Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? - Page 3

[Lovinbeinamama]

"You live in the United States of America. As far as I understand, it's up to you, and the rest of the people living there, how long and in what manner you will allow this to continue."

I wish that were so!  But the government seems to be running amok, doing whatever it wants, not listening to the people at all.  And disastrous consequences are occurring....the worst of which is yet to be completely known as now GMO-alfalfa was approved.  Since alfalfa is naturally resistant to most bugs and weeds, why was GMO-alfalfa necessary?  It will pollute our animals who eat it and create super-weeds, like the GMO-soy and corn already have.

But somehow, there is now idea that GMO is "good" for us (or more importantly, good for Monsanto Chemical) just as vaccines are "good" for us (or rather good for the manufacturers, who cannot be sued for adverse effects). 

And historically, the addition of fluoride to our water was considered "good" and generally in the US still is thought of that way, in spite of studies showing it does nothing to prevent tooth decay and actually causes all sorts of other problems inside of our bodies, especially to our thyroids. 

So pouring chemicals onto its people is evidently the modus operandi of the United States, and I don't know how to fight it except to buy organic food as much as I can find it and not vaccinate my kids or myself.  And finally, speaking of chemotherapy, I worked in oncology for a decade, and very few of the doctors I knew treating the patients would go through chemotherapy themselves if diagnosed with cancer because they knew it killed more people than it saved!

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama 

"You live in the United States of America. As far as I understand, it's up to you, and the rest of the people living there, how long and in what manner you will allow this to continue."

I wish that were so!  But the government seems to be running amok, doing whatever it wants, not listening to the people at all. 

I meant the italicized part in an ultimate way. What I've understood is that the founding fathers of the USA assured your right to deal with things...

In Canada, things are not this way, but Americans do have the lawful right and ability to do what is necessary to ensure individual freedom. So, when hoards of Americans complain about the erosion of their freedom by government (and I completely agree that this is what is occurring), I just wonder, "Well deal with it. Who, if not you?" Co-operate.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C 

I meant the italicized part in an ultimate way. What I've understood is that the founding fathers of the USA assured your right to deal with things...

In Canada, things are not this way, but Americans do have the lawful right and ability to do what is necessary to ensure individual freedom. So, when hoards of Americans complain about the erosion of their freedom by government (and I completely agree that this is what is occurring), I just wonder, "Well deal with it. Who, if not you?" Co-operate.

It would be nice if it was that simple, really.

Dissenters are frequently silenced by the powers that be.  Look at what's been going on with airport security - those who try to assert their second amendment rights get arrested and fined.  Do we have the right to challenge changes handed down to us?  Theoretically.  Are we given the freedoms to do so?  Not really.  We are branded conspiracy theorists and unAmerican.

Just look at what the pro-vaccinators call non-vaxers in articles like this.  Crazy.  Irresponsible.  A menace to society.  Idiots.  National propaganda has been so successful in this country that the majority honestly and truly believes that the government is only looking out for the best interests of the nation, and surely they would NEVER mislead us about vaccines, fluoridation, prescription drugs, raw milk, etc.

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

It would be nice if it was that simple, really.

Dissenters are frequently silenced by the powers that be.  Look at what's been going on with airport security - those who try to assert their second amendment rights get arrested and fined.  Do we have the right to challenge changes handed down to us?  Theoretically.  Are we given the freedoms to do so?  Not really.  We are branded conspiracy theorists and unAmerican.

Just look at what the pro-vaccinators call non-vaxers in articles like this.  Crazy.  Irresponsible.  A menace to society.  Idiots.  National propaganda has been so successful in this country that the majority honestly and truly believes that the government is only looking out for the best interests of the nation, and surely they would NEVER mislead us about vaccines, fluoridation, prescription drugs, raw milk, etc.

I totally get that it's not simple. Revolutions never are, but they do happen, and they obviously require cooperative action from the people that is superior in every way to the force exerted by governing factions. I really, really get that it would take more than most Americans would be willing to risk (or even recognise); but that's how it got to where it's at to begin with, right? Frog-in-pot syndrome.

And it's maddening when it's the very individuals whose freedom is taken, coercing and forcing others. Have you seen The Story of Your Enslavement? It's not comprehensive, by any means, but it makes an excellent analogy for the situation.

It just seems that if it doesn't get better, it can only get worse. What does a true freedom-loving, autonomy-insistent person do? The question is open. I am presuming you are very aware, and caught in the same sort of conundrum that I am.

[sosurreal09]

I am no where as smart as PP but I do fully believe freedom is lacking in the US and am OUTRAGED about this whole GMO thing. I am also OUTRAGED about all the trash talking on non-vaxers. Almost everyone I know turns a blind eye to GMOs, flouride, vaccines, and anything they should have concern with IMO. I frequently get "The FDA approved it, so I am sure it's fine" or "America would never allow that you must be wrong". People who don't have flouride in the water around me GIVE their child a prescription for flouride! No kidding! The Dr even tried to push me to give it to DD! I flat out said why would I poison my child? She did not respond...

Americans need to cut the crap and stand up and say THIS IS NOT OK but people would rather be blindly or selectively ignorant so they don't have to deal or worry.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C 

I totally get that it's not simple. Revolutions never are, but they do happen, and they obviously require cooperative action from the people that is superior in every way to the force exerted by governing factions. I really, really get that it would take more than most Americans would be willing to risk (or even recognise); but that's how it got to where it's at to begin with, right? Frog-in-pot syndrome.

And it's maddening when it's the very individuals whose freedom is taken, coercing and forcing others. Have you seen The Story of Your Enslavement? It's not comprehensive, by any means, but it makes an excellent analogy for the situation.

It just seems that if it doesn't get better, it can only get worse. What does a true freedom-loving, autonomy-insistent person do? The question is open. I am presuming you are very aware, and caught in the same sort of conundrum that I am.

I live in the USA, and right now, honestly I think vaccines are the LEAST of our worries.  Right now, there are right wing conservatives trying to take away a woman's right to reproductive freedom - have you SEEN the initiatives that are being proposed?  They are horrific - some a$$hole in GA wants to criminally charge women, and possible sentence them with DEATH if they miscarry and can't prove that it was natural.  Planned Parenthood is about to lose government funding.  Abortion is being taken away little by little, there are states that want to legalize murdering abortion providers.

I'm sorry, but vaccines are NOT as high on the list as that.  If there is to be a revolution, it needs to be about something else.

[Lisa1970]

That guy is a weanie. He flies on airplanes and thinks his biggest problem is someone with measles. What if he got...gasp...the common cold! Or some sort of respiratory infection!!! OMG! What would he do then?????

I had the measles as a child, the vaccination was not out then. It is not a big deal. Sure, someone will always know someone who neighbor's uncle's brother's sister-in-law who once knew someone who died from measles. But if the weanie who wrote the artible is sooo scare of measles..he could always get...new concept here...vaccinated himself! Duh!

Oh..and if the vaccinated are sooo sure of their vaccinations, why are they so worried about getting these illnesses?

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I live in the USA, and right now, honestly I think vaccines are the LEAST of our worries.  Right now, there are right wing conservatives trying to take away a woman's right to reproductive freedom - have you SEEN the initiatives that are being proposed?  They are horrific - some a$$hole in GA wants to criminally charge women, and possible sentence them with DEATH if they miscarry and can't prove that it was natural.  Planned Parenthood is about to lose government funding.  Abortion is being taken away little by little, there are states that want to legalize murdering abortion providers.

I'm sorry, but vaccines are NOT as high on the list as that.  If there is to be a revolution, it needs to be about something else.

The revolution should always be about pure freedom, nothing else. Freedom of the individual covers all of these issues, which is what I was referring to.

I didn't know about the specific situation that you described, but I agree completely with you; it's so much worse than absurd, and no lobby is going to deal with the root of that and every other problem like it. Demanding that the slave-master change his mind about some aspect of his treatment of his slaves, doesn't correct the underlying evil that he's a slave-master.

[rush2ady]

I think the internet has been a huge boon to connecting those who are like minded about these things.  It's still a far cry, however, from having an organized resistance powerful enough, and massive enough to really make changes.  Especially when there is so much money and power in these huge pharmaceutical companies which make the vaccines.  There ARE people speaking out more and more, but so far it seems to be making things worse.  It's becoming more difficult to resist when a light has been shone on that resistance. 

Beyond standing up for myself and not being vaccinated (and not allowing my children to be) it's difficult for me to know what else to do.  I'm not a lawyer, not a politician, not rich, no big name behind me...I'm kinda a nobody in this country.  I do what little I can, but is it enough?  The desire to do something is there, but do what?  Where do I start?  Those who become truly involved often end up dedicating their lives to their cause.  I have so many causes I wouldn't even know which one to pick!!

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C 

The revolution should always be about pure freedom, nothing else. Freedom of the individual covers all of these issues, which is what I was referring to.

I didn't know about the specific situation that you described, but I agree completely with you; it's so much worse than absurd, and no lobby is going to deal with the root of that and every other problem like it. Demanding that the slave-master change his mind about some aspect of his treatment of his slaves, doesn't correct the underlying evil that he's a slave-master.

There is no such thing as "pure freedom".  With rights come responsibilities.  "Pure freedom" would lead to chaos - murder going unpunished, drugs not being illegal anymore, no corporate responsibility, no ethical obligations of anyone.  "Pure freedom" might sound nice, but it would be terrible. 

I understand what you are trying to say, but every persons definition of freedom is different.  And without some form of organization, there would be chaos, which would be worse than what we have right now.

[amnesiac]

Originally Posted by MsFortune 

We have the right to sue anyone we want, any time we want.  Whether we would win or not is a different matter.

I suppose that I would agree with that. I don't necessarily think that one should win a case like that any more than I think one should win a suit against someone who might have passed along say crypotosporidiosis due to swimming in a public pool or against someone who might have passed along RSV due to poor hand hygiene.

[Ella Enchanted]

Any attempt to control what we put into our bodies, especially forcing us to put things into our bodies we don't want, it crossing the line.  Those who are immunocompromised, such as people with autoimmune disorders, the elderly, and parents with newborns, have the option of staying home.  I've got an autoimmune disorder and I've become severely ill after having vaccines, so much so that multiple doctors have told me not to get anymore.  Our daughter isn't vaccinated either.  When illnesses are going around, we stay home.  When we go out, we accept that there's always a risk or getting something anyway.

What that article is especially wrong about is applying the worldwide death rate from measles to the US.  In countries with poor sanitation, a simple scratch has a good chance of becoming a major infection.  Of course measles will be deadly.  But in developed nations with proper sanitation, these illnesses are mild.  Remember the mumps outbreak a few years ago?  Thousand got it, but not one person died or suffered long-term effect.  Also more than 100,000 people a year in American hospitals die from illnesses caught while IN hospitals and due to hospital-errors.  That concerns me more than measles.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

But there is no duty to warn those of whom you have no special relationship with.  Failure to warn is considered an "omission" (generally, there can only be liability when the defendant has taken an affirmative action - a failure to warn is not an affirmative action) in tort law, so there is only a duty to warn when there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Thanks for the clarification. However, it is well established that someone who has a contagious disease is obligated to take steps to prevent the spread of the disease, which is to say, exercise due care with respect to his or her own conduct, yes? And warning is a possible instantiation of such exercise even though there is no specific duty to warn?

[PreggieUBA2C]

Please read the following with the trust that my intention is open discussion, and that my respect for those so-engaged is intact. :)
 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

There is no such thing as "pure freedom".  With rights come responsibilities.  "Pure freedom" would lead to chaos - murder going unpunished, drugs not being illegal anymore, no corporate responsibility, no ethical obligations of anyone.  "Pure freedom" might sound nice, but it would be terrible. 

I understand what you are trying to say, but every persons definition of freedom is different.  And without some form of organization, there would be chaos, which would be worse than what we have right now.

So you are saying that the same individuals who can be trusted to choose their government cannot be trusted to govern themselves?

Why is it automatic that if a person is free, s/he is suddenly depraved, incapable of self-restraint, un-self-motivated to compassion, organisation, and all of the qualities that are generally thought to benefit society? I certainly don't need someone with a gun to my head or the threat of incarceration in order to act conscientiously, productively, rationally, and compassionately. I don't murder people because it's antithetical to the human being that I am, and to the reality of human society, including at base, to its survival; I don't need legislation to deter me from such a despicable behaviour. I can also guarantee that the murder of someone I love, in a free society, would not go unpunished, though in our highly governed countries, respectively, it sure does so, much more often than most would find comforting, or convincing of the effectiveness of the so-called justice system.

I don't get how individuals who are basically good, desiring good lives, suddenly become murderous psychopaths en masse when the prospect of removing force and coercion (in this case by the state) is raised in discussion. Do children become depraved, immoral despots if not threatened with punishment? Why should we accept raising children without force, but then assert that once grown, punishment, threats, and even to death(!) are necessary for an orderly society? One of my favourite treatments of this subject is a free e-book by Stefan Molyneux called Everyday Anarchy. It's a quick and easy read that parses the issues very well. It's free, but definitely worth the time it takes to read it.

Everyone lives as though ungoverned in nearly all of one's daily activities, but suggest that the state be removed, and suddenly, only the bad people are capable of organisation, self-discipline and commitment to values (few or none of which would anyone else find desirable).

There would not be chaos. Murder would be committed at far greater personal risk than it is now. People who enjoy healing and helping occupations still would. All of the paradoxical limitations of choice would remain. And none of this would ever necessitate coercion and force. It doesn't now either, but a small few do profit immensely from the perpetuity of this false cultural belief meme. Those people are the small group about whom every concern you raise happens to be true. Most people are decent, kind, honest, compassionate, desiring productivity and well-being. A few are not, and they are the people amongst whom the individuals of so-called democratic nations choose to govern their lives with force and coercion. The chaos is found in that, not in the reality of authentic human lives being lived next to one another, in freedom.

Those who want to be ruled would not likely find it difficult to appoint personal leaders/dictators in a free society. People do it now, and there's no reason why that service would vanish in a free society. I personally just don't appreciate other people choosing that lifestyle and its consequences for me, especially as a default rather than the natural consequence of my own actual behaviours. Hypothetically (because not surprisingly, this really doesn't pertain to very many people) if you need legislation to convince you to not murder, then found or join a club for whom the main tenet of their charter is not-murdering, with some sort of group-enforced punishment in place. As a sidebar: we'll never be friends. If you cannot be convinced by that, you're not convinced now either, and you're no less of a danger now than you would be in a free society.

I have never, ever, ever, ever found a rational argument for the continuation of state-government, let alone its inception. I cannot even imagine one because I think I've read/heard all the best ones and they terminate in irrational fear-mongering after suddenly veering off into non sequitur-land. They do not stand in reason and evidence. But I do, and it's a lonely place...

...with seemingly infinite room for anyone who wants to live here. :)

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C 

Please read the following with the trust that my intention is open discussion, and that my respect for those so-engaged is intact. :)
 

So you are saying that the same individuals who can be trusted to choose their government cannot be trusted to govern themselves?

Why is it automatic that if a person is free, s/he is suddenly depraved, incapable of self-restraint, un-self-motivated to compassion, organisation, and all of the qualities that are generally thought to benefit society? I certainly don't need someone with a gun to my head or the threat of incarceration in order to act conscientiously, productively, rationally, and compassionately. I don't murder people because it's antithetical to the human being that I am, and to the reality of human society, including at base, to its survival; I don't need legislation to deter me from such a despicable behaviour. I can also guarantee that the murder of someone I love, in a free society, would not go unpunished, though in our highly governed countries, respectively, it sure does so, much more often than most would find comforting, or convincing of the effectiveness of the so-called justice system.

I don't get how individuals who are basically good, desiring good lives, suddenly become murderous psychopaths en masse when the prospect of removing force and coercion (in this case by the state) is raised in discussion. Do children become depraved, immoral despots if not threatened with punishment? Why should we accept raising children without force, but then assert that once grown, punishment, threats, and even to death(!) are necessary for an orderly society? One of my favourite treatments of this subject is a free e-book by Stefan Molyneux called Everyday Anarchy. It's a quick and easy read that parses the issues very well. It's free, but definitely worth the time it takes to read it.

Everyone lives as though ungoverned in nearly all of one's daily activities, but suggest that the state be removed, and suddenly, only the bad people are capable of organisation, self-discipline and commitment to values (few or none of which would anyone else find desirable).

There would not be chaos. Murder would be committed at far greater personal risk than it is now. People who enjoy healing and helping occupations still would. All of the paradoxical limitations of choice would remain. And none of this would ever necessitate coercion and force. It doesn't now either, but a small few do profit immensely from the perpetuity of this false cultural belief meme. Those people are the small group about whom every concern you raise happens to be true. Most people are decent, kind, honest, compassionate, desiring productivity and well-being. A few are not, and they are the people amongst whom the individuals of so-called democratic nations choose to govern their lives with force and coercion. The chaos is found in that, not in the reality of authentic human lives being lived next to one another, in freedom.

Those who want to be ruled would not likely find it difficult to appoint personal leaders/dictators in a free society. People do it now, and there's no reason why that service would vanish in a free society. I personally just don't appreciate other people choosing that lifestyle and its consequences for me, especially as a default rather than the natural consequence of my own actual behaviours. Hypothetically (because not surprisingly, this really doesn't pertain to very many people) if you need legislation to convince you to not murder, then found or join a club for whom the main tenet of their charter is not-murdering, with some sort of group-enforced punishment in place. As a sidebar: we'll never be friends. If you cannot be convinced by that, you're not convinced now either, and you're no less of a danger now than you would be in a free society.

I have never, ever, ever, ever found a rational argument for the continuation of state-government, let alone its inception. I cannot even imagine one because I think I've read/heard all the best ones and they terminate in irrational fear-mongering after suddenly veering off into non sequitur-land. They do not stand in reason and evidence. But I do, and it's a lonely place...

...with seemingly infinite room for anyone who wants to live here. :)

You know, this is all fine and well, but its extremely idealistic.  I'm not seeing anything realistic in this post.  Maybe my veiwpoint is skewed - I've visited places that are living in utter chaos (Port-au-Prince, Haiti), and its not pretty.  There are good people, but they are literally fighting for their lives. 

I'm sorry you feel lonely in your place of logic and reason, I'm afraid you're going to continue to, since absolutely nothing in your post sounds very logical to me.  I do believe that government needs to be more accessible to those governed by it, but I completely disagree that it needs to disappear altogether.  The places in the world with no government have people risking their lives to come to the USA - for good reason.  Somalia is an example - I don't think anyone there is inherently evil or bad either, but its chaos, fraught with problems, and people are leaving.  Haiti is in crisis right now, but honestly its not too much worse than before the earthquake.  The sexual violence crisis there is horrific (I worked on getting precautionary measures granted by the Inter American Human Rights Commission), women in Haiti right now are experiencing sexual violence so often that its practically a daily part of their lives.  The only relief they have is to fight back on their own - but they cannot, for a multitude of reasons.  I disagree that they should just be left to fend for themselves. 

I also disagree that people would face bigger consequences for murder if there was no government to deal with it - that line if thinking is idealistic, not realistic.  What would be more likely to happen is for the psyco's to roam in gangs, outnumbering those that sought "revenge".

I might not be a danger in a "free" society - but there are plenty who would be.

And without government, what happens to social services?  Welfare?  Food stamps?  WIC?  I suppose you think they serve no purpose in society and should also be gotten rid of?  National health?  The US doesn't have it now, but I certainly hope we get it eventually.  Without government all of those things go away - and no, people are not good enough to share everything they have and be generous enough to sustain those who struggle.  Maybe going to law school jaded me, but I think I'm far more realistic than you are.  Lawlessness sounds great, and would work in an ideal world.  Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world - we live in a real one. 

I always try to remember than government was created for a reason.  It didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was created by those that came before us, and it didn't happen in a matter of days.

ETA - I don't understand why you had to say that if I wasn't convinced we could never be friends - I have lots of friends that disagree with me on lots of different issues.  I imagine this is no different, and I know I have friends who don't believe in government, that doesn't make them bad friends, or people that aren't worth my while.

Edited by Super~Single~Mama - 3/6/11 at 8:27am

[amnesiac]

So how do all of those issues affect how vaccinating individuals interact with non/selective/delayed vaxing individuals?

[Ella Enchanted]

Brava, Preggie!

SSMama, according to government statistics, children who grow up in homes with two parents are more likely to be successful in life.  Should the government mandate that only people in relationships be allowed to have children and those who are single should face some sort of punishment?  Statistics also show that children of middle-income and wealthy parents have better opportunities in life while children of poor parents are more likely to grow up be poor themselves.  Should the poor be banned from having children?  Society in general would be healthier if there was less junk food and fast food eaten and more fresh veggies eaten instead.  Should the government ban unhealthy foods and mandate eating lots of fresh veggies and lean meats?

There are many things we do that come with risks to ourselves as well as to others.  The laws allowing people to drive after having a few drinks endangers ALL of us FAR more than people who don't get vaccinated against the measles.  Smoking around no-smokers (and it's legal to hot-box it with children!!) endangers all of us more.  Where is the outrage against the danger smokers and drivers who've had some drinks put you through?  

It doesn't take laws to make good people.  In case you haven't noticed, laws haven't prevented people from raping babies and torturing to death toddlers.  Deplorable people will do these things regardless.  Taking away laws won't suddenly make good people go fondle kids.  But having laws make it so we can punish those who make the conscious decision to hurt others.  But laws themselves don't make good people.  In fact, too many laws will result in people rebelling altogether.

Now with vaccinations, you need to stop listening to the worldwide stat of 165,000 deaths per year.  The vast majority of those are in poor countries that lack good sanitation.  In those countries, a simple scratch can easily turn gangrenous and deadly.  In countries such as America and Britain, where we've got access to clean water, even poor people, diseases like the measles and mumps are a nuisance more than anything.  Here, look at the prognosis in America:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002536/#adam_001569.disease.prognosis

"Those who do not have complications such as pneumonia do very well."

Those who have things like pneumonia shouldn't be in public to begin with for their own safety.  

Let' take a look at the prognosis for mumps:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002524/#adam_001557.disease.prognosis

"Patients usually do well, even if other organs are involved. After the illness, the patient has a life-long immunity to the mumps."

Even when other organs get involved!!

How about the all0frightening rubella, German measles?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002541/#adam_001574.disease.prognosis

"Rubella is usually a mild infection."

Chickenpox?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002559/#adam_001592.disease.prognosis

"The outcome is generally excellent in uncomplicated cases. "

THIS IS ALL FROM A GOVERNMENT WEBSITE!!

Why should we all be FORCED to inject ourselves and our children with neurotoxins that can cause problems ranging from high fever to seizures?  (I've seen nothing to convince me of any autism link.)  Why?  To get out of being sick for a week?  Two at the most?  You have the right to stay home with your kids if you're so scared of the world.  Personally I'm more worried about the 1 in 80 chance of dying in a car accident.  Do you think twice about putting your kids in a car?  No?  Then you're focusing on something that makes no sense.  Why fear us unvaccinated people when your children have a much much MUCH higher chance of DYING in a car than they have of getting measles?  The chance of them dying in a car accident would be less if the government didn't allow ANY alcohol instead of allowing some so that a lot of drivers think they're under the limit and drive anyway.  But that's not going to happen.  People will be allowed to drive after drinking.  And you're worries about your kids getting mild illnesses from the unvaccinated....

Clearly you don't understand how vaccinations work, or don't work.  They are intended to help the body identify a virus faster.  This means that the person must first contract the virus!  A vaccine doesn't put up a shield around a person that viruses bounce off.  The virus must get into a person, and the goal of a vaccine is to identify it before symptoms set in.  So someone who is vaccinated can pass along the virus! This is why herd-immunity doesn't work like so many people think.  Also the rate of vaccines working is as low as 50%.  You're injecting your kids with neurotoxins for as low as a 50% chance of them even developing any immunity, immunity that, IF it happens, only lasts a handful of years (versus lifelong for getting something naturally), and then you have to do it again.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by amnesiac 

So how do all of those issues affect how vaccinating individuals interact with non/selective/delayed vaxing individuals?

Sorry, its pretty off topic - PreggieUBA2C was saying that people need to do something in order to gain "pure freedom" which would lead to the freedom to make all choices on ones own (including vaxing, and many many others that are hot topics in politics), and then it led to a tangent on why she things pure freedom should be the goal, and why I think pure freedom isn't as great as it sounds.

Sorry.

[Ella Enchanted]

Originally Posted by rush2ady 

Unfortunately, many people these days feel pressured to go to work/send kids to school when sick. Rather than encourage lawsuits against those who are trying to make good choices for their family, why not reassess our societies demands on people and allow room in our busy lives for time to stay home due to illness?

My husband's employer gives employees "marks" for time missed, even due to illness.  Three marks and you can lose your job.  This results in him and his co-workers routinely going to work with fevers so that they can save their marks for emergencies.  Right now some really bad bug is being passed around, and he caught it and brought it home and I've been sick for a week.  He and his co-workers have sick-time, but they get marks for using it.  The sick-time only means they'll still get paid, but their jobs are still at risk for three absences.
 

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

You know, this is all fine and well, but its extremely idealistic.  I'm not seeing anything realistic in this post.  Maybe my veiwpoint is skewed - I've visited places that are living in utter chaos (Port-au-Prince, Haiti), and its not pretty.  There are good people, but they are literally fighting for their lives. 

I'm sorry you feel lonely in your place of logic and reason, I'm afraid you're going to continue to, since absolutely nothing in your post sounds very logical to me.  I do believe that government needs to be more accessible to those governed by it, but I completely disagree that it needs to disappear altogether.  The places in the world with no government have people risking their lives to come to the USA - for good reason.  Somalia is an example - I don't think anyone there is inherently evil or bad either, but its chaos, fraught with problems, and people are leaving.  Haiti is in crisis right now, but honestly its not too much worse than before the earthquake.  The sexual violence crisis there is horrific (I worked on getting precautionary measures granted by the Inter American Human Rights Commission), women in Haiti right now are experiencing sexual violence so often that its practically a daily part of their lives.  The only relief they have is to fight back on their own - but they cannot, for a multitude of reasons.  I disagree that they should just be left to fend for themselves. 

I also disagree that people would face bigger consequences for murder if there was no government to deal with it - that line if thinking is idealistic, not realistic.  What would be more likely to happen is for the psyco's to roam in gangs, outnumbering those that sought "revenge".

I might not be a danger in a "free" society - but there are plenty who would be.

And without government, what happens to social services?  Welfare?  Food stamps?  WIC?  I suppose you think they serve no purpose in society and should also be gotten rid of?  National health?  The US doesn't have it now, but I certainly hope we get it eventually.  Without government all of those things go away - and no, people are not good enough to share everything they have and be generous enough to sustain those who struggle.  Maybe going to law school jaded me, but I think I'm far more realistic than you are.  Lawlessness sounds great, and would work in an ideal world.  Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world - we live in a real one. 

I always try to remember than government was created for a reason.  It didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was created by those that came before us, and it didn't happen in a matter of days.

ETA - I don't understand why you had to say that if I wasn't convinced we could never be friends - I have lots of friends that disagree with me on lots of different issues.  I imagine this is no different, and I know I have friends who don't believe in government, that doesn't make them bad friends, or people that aren't worth my while.

Okay, so I am not going to deal with each an every caricaturisation of non-governed society in your post. I will say that I really don't understand why you think that all people would suddenly stop caring about the wellbeing of all of the others in the absence of governing factions. People care about one another all the time, every day, and even spend their entire lives doing so as a primary occupation, and not because the government mandated it. Do you think that the reason those women are experiencing that horror is because of a lack of government? Why are your examples of chaotic societies from those that are dealing with the results of despotic governments? Obviously a democratic government is better than a malevolent, overtly violent dictatorship/martial state; that' not at issue. My point is that freedom is not contingent on being ruled by people we are somehow capable of choosing, while being unable to make good choices... It's absurd to trust us to vote for our rulers! It is illogical. If we can be trusted to choose our rulers, we are also trustworthy to rule ourselves as individuals. Clearly we are.

Having no government does not at all mean having no protection, no social concern, no programs to aid the poor and destitute. Do you really think that the only way to ensure these things is to legislate looting/extortion against each and every person in a geographical location? When even now, even with a continuous stream of absurd legislated restrictions, private people undertake to help the poor, to assist in medical issues, to set up private protection agencies, we can assume that they would do so without government interference as well.

You are mixing a lot of apples and oranges, and it is likely that law school is not really the best place to learn about law or reality, imo. A law is an expression of reality. Everyone and everything conforms to laws; that's what makes them laws. The compulsion through coercion and force by one group/person against another is generally understood to be morally wrong, even within the court system, except when that coercion and force is legislated. Then it's re-labeled "good."  Then it's accepted, and normal, otherwise moral people, will exert force against those who refuse the re-labeled evil, even to the point of death. Re-labeling government legislation "law" does not make it so. It's hyperbole in the grossest sense.

When a subjugated group of people has been let go after decades of government tyranny, after decades of despotic regimes educating their children in violence, it is not a mark against true freedom when they act according to their educations. They were holding back the violence for so long that once that wall of violence retreated, some fell on their faces with the momentum, and others surged forward with weapons drawn, still fighting. In what possible way could this be an example of a free society? On a very individual basis, nobody is surprised when the son of a woman-abuser abuses a woman. Nobody reasonably concludes then that it's marriage that is the source of the problem, or imposed celibacy that solves it. Why then would government be the solution to individuals acting poorly after being educated by government to act poorly? How can more of the same be the solution, even if the "same" goes about their business with a smile? This is why I used the slavery analogy earlier: there simply is no way to make government work better than it does. It's as good as it gets. Why continue to beg and plead and hope that those individuals who have banded together (wait, isn't is always the bad people who do that? Good people cannot organise, right?) will stop abusing? Leave. Put our efforts into something better, like privately taking up the responsibility to rehabilitate survivors of despotic governments!

Really, if for no other reason than to have a defense for the perpetuity of government by pointing out the illogic and unrealistic idealism of no-government, please read Everyday Anarchy. It's 65 pages, and free to download as pdf, or read online, or listen to it as an audiobook. I could essentially rewrite the principles here, but it would take me more than 65 pages in a discussion format. The ebook is concise. I had these views previous to reading it, but it is a very fair and easy treatment, which is why I recommend it to people I know or assume are very busy.

My aside about not being friends was within the context of those people who need the threat of punishment in order to not murder. I do not knowingly and willing befriend such people. Thankfully, I am not aware of ever having met one. I am certainly friends with people with whom I disagree on a variety of issues, but like any healthy person, I do have deal-breakers. Inclination to murder is among them.