Reason Magazine supports forced vaccinations; "no libertarian case for vaccine refusal"

[rambone]

Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."

I thoroughly debunk this tripe and set the record straight on libertarianism. Reason has a faction of militant "science" promoters who care absolutely nothing about liberty.

Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination | Police State USA




If you want to write for Police State USA.... contact me with a writing sample. admin@policestateusa.com

[Brian4Liberty]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.

[jllundqu]

Wow... that doesn't even make sense that a supposed 'free thinking' magazine would argue against a person's god-given right to choose what is best for himself (herself)...

What frauds.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yeah but this is water under the bridge since Reason leads the way in libertarian resistance on issues as fundamentally important as trans fat bans in fast food restaurants

[jkr]

AHEM!


$#@! REASON

phew, its been a while...

[Kotin]

AHEM!


$#@! REASON

phew, its been a while...

I will say it again..


$#@! REASON. what a complete crock of $#@!!

[angelatc]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.

Sure. Beltway libertarians.

Here's a ink to the real article, not the blog that is telling us what he said: http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/0...-free-riders-1

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah but this is water under the bridge since Reason leads the way in libertarian resistance on issues as fundamentally important as trans fat bans in fast food restaurants

Their first thought seems to be what "what would the largest corporations want us to say"?

[Ender]

Wow... that doesn't even make sense that a supposed 'free thinking' magazine would argue against a person's god-given right to choose what is best for himself (herself)...

What frauds.

Frauds, indeed.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Their first thought seems to be what "what would the largest corporations want us to say"?

Yep. They are the reason why the left's critique of libertarians as corporate whores isn't 100 percent bull$#@!.

[angelatc]

So much stupid ... both in the article and in the comments.

[compromise]

Reason are a mixed bag.

On one hand, they attempt to portray libertarianism as mainstream and productive by doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Gigi Bowman wing of the liberty movement ideologically, sometimes to their detriment.
On the other, they fuel the Gigi Bowman wing of the liberty movement by heaping lavish praise upon the likes of Gary Johnson and Robert Sarvis and criticizing liberty-minded Republicans.

[ZENemy]

"Just get your damn vaccines people" said the pretty looking robot lady.

[brandon]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

[Ender]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

Uhhhhh....

If the person that contacts the disease is already vaccinated, then sue Big Pharma. If they are not vaccinated, then they made the same choice as the person with the disease, who was not vaccinated.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

No and no. Any other questions?

[angelatc]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

[Christian Liberty]

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

[bolil]

Careful, there is no reason to inflame the young. The way I see it statist sternographies, like this, help the ingenuous vette their sources. $#@! reason, come to me with a needle and I will give you prick. Wont be a flesh one . Next they will be calling for the incarceration of everyone because, "Nature dur dur dur durrrr," that's why.

As if a needed another reason. Thiel, pull your nominal libertarian head out of your statist ass.

[Christian Liberty]

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

I meant to quote "compromise" here, not you.

[compromise]

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

Yeah, or "free markets, free minds" as Reason say. Just saying that stuff alienates both conservatives and liberals instantly.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yeah, or "free markets, free minds" as Reason say. Just saying that stuff alienates both conservatives and liberals instantly.

But they always have a great quote for the New York Times or Washington Post to justify government. The $#@! in the leather jacket is always great when he's getting pummeled by blithering idiots on the Bill Maher show too.

[moostraks]

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

It's different in that the vaccinated have received a product that has not performed as it was sold to have performed. So the responsibility rests on the vaccine manufacturer to pay for damages.

[brandon]

It's different in that the vaccinated have received a product that has not performed as it was sold to have performed. So the responsibility rests on the vaccine manufacturer to pay for damages.

Vaccines, like condoms, don't claim 100% effectiveness rates.

[Ender]

Vaccines, like condoms, don't claim 100% effectiveness rates.

Then another reason that no one should be advocating force.

[T.hill]

But they always have a great quote for the New York Times or Washington Post to justify government. The $#@! in the leather jacket is always great when he's getting pummeled by blithering idiots on the Bill Maher show too.

Nick Gillespie? He handled Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow extremely well, mopped the floor with em.

[Contumacious]

Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."

I thoroughly debunk this tripe and set the record straight on libertarianism. Reason has a faction of militant "science" promoters who care absolutely nothing about liberty.

Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination | Police State USA




If you want to write for Police State USA.... contact me with a writing sample. admin@policestateusa.com

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?

.

[Keith and stuff]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.

That's a great point.

Reason is worse than Bloomberg on this issue. At least he let's people opt out for religious reasons.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...lth&id=9355853

NEW YORK (WABC) -- New York City will soon require young children who go to preschool or day care to get flu shots.

The Board of Health voted Wednesday in favor of the mandatory vaccine for children under 6.

Health officials say the measure will save lives. And Dr. Jay Varma, deputy commissioner for disease control, says the measure could keep as many as 20,000 city kids from getting sick.

The initiative takes effect in 30 days. The vaccine will be required for about 150,000 children.

Parents may opt out for medical and religious reasons.

"We estimate that 10 to 25,000 kids won't suffer the flu because of that vaccine . For every 100 kids under the age of 5, 40 of them will get sick in any year from the flu," said Dr. Jay Varma, Deputy Commissioner for Disease Control for New York City.

[Ender]

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?

.

2 different kinds of "force".

Why don't we castrate you, in case you might rape someone?