the hearts and minds of enough people. It doesn't take much effort to spread the message either. Open up two people's eyes and if everyone who has had their eyes opened up opens up two other people's eyes the message will be spread in no time. Social media is our most powerful weapon. Then once enough people's hearts and minds are changed, we stop funding the state and it will collapse under its own weight. Peaceful and non-violent.
Quote: rxwineHurts the economy having lots of people with a highly infectious disease. Even if they feel well enough to go to work, other people won't want them there.
That's aside from the effects. And the occasional dead children and blinded.
Victims will be everywhere.
If the economy is not already hurt by the record numbers on disability then a few people calling off work will not matter. Less than 500 people a year infected in total, not even felt. And as I have shown, you have a better chance of drowning in your tub than dying from it.
Quote: AZDuffman
Since we are talking "science," lets use some:
2. Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles… out of 6 billion. This means of all deaths, measles is responsible for 0.0000328.
AZD I don't always agree with you but you usually are using your brain not the crap above. Your statement above is completely wrong. You have taken the number of deaths and compared it to the world population not the number of deaths in the world.
The number of deaths in world last year from all causes is 56,000,000 this means that the 197,000 deaths from measles are a not insignificant .3% of deaths from all causes including war, old age etc. in the world.
Be against forced immunization by a government if that is your politics but don't try and bullshit away the fact that measles can have serious consequences for 1 in 1000 that catch it. Coincidentally this is also the lives saved for those that have a PSA test for prostate cancer. That might put in perspective for many people.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf the economy is not already hurt by the record numbers on disability then a few people calling off work will not matter. Less than 500 people a year infected in total, not even felt. And as I have shown, you have a better chance of drowning in your tub than dying from it.
The less then 500 is because of basically mandated vaccines. Its like claiming that very few people die from car crashes so we can eliminate the mandate that car companies have seat belts installed. Obviously if large number of people stop getting the vaccine a massive outbreak could happen.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe thing maybe some folks don't understand about vaccines is that they are a dead (inert) version of the pathogen, containing the "irritants" that cause the immune system to react by building antibodies, without containing the live mutable part that threatens the body directly by changing mitochondrial or cellular DNA.
This is not as informative or precise as a scientific post ought to be. Vaccines are basically of two types. One is live attenuated: "An attenuated vaccine is a vaccine created by reducing the virulence of a pathogen, but still keeping it viable (or "live").[1] Attenuation takes an infectious agent and alters it so that it becomes harmless or less virulent. These vaccines contrast to those produced by "killing" the virus (inactivated vaccine).
"Examples of "live" (example attenuated) vaccines include:
Viral: measles vaccine, mumps vaccine, rubella vaccine, Live attenuated influenza vaccine (the seasonal flu nasal spray and the 2009 H1N1 flu nasal spray), chicken pox vaccine, oral polio vaccine (Sabin), rotavirus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.[2] Rabies vaccines are now available in two different attenuated forms, one for use in humans, and one for animal usage.
Bacterial: BCG vaccine,[2] typhoid vaccine[3] and epidemic typhus vaccine.
"Viruses may be attenuated via passage of the virus through a foreign host, such as:
Tissue culture
Embryonated eggs
Live animals"
The other major category of vaccines is inactivated vaccines:
"Some vaccines contain inactivated, but previously virulent, micro-organisms that have been destroyed with chemicals, heat, radioactivity, or antibiotics. Examples are influenza, cholera, bubonic plague, polio, hepatitis A, and rabies.” [All quotations from Wikipedia]
Quote: rudeboyoiIts estimated that the average citizen commits three felonies a day without even realizing it. Its impossible to know all the laws so its extremely naive to think you have a choice. All governments are bad. Just because one may be better than another doesnt make it good.
It hasn't caught on because of the belief that government is necessary. When this country was founded they overthrew one government to replace it with another believing that somehow a piece of paper (the constitution) could limit the size and scope of a government which it has failed horribly to do so. Just look at the size it has swelled to and the continuing violation of rights this piece of paper was somehow supposed to protect.
Nowadays we have the ability to communicate ideas with just about anyone in the world with the Internet and social media. The liberty movement is growing as the people's eyes open up to what government really is. It is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Sure every criminal enterprise can do some good. The mob was well known for opening soup kitchens but that doesn't justify their behavior about extorting money from the community which is all a tax is. You can call it a tax all you want but that doesn't change the fact it is nothing more than extortion. Give us your money or we will harm you whether it's seizing your wealth/property and/or throwing you in a cage. And if you resist we will kill you. The belief that government is necessary is perpetuated by the government having a monopoly on certain services. A common question a statist asks is but who will build the roads? Probably the same damn people that are building them now except they would be paid voluntarily instead of coercively.
This is an argument I hear a lot from anarcho-capitalists. I don't buy it.
Do you really think the vast majority (almost eveyone on the planet) has been duped into this lie? Do you really think that maybe the reason almost everyone lives under (and often supports, even if they differ in views) governments is because anarchism is better?
Or maybe government is better since there are very few historical examples of anarchists systems lasting for any significant length or being successful...
Or maybe people like the system, they like having a set of guidelines (laws) to maintain order?
You take away all borders and governments and informal governments would pop up. (what is to stop a super rich person from controlling a swath of land and charging a fee to have a house on it, and undoubtedly making all sorts of rules, and undoubtedly having a security force to enforce those rules, would the world be any different? The only difference would be people would be following the rules of whoever's land they lived on.)
Take away state governments, and private sector equivalents would take their place, people like to live in organized and secure lands...
Quote: GandlerThis is an argument I hear a lot from anarcho-capitalists. I don't buy it.
Do you really think the vast majority (almost eveyone on the planet) has been duped into this lie? Do you really think that maybe the reason almost everyone lives under (and often supports, even if they differ in views) governments is because anarchism is better?
Or maybe government is better since there are very few historical examples of anarchists systems lasting for any significant length or being successful...
Or maybe people like the system, they like having a set of guidelines (laws) to maintain order?
You take away all borders and governments and informal governments would pop up. (what is to stop a super rich person from controlling a swath of land and charging a fee to have a house on it, and undoubtedly making all sorts of rules, and undoubtedly having a security force to enforce those rules, would the world be any different? The only difference would be people would be following the rules of whoever's land they lived on.)
Take away state governments, and private sector equivalents would take their place, people like to live in organized and secure lands...
Absolutely i think people have been duped into this belief. The government runs the schools. Did we ever learn of any anarchist societies? All we were taught is that anarchy means chaos which couldn't be further from the truth. Government has caused more chaos than any other institution. And all you have to do is look at war. The belief in the state is That people are inherently evil and need to be forcibly controlled. The belief in anarchy is that people are inherently good and can live amongst eachother peacefully. Ask yourself if there was no law would you want to go around raping, killing, and stealing from other people? If the answer is no then why would you think other people would want to do so?
All anarchy means is no rulers. People would be free to follow any rules that they agree upon. There would be no large scale centralized power like government so it's easier for people to resist if someone attempts to gain power. What good is it to own a bunch of land if those living on it refuse to work for you?
Quote: rudeboyoiAbsolutely i think people have been duped into this belief. The government runs the schools. Did we ever learn of any anarchist societies? All we were taught is that anarchy means chaos which couldn't be further from the truth. Government has caused more chaos than any other institution. And all you have to do is look at war. The belief in the state is That people are inherently evil and need to be forcibly controlled. The belief in anarchy is that people are inherently good and can live amongst eachother peacefully. Ask yourself if there was no law would you want to go around raping, killing, and stealing from other people? If the answer is no then why would you think other people would want to do so?
All anarchy means is no rulers. People would be free to follow any rules that they agree upon. There would be no large scale centralized power like government so it's easier for people to resist if someone attempts to gain power. What good is it to own a bunch of land if those living on it refuse to work for you?
Can you cite any anarchist societies? Either modern or historical.
Modernly I can cite 1 current one off of my head and that is Somalia...
I agree (most) people are generally good. But the issue is, bad people have a way of gaining power and influence. Government provide a check and control of morality, and allow us (Western Society) to provide morality checks around the world.
Quote: GandlerCan you cite any anarchist societies? Either modern or historical.
Modernly I can cite 1 current one off of my head and that is Somalia...
I agree (most) people are generally good. But the issue is, bad people have a way of gaining power and influence. Government provide a check and control of morality, and allow us (Western Society) to provide morality checks around the world.
I can't cite any. That's the problem. Who knows what's been removed from history. Somalia has a government by the way.
If you believe bad people have a way of gaining power and influence. Don't you think these are the very people that are drawn to positions in government? What's more powerful than government?
Quote: AxelWolfIf you don't like the government laws
You can choose not to work and go live off the land or something even move to a different country Of course no one wants to do that because they actually like life in the USA government and all. No one forces you to live in normal society you choose that. You want to pick and choose what government rules to live by but that's not how it works.
.
I know an older lady who wasn't born in a hospital. She doesn't have a birth certificate, for some odd reason relating to this. She can't get a passport because she has no birth certificate. She can't get a new birth certificate because there was never an original filed. Sometimes the laws won't allow you to move to another country.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really the same thing. If a person drives on the left they will harm someone else. If they choose not to vaccinate then they only bring harm to themselves as those that are vaccinated have nothing to worry about.
You have repeated this many times. Sadly it is not true. If you are not vaccinated, you expose others to the disease as well. Others who may not be immune for many reasons. By being unvaccinated you DO expose risk to others, which is not just premature death.
There's ways around it.Quote: SonuvabishI know an older lady who wasn't born in a hospital. She doesn't have a birth certificate, for some odd reason relating to this. She can't get a passport because she has no birth certificate. She can't get a new birth certificate because there was never an original filed. Sometimes the laws won't allow you to move to another country.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThis is not as informative or precise as a scientific post ought to be. Vaccines are basically of two types. One is live attenuated: "An attenuated vaccine is a vaccine created by reducing the virulence of a pathogen, but still keeping it viable (or "live").[1] Attenuation takes an infectious agent and alters it so that it becomes harmless or less virulent. These vaccines contrast to those produced by "killing" the virus (inactivated vaccine).
"Examples of "live" (example attenuated) vaccines include:
Viral: measles vaccine, mumps vaccine, rubella vaccine, Live attenuated influenza vaccine (the seasonal flu nasal spray and the 2009 H1N1 flu nasal spray), chicken pox vaccine, oral polio vaccine (Sabin), rotavirus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.[2] Rabies vaccines are now available in two different attenuated forms, one for use in humans, and one for animal usage.
Bacterial: BCG vaccine,[2] typhoid vaccine[3] and epidemic typhus vaccine.
"Viruses may be attenuated via passage of the virus through a foreign host, such as:
Tissue culture
Embryonated eggs
Live animals"
The other major category of vaccines is inactivated vaccines:
"Some vaccines contain inactivated, but previously virulent, micro-organisms that have been destroyed with chemicals, heat, radioactivity, or antibiotics. Examples are influenza, cholera, bubonic plague, polio, hepatitis A, and rabies.” [All quotations from Wikipedia]
I appreciate that you went into greater detail and precision, Sancho. I was trying to keep it short and simple, to give a very broad, accessible overview in a couple of sentences. Lots of "tl;dr" goes on here. I also don't claim to be an expert in immunology or even a scientist.
Quote: SanchoPanza
"Examples of "live" (example attenuated) vaccines include:
Viral: measles vaccine, mumps vaccine, rubella vaccine, Live attenuated influenza vaccine (the seasonal flu nasal spray and the 2009 H1N1 flu nasal spray), chicken pox vaccine, oral polio vaccine (Sabin), rotavirus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.[2] Rabies vaccines are now available in two different attenuated forms, one for use in humans, and one for animal usage.
Bacterial: BCG vaccine,[2] typhoid vaccine[3] and epidemic typhus vaccine.
I'd feel a lot safer if those vaccines were dead rather than attenuated virus.
Attenuated is less expensive to produce and the body supposedly builds antibodies faster when the attenuated version is used.
The live polio vaccine hasn't been used in the USA in fifteen years.CDC
Perhaps this is why:$22.5 million after polio infection
Quote: kenarman
AZD I don't always agree with you but you usually are using your brain not the crap above. Your statement above is completely wrong. You have taken the number of deaths and compared it to the world population not the number of deaths in the world.
The number of deaths in world last year from all causes is 56,000,000 this means that the 197,000 deaths from measles are a not insignificant .3% of deaths from all causes including war, old age etc. in the world.
I will admit, that was worded badly. That is what happens when you squeeze in posts on a busy day. However, I would call 0.3% pretty insignificant. It is even more when you consider that the number in the USA is going to be less than 100.
Be against forced immunization by a government if that is your politics but don't try and bullshit away the fact that measles can have serious consequences for 1 in 1000 that catch it.
It can be serious, many things can be serious. Or it can cause just discomfort.
However, this is going in circles so this will be my last post on the subject. My position remains that it is a bad thing for the government to mandate this under threat of violence when the risks are so low. I do not consider the "but you might......" thing a valid reason to use said threat of violence. And yes, I consider that CYS might take your kids away "violence."
Rebuttals will not be seen or replied to, time to move to other subjects. The media will forget about it all by March and have the LIP fired up over something new.
Those 3 or under will not be fully immunizes. A 15-day old boy, a child of a friend of a friend is currently under quarantine with his sister and Mum, as the surgery he was in had another person with Measles in the same hour he was there... thus he has a risk of infection. He can't be immunized at such a young age. He's at risk of a nasty infection, that can be fatal, and can lead to long term health implications. But some on this thread will happily tell you that the decision not to get immunized only affects them.
For some communicable diseases, the decision not be vaccinated maybe personal choice, but it is a choice that will affect those around you as well. It's highly blinkered nonsense to pretend the choice only affects one person.
Whether this means the state should force immunization is a different matter, but considering it to have individual cause-and-effect is a bad argument. I may choose not to protect my house against fire, but my neighbours may have something to say about in the case where my fire effects -their- building. Living in a community means there are some things that all have to go along with, or the community suffers.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy position remains that it is a bad thing for the government to mandate this under threat of violence when the risks are so low.
But you wouldn't be opposed if 90 percent of businesses refused service for unvaccinated people, for instance as that might be another way to induce people to vaccinate? No shoes, no shirt, no proof of vaccination, no service.
Not that I think if would come to that. Just occurred to me.
Oh, it has most definitely "come to that." With ebola being the most recent startling example of ignorance, misinformation, irresponsiblity and a whole host of other serious problems that all the experts and expertise failed to deal with adequately.Quote: rxwineBut you wouldn't be opposed if 90 percent of businesses refused service for unvaccinated people, for instance as that might be another way to induce people to vaccinate? No shoes, no shirt, no proof of vaccination, no service. Not that I think if would come to that. Just occurred to me.
Would we be made privy to said "quick search"?Quote: thecesspitThe death rate from measles is betweenn 1 in 500 to 1 in 10, according to the quick search I did.
Not in the United States of America, where federal laws like the AWDA and the Civil Rights Act 1964, along with scores of state laws, address questions like sexual orientation, ethnic background, religious practices and gender identity.Quote: rudeboyoiBusinesses have the right to discriminate for any reason.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNot in the United States of America, where federal laws like the AWDA and the Civil Rights Act 1964, along with scores of state laws, address questions like sexual orientation, ethnic background, religious practices and gender identity.
You can safely assume anything I have to say doesn't take the law into consideration. It means nothing to me and I will never accept it as a premise in an argument.
Quote: rudeboyoiYou can safely assume anything I have to say doesn't take the law into consideration. It means nothing to me and I will never accept it as a premise in an argument.
Well that is just silly. You could argue a state of lawlessness is how things ought to be but they are clearly not how thing are. You said you had a right to that is a statement of how things are.
