I am pro-vaccination, but agree that vaccine mandates, anti-abortion laws, and other mandates that interfere with bodily autonomy are a violation of fundamental human rights.
On the other hand, most of the ensuing consequences are not a violation of rights, but rather a natural result of any choice that puts others at risk.
Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.
Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.
I can see some logic behind wanting roads to be Local and State responsibilities. It would increase the freedom of individual taxpayers. This might result in a net increase in freedom, despite all the inevitable tolls, unstandardized roadways, and stymied arguments between states over who must pay to restore that crumbling interstate bridge. The economic burden would lift off of the taxpayer's shoulders and fall back on the business or person who uses the roads the most, especially those businesses which have profited from being able to cross state lines efficiently –not something most local folks care to encourage through a federal subsidy anyways. Perhaps the framers of the constitution went too far when they suggested that Congress should be able to tax to, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...to regulate commerce among the several states...to establish post offices and post roads." Most people don't need packages to go straight to their house anyways!
The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed
But one thing is for sure. If public schools exist as the only option for most of their students, two things are true. First, they cannot stop attendees from being smokers or anti-vaxxers out in the world. Second, they absolutely must restrict these individuals from introducing deadly risks into the classroom.
This is best solved at the State and Local level, but in some cases.
These should never be penalties and restrictions against refusal, but instead protections for the community against the resultant risk. It is for the State and Local government to decide how much they accommodate risk-promoting individuals. For example, many schools are providing separate instruction for anti-vaxxers. Good for those emburdened taxpayers, deciding to help the selfish among them!
>>Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.
False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you. Which in turn eliminates your ethical right to impose conditions upon them..
>>Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.
This is like wise a TERRIBLE argument, if you support individual liberty (which clearly you do not) then you would understand that my not wearing a seat belt poses no risk to your safety, as such you have no ethical right to impose such a mandate on me.
My insurance company may as part of a private contract I enter into them voluntary but not the government on behalf of "society"
Government is neither my parent nor my master.
In reality the Seat belt mandated was an example of regulatory capture by the insurance companies, it to protect insurance profits not public safety
>>The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed
I take it then you are in favor of School Choice, where each parent is given a voucher for X dollars they can redeem at the school of their choice.
> False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you.
False. Vaccinations reduce your ability to catch specific diseases and reduce the probability of enduring symptoms at full strength.
The risks the unvaccinated impose are not eliminated, and the unvaccinated in larger numbers will continue to impose a threat against the people that can't get vaccinated for medical reasons or are immunocompromised.
And you believe both of those are justifications for violating an persons Body Automomy, their human rights not to have medical treatments done to them with out their consent?
That seems to be a very Authoritarian respone, and one that has lead to very dark places through out human history, that is not a power I willing to give to any government
The corner stone of modern medicine is "informed Consent" the keyword there is Consent. You just want to toss away Consent because of (IMO) irrational fear.
The vaccination provides me with adequate protection, I do not need to impose a medical treatment on someone against their will, it is sad that others feel they need to.
On the other hand, most of the ensuing consequences are not a violation of rights, but rather a natural result of any choice that puts others at risk.
Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.
Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.
I can see some logic behind wanting roads to be Local and State responsibilities. It would increase the freedom of individual taxpayers. This might result in a net increase in freedom, despite all the inevitable tolls, unstandardized roadways, and stymied arguments between states over who must pay to restore that crumbling interstate bridge. The economic burden would lift off of the taxpayer's shoulders and fall back on the business or person who uses the roads the most, especially those businesses which have profited from being able to cross state lines efficiently –not something most local folks care to encourage through a federal subsidy anyways. Perhaps the framers of the constitution went too far when they suggested that Congress should be able to tax to, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...to regulate commerce among the several states...to establish post offices and post roads." Most people don't need packages to go straight to their house anyways!
The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed
But one thing is for sure. If public schools exist as the only option for most of their students, two things are true. First, they cannot stop attendees from being smokers or anti-vaxxers out in the world. Second, they absolutely must restrict these individuals from introducing deadly risks into the classroom.
This is best solved at the State and Local level, but in some cases.
These should never be penalties and restrictions against refusal, but instead protections for the community against the resultant risk. It is for the State and Local government to decide how much they accommodate risk-promoting individuals. For example, many schools are providing separate instruction for anti-vaxxers. Good for those emburdened taxpayers, deciding to help the selfish among them!