Dear Anarchists, What Is Your Stance On Mandating Vaccinations?
This would seem to be my second installment in my efforts to better understand anarchists. Last time I wrote about some of my preconceived notions regarding anarchy here and many of you offered some great responses.
I did some more reading and watched a few videos and also discussed it with a friend. An interesting moral dilemma I saw raised was vaccines.
I'm curious anarchists of Steemit. What are your stances on mandatory vaccines in an ideal anarchist world? The issues seem pretty obvious on the surface. We have the protection of the greater populace's health bumping straight into personal liberty and freedom of person. It really doesn't get more invasive than mandating injections but the science is overwhelming and the successes can't be denied.
can see you only digest main stream brain washing. Ask all the people whose children became autistic after being vaccinated.
Gotcha, so anecdotal hearsay should be the arbiter of truth here. That's isn't a very compelling argument and quite frankly makes you seem a fool.
What you should have done is pointed me to some evidence but since that doesn't exist you've brought a horrible idea. When I ask them how they know it was the vaccine and then they can't provide me anything more than "I just know it" why should I believe them? You think I should just believe them right? I think you should extend your distrust of mainstream media to all claims.
There is absolutely no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism. Jenny McCarthy and her likes are not credible. Andrew Wakefield is a corrupt and discredited monster. He lied to try and get rich of his own competing vaccine patent. Be his puppet if that's what you wish. Drink that Koolaide.
My nephew went autistic immediately after getting the MMR vaccination. They may have something to say about anecdotal evidence.
What is your point here? Invoking a personal connection to someone's anecdote then noting it as an anecdote serves what purpose?
Whopping Vaccine Injury Payouts for US Fiscal Year 2017 Released https://t.co/K7kp1VdPaw
maybe this might get your attention.
Cheers
Please watch Vaxxed (http://vaxxedthemovie.com/stream/) , there is a reason main stream has been suppressing it.
I'm not asking for a debate on the scientific validity and safety of vaccines. There is no debate to be had on that subject.
I'm looking for a nuanced stance on mandating vaccines and how that would fit into an anarchist's ideal world.
As long as a state exists use it to keep humanity from killing itself.
In an ideal anarchist society, there would be no one who could legitimately mandate vaccinations. If there were some individual or group that took it upon themselves to pay men with guns and blue uniforms to kidnap and cage people who refused to vaccinate, the vast majority would recognize this as criminal behavior. The people would be entirely justified in taking up arms against such an individual or group. The widespread recognition that using force in this way is illegitimate represents the essential difference between an anarchist society and a statist one.
Now just because vaccinations can't be mandated, doesn't mean they can't be incentivized. Health insurance companies and doctors could refuse to insure or treat the unvaccinated and their families, or only do so at much higher costs. They could also offer the vaccinations free of charge. Why would they do these things? Because, if the vaccinations truly beneficial, it would be cheaper to insure and treat these clients, and they would have to pass these savings along to the clients in order to attract them. If they did not, competitors could offer better deals on price and service, and steal away these more preferable clients. Eventually this would become universal, as it would be unprofitable to do otherwise.
In this way, competition in the free market aligns the interests of the companies and their customers. When your insurance company requires vaccination, it does so in its own self interest. But because clients have a choice to go elsewhere, the client gets the benefits as well. When a government mandates vaccination, it is not always clear whose interests are being served, and we get these conspiracy theories.
In addition to health care providers, other organizations could have similar practices that incentivize vaccination. Schools, which would all be private, could refuse unvaccinated students. Imagine a housing developer who builds a neighborhood, and maintains the roads, sewers, and other common areas. When that developer sells a new home in that neighborhood, as one of the provisions in the contract of sale, it could have a requirement that all residents must be vaccinated, and that in order to resell the property, your buyer must also accept this same contract. They would have such provisions in order to make it easier to sell the other homes in the neighborhood.
We all see the web that holds a statist society together. But when many imagine a free society, they imagine that web gone. They cannot imagine society functioning without it. But anarchists are not advocating the removal of society's web, just its replacement with one based on voluntary interactions rather than forceful ones.
Thanks for this answer. It was well thought out and did a good job of addressing the real question he was asking. I was also curious about how this issue would be handled.
No to Mandatory Vaccinations! A very strong no.
Would you care to elaborate at all? As an open minded statist I understand the huge invasion on the person's freedoms but the risk to the overall population can't be denied. This seems to be a classic case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
In an ideal anarchist world, you would likely try to segregate the people, as this is the only logical solution. You would have a "no vax" colony, where disease ran wild, and a "vaxed" colony, where no one died of polio. Those unable to see the truth of the matter in the yearly data on number of deaths per capita would probably die of disease in the non-vax colony, while the rest would wisen up and get a shot.
Granted, this segregation would only work as well as logic could dictate, since no rule could be enforced to do so.
Interesting, so in that scenario it would still be a choice and the rights of the anti-vaccine people would be respected. The major flaw I see is in the method of segregation it would have to be a complete quarantine level segregation. To achieve such segregation would seem to require some sort of authority more powerful than current ones in their level of control over people.
Or enough space to allow such segregation to occur. It could likely start a war, if there were enough individuals on both sides that believed strongly enough in their cause, AND if the non-vax people wanted to integrate with the Vax people but the Vax people were against it. No higher power would be needed if EVERY Vax person agreed to carry something like a card proving their vaccinations, and required such cards for entry to their city. If every person were equal, they would likely all be soldiers, equally responsible for identifying and being the judge and jury for all infractions that threatened an agreed-upon lifestyle. So many hypotheticals are required to make that happen tho...
You mean a quarantine? Like a leper colony? Not sure that would go over well. And also, not sure how you plan to carry it out without the use of force. But if it were possible, and upheld by the public, then it would likely be a great incentive to GET vaccinated, assuming the vaccines were effective in preventing disease.
I still vote for @sicilian's answer.