6 ms·

That'd work, if not for selfish bargaining. As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? I propose we as a s

That'd work, if not for selfish bargaining. As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead: I vaccinate myself and my kids, and you vaccinate yourself and your kids. If you want a vaccine with lower risk and inconvenience, you are entitled to ask the government to spend more on research, or you can donate your time and money to that research.

conanbatt 8y ago
> As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most. Most already do it for their own interest. Bear in mind that this is what the state usually does by giving out free vaccines: they are effectively paying people that wouldnt pay for them. But some feel strongly against it. > I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead. There is no fair, certainly not in economics. There is only consented prices. You can propose whatever you want, but in the end you need to persuade those that have different ideas than you, or force them to do it. Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  > Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? Genuinely curious if you have. I suspect you have not. > Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality. You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? Or place the money in escrow? And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? If you cause me harm through your behavior, that's against common decency, too, right? If not morality? And if it's hard to determine who caused me harm directly, then the "pollution" is an externality, right? Tragedy of the commons? You're literally polluting the environment with a virus. Of all of the topics Libertarians have an interesting position on, I am by far least impressed with their efforts to describe how they think we should protect the environment. Shedding viruses everywhere you go falls pretty well into that discussion, don't you think? Also I'm quite sure that medicine allows for quarantine, against your will.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? I am very well aware of the basic concepts of epidemiology, why launch this gratuitous disqualification attack? > You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? > And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well. But now you mention again the application of force. I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines? Because then I can use your same argument to you: you propose using force but you are demanding others to apply it. How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game. Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost. Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There would be no limit. You could ask for anything and always find a way to justify taking it.
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      You asserted, "you need most". That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptable risk." So, do you know what that percentage would be, for various vaccines? And how did you define what my acceptable risk would be? Because I think you must have an opinion on both of those things, if you're willing to advise me that "I need most." Since you're favoring an economic slant to this discussion, how, exactly, did you decide what I need? > You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well. People can be carriers of diseases, and not become ill from them. This nullifies your argument. Also, that line of argument can be used as a defense of drunk driving. Drunk driving is not victim-less, even if your own body is risked, as well. That's insufficient escrow even for automobile insurance. > But now you mention again the application of force. Yes, I think people can enact a government. A government has an enforced monopoly on force, and hopefully has established a system of laws that give the people the opportunity to change those laws over time. And frankly, we voted. We use force against ourselves. We're okay with that. Feel free to vote that we shouldn't be okay with that. Also, feel free to move and renounce your citizenship. Those legal options are available to you. You can also attempt to resist the laws of your country, peacefully or otherwise. I wouldn't recommend it. > I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines? If you want to discuss actual policy, I agree it's complicated. 1) Medical wavers. Some people cannot get vaccinated, for many different reasons. 2) If you want to live in a bubble with no human contact, and you can demonstrate that, then maybe that's fine. 3) If you want to form a colony of leapers, who have no contact with the rest of us, then maybe that's fine, too. > How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game. Fine by me. Counter-proposal, each time you increase the statistical chances of someone else suffering through an externality such as a pollutant, or increasing the risk of disease, how about you put your skin in the game: Watch them die. Here, this child recovered. It shouldn't be too emotionally difficult for you to imagine my daughter dying like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw (The beeping sound is her oxygen level falling to dangerous levels, on the verge of causing brain damage.) Watch her mother sit there, completely helpless. Imagine that's me and my wife, watching our daughter die. > Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost. Oxygen is a benefit. Not having it is not a cost. Have I somehow used a slippery slope argument? Or is your line of argument fundamentally flawed? Genuinely curious what you think. > Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There is no limit. Ah, there, you ARE engaging in a slippery slope argument! It's NOT too onerous, actually. We have government to debate issues exactly like this. We compromise. There are limits, they're enforced by making changes to the law slowly, and by people voting. > You can ask for anything and always find a way to justify it. You can deny anything, and always find a way to justify it. Together we vote. Hopefully we find a compromise. In this case, our current compromise is that you're not forced to vaccinate yourself or your children. But your children may lose access to public schools. And you may be forced to continue paying taxes in to public schools. And there may be jobs you are disqualified from holding. Feel free to advocate for changes to that. Personally, I'm realizing I should be trying to get my employer to demand all of the employees be reasonably vaccinated, via their employment contracts. Flu, MMR, etc.

conanbatt 8y ago

> As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most. Most already do it for their own interest. Bear in mind that this is what the state usually does by giving out free vaccines: they are effectively paying people that wouldnt pay for them. But some feel strongly against it. > I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead. There is no fair, certainly not in economics. There is only consented prices. You can propose whatever you want, but in the end you need to persuade those that have different ideas than you, or force them to do it. Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.

VikingCoder 8y ago
> Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? Genuinely curious if you have. I suspect you have not. > Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality. You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? Or place the money in escrow? And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? If you cause me harm through your behavior, that's against common decency, too, right? If not morality? And if it's hard to determine who caused me harm directly, then the "pollution" is an externality, right? Tragedy of the commons? You're literally polluting the environment with a virus. Of all of the topics Libertarians have an interesting position on, I am by far least impressed with their efforts to describe how they think we should protect the environment. Shedding viruses everywhere you go falls pretty well into that discussion, don't you think? Also I'm quite sure that medicine allows for quarantine, against your will.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? I am very well aware of the basic concepts of epidemiology, why launch this gratuitous disqualification attack? > You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? > And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well. But now you mention again the application of force. I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines? Because then I can use your same argument to you: you propose using force but you are demanding others to apply it. How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game. Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost. Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There would be no limit. You could ask for anything and always find a way to justify taking it.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    You asserted, "you need most". That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptable risk." So, do you know what that percentage would be, for various vaccines? And how did you define what my acceptable risk would be? Because I think you must have an opinion on both of those things, if you're willing to advise me that "I need most." Since you're favoring an economic slant to this discussion, how, exactly, did you decide what I need? > You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well. People can be carriers of diseases, and not become ill from them. This nullifies your argument. Also, that line of argument can be used as a defense of drunk driving. Drunk driving is not victim-less, even if your own body is risked, as well. That's insufficient escrow even for automobile insurance. > But now you mention again the application of force. Yes, I think people can enact a government. A government has an enforced monopoly on force, and hopefully has established a system of laws that give the people the opportunity to change those laws over time. And frankly, we voted. We use force against ourselves. We're okay with that. Feel free to vote that we shouldn't be okay with that. Also, feel free to move and renounce your citizenship. Those legal options are available to you. You can also attempt to resist the laws of your country, peacefully or otherwise. I wouldn't recommend it. > I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines? If you want to discuss actual policy, I agree it's complicated. 1) Medical wavers. Some people cannot get vaccinated, for many different reasons. 2) If you want to live in a bubble with no human contact, and you can demonstrate that, then maybe that's fine. 3) If you want to form a colony of leapers, who have no contact with the rest of us, then maybe that's fine, too. > How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game. Fine by me. Counter-proposal, each time you increase the statistical chances of someone else suffering through an externality such as a pollutant, or increasing the risk of disease, how about you put your skin in the game: Watch them die. Here, this child recovered. It shouldn't be too emotionally difficult for you to imagine my daughter dying like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw (The beeping sound is her oxygen level falling to dangerous levels, on the verge of causing brain damage.) Watch her mother sit there, completely helpless. Imagine that's me and my wife, watching our daughter die. > Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost. Oxygen is a benefit. Not having it is not a cost. Have I somehow used a slippery slope argument? Or is your line of argument fundamentally flawed? Genuinely curious what you think. > Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There is no limit. Ah, there, you ARE engaging in a slippery slope argument! It's NOT too onerous, actually. We have government to debate issues exactly like this. We compromise. There are limits, they're enforced by making changes to the law slowly, and by people voting. > You can ask for anything and always find a way to justify it. You can deny anything, and always find a way to justify it. Together we vote. Hopefully we find a compromise. In this case, our current compromise is that you're not forced to vaccinate yourself or your children. But your children may lose access to public schools. And you may be forced to continue paying taxes in to public schools. And there may be jobs you are disqualified from holding. Feel free to advocate for changes to that. Personally, I'm realizing I should be trying to get my employer to demand all of the employees be reasonably vaccinated, via their employment contracts. Flu, MMR, etc.