There are constitutional arguments to be made about vaccination. There is also a very slippery slope to uphold. People like to think of the constitution as their personal protection. A document that exists for them. To an extent this is true. However- from the beginning the founders of America made it clear they were not trying to set up a true libertarian nation where individual freedom was the highest priority. The constitution can be said more precisely to exist to ensure the maximum freedom and enjoyment of life to all citizens. That means that every effort must be made to ensure personal freedoms except where those personal freedoms would infringe upon others rights and safety. There’s the slippery slope. Every car that hits the road poses a danger to other people. Every gun, even ideas and movements can be labeled harmful or dangerous. It is a scary idea that the government copied require you to put foreign substances or materials in your body for a communal good....
.... allowing any entity too much power can likely lead to abuse- especially when such a government has a history of misusing or experimenting on its cotezens under the guise of “greater good.” If they wanted to put micro chips, nanites, or even cybernetics in people for the “public good” I’d resist the principal at least. However- this is a case where that “do the least harm” freedom comes in. To allow others to be safe vaccines are an important tool, a tool which doesn’t work if people aren’t on board. I think you should be able to “opt out” if you choose to- although I don’t agree with that choice. However- as a choice it has consequences. So yes- you should be able to say “no” to vaccination, but that also should come with provisions like taxes etc which would be used to pay for tracking the non vaccinated (important for the CDC,) as well as education programs where the non vaccinated are kept apart from others, and restrictions on where one can work, public presence, etc.
Well ,setting up a true libertarian nation has some perks.
Unfortunately, full liberatism leads to libaration of stupidness, which is surfacing more and more in the US. It's fine to say that government shouldn't be on your back too much, but when you've reached the point where people are getting so dumb that they're risking their own lifes and those of others by disapproving scientific facts (vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, evolution doesn't exist, there's no global warming, guns don't kill people) someone should be stepping in.
While I mostly agree with you- the fine points are what causes a problem. If personal liberty is prized- who gets to choose when what issues warrant intervention? The other thing to remember on the slippery slope is that when science goes from dealing in theory to dealing in absolutes, it stops being a process to understand the world and becomes a dogmatic religion. There are periods in the past of science where those who questioned established facts were labeled as dangerous idiots- and that list includes some of the minds we hold to be the greatest in history, only elevated to greatness long after they were labeled as quacks or criminals for their ideas. Science can only state the most likely conclusion for a moment in time based on what we know at that time. The Earth is most certainly round- but I cannot say that with absolute faith and remain scientific- I can only say it is most likely, and so long as reality and my theory seem to get along, assume it is true until there is a...
... conflict that cannot be resolved if my theory is true. So far- all evidence supports the idea the earth is “round,” but if another theory can be shown, science cannot prove anything is impossible- but combined with logic it can prove what is most probable based on available data. But there’s another rub. We have no “perfect logic,” nor perfect facts, and how people interpret the same facts can be different. I’ve seen very compelling arguments based in logic and credible data that support and refute common ideas about “gun control.” Many Americans, even educated Americans and experts in their fields believe that a border wall is a wise investment and will protect America. I look at the facts and I don’t see that. Beyond fact is emotion. Emotionally- I don’t think a wall reflects American values nor basic humanitarianism. Others disagree. This illustrates some of the problems both ways. Freedom always involves an aspect of danger, and one of those dangers is the unknown of what...
... other people will do with their freedom. People point to many countries as beacons of social stability, low crime, etc. but they seldom factor in that most of those countries are largely homogenous nations, with clear majorities in control, with social and economic systems based off of principals of conformity and designed to cater to a majority with responsibility in care for those who don’t fit that category largely on themselves to find a way to fit themselves in somewhere out of the way, or be excluded from society. It’s a paradox. The more libratarian a nation becomes, the more it must use totalitarian or despotic means if it hopes to ensure safety. If we say that you have the right to do what you want, but not the ability, that’s a false liberty. So there is a balancing point. That is what makes freedom difficult. It is under attack at all tones from within and without. It is being pushed and pulled, and corners are cut....
Where it suits us- where we feel the issue at hand is more important than the concept of freedom- people bend the rules. It’s the basis of vigilantism. This criminal raped a child- your child. The system works slowly and won’t give them the punishment you feel they deserve and so mob justice is dealt. These terrorists are a threat that pesky privacy and other rights get in the way of. We don’t have time or resources to ask nicely- we need torture to keep us safe! These pro gun people are putting lives at risk while mass shootings are going on! Forget the constitution. Lives are worth more than a piece of paper. And so on. And so little by little we open doors that justify and set a president that where it is seen as “prudent,” the inalienable freedoms become privileges that are exercised where convenient and suspended as those with power feel necessary. And that’s where it ends up. Power. Liberatarian, communist, whatever- your freedom only goes as far as the power that you have...
... to ensure it. Up to a national military or allied power or organization like NATO level, down to each person- power is largely granted from another. Even the best of the best likely wouldn’t last long as one person against the world. There’s strength in numbers. Someone will always have more numbers, better skills and equipment, the ability to meet you with overwhelming force. As a citizen pretty much all the power you have to live your life comes down from a government and it’s systems of enacting it’s will. So we must never forget that. We must never forget that when we give that entity too much control, when we allow idiocy to be pressed out of society via that authority- tomorrow or a week from now or ten years when those idiots are gone, we could be labeled the idiot and find ourselves under the same pressures. That is the balancing pointof freedom. The harder you chase it, the more elusive it becomes.
Cool move. I support vaccination because I have seen a child having diptheria spread it to other children and 8 cases were reported which is very unusual. Please vaccinate your kids if you love them.
Unfortunately, full liberatism leads to libaration of stupidness, which is surfacing more and more in the US. It's fine to say that government shouldn't be on your back too much, but when you've reached the point where people are getting so dumb that they're risking their own lifes and those of others by disapproving scientific facts (vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, evolution doesn't exist, there's no global warming, guns don't kill people) someone should be stepping in.