4 ms·
You're deflecting, which is usually when I walk away from these things. However I think it's important to make this point. I agree with you on the things you a
by krschultz 12y ago
You're deflecting, which is usually when I walk away from these things. However I think it's important to make this point.
I agree with you on the things you are trying to distract with. You want to smoke? Great, that only impacts you. I want you to be able to make that choice for weed and heroin too. I'm with you on the wars, but that's so far from what we're talking about here it's not worth getting into.
I was a registered capital-L libertarian for many years. I campaigned for Ron Paul before the words "Tea Party" were anything other than a chapter in a history book. I get it.
But the libertarian (small-L) philosophy is let someone have the freedom to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't impact other people's freedoms.
This is one of those things. Anti-vax people are impacting my life, are impacting my kids life, impinging on my safety and well being and my kids well being.
If society isn't going to enforce a law about that, then what's the point?
- WorldWideWayne 12y agoSo, you support a law that every eligible person be forced to take a vaccine that has a small chance of death or serious illness? How does that square with your desire to not have other people's decisions forced on your own kids? A more reasonable approach would be to bar non-vaccinated kids from public school and let private schools and home schooled children decide for themselves. That's the only law that I support.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jklein11 12y agoYour definition of the libertarian philosophy (small-L) is an oversimplification and idealistic. We live in a world with finite resources; every action we make impacts others. At some point the line needs to be drawn as to what constitutes an 'impact' on other people. My understanding of small-L libertarianism was that this line shouldn't be drawn.