39 votes

Reason Magazine Sucks! "There is no principled libertarian stance for vaccine refusal."

Reason magazine and CATO suck! They get some things right, but they are total establishment shills on important issues.

Are they saying there is no libertarian argument for refusing to have someone stick a needle in your arm and dump heavy metals and "weakened" viruses?
Or are they saying there is no libertarian argument against forcing someone to use a product? Big Pharmacy certainly wants everyone vaccinated.

To all of those saying Reason is correct, then why force people to use just vaccines? Why not Obamacare? Hell let's force feed everyone super healthy organic food so everyone eats right.

Do they make good points in the article, yes certainly. Many good reasons to take on the risks of vaccines. But all they do is make reasons for using vaccines. Their best argument against refusal, "you might get a vaccinated person sick, because they don't work in a small percentage of people."

They're telling us that because someone took a product, and it didn't work, that we have to take the same product, in order to ensure that the product defects aren't noticed.

Reason and Cato will disrupt the message when it really suits the establishment. IMO. This article is establishment garbage. They should be getting a check from big pharma for posting this advertisement.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/06/vaccine-free-riders-1



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Eh....

.....While I don't agree with coercive vaccination, it is easy to see the "property rights" stance if you relate it to pollution. You have no more right to pollute your neighbors air than you do to burn your neighbors house. If germs are like pollution, they do damage to your neighbor's property (body0. If it is proven that you are the cause of that germ getting to your neighbor, then you should be held accountable for the damage to your neighbor's property (body).
HOWEVER, I don't believe that germs fall under a category where you could easily show that a certain individual produced the germs which damaged another person.
Even if technology gets to a point that you could definitively say that a certain person was the one who got you sick, I don't think that humans reasonably have the responsibility to be personally healthy in service to the rest of society.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

The reason vaccines are dangerous is

because manufacturers are a protected cartel. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of vaccines. In a free market they would be safe, because the market, competition, and tort would force them to be safe.

But they are protected so they have become and always will be dangerous as long as they are protected from market forces and especially protected from tort.

So proposed coercive measures to overcome the legitimate fear people have of vaccines is yet another in an endless list of government meddling becoming an excuse for more government meddling.

If vaccines were safe they wouldn't have to convince us they are safe, or force us to take them. If the market was free, vaccines would be safe, and then we'd all be safer because more people would utilize them.

The solution is simple and it is the same solution to every question of proposed government action.

End the fascism and the world will be safer.

The Kochtopus 'libertarian' at Reason, instead, offers apologia for more coercion.

from lrc blog

Reason And The Ultimate Tyranny
Daniel McAdams

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/reason-and-the-the-ultim...

Not sure how you can call

Not sure how you can call this article "garbage." It appears to be well sourced, i.e. linking to actual studies and original sources with what appear to be bonafide credentials.

It doesn't appear you read the article carefully. The author argues that because the germs from infectious disease, by definition, do not remain in one person's body, they fall under the principle of harm to others. The fact that you extrapolated to healthy foods, means you didn't understand the basis of the argument. If you eat a Twinkie or some non-organic grapes, that effect stops at your skin. If you get whooping cough, vaccinated or not, you're coughing out those germs on everyone.

Someone who eats many

Someone who eats many Twinkies has a greater chance of developing diabetes. Diabetes increases the risk of many diseases, including infectious disease, e.g. Staph, let's say MRSA. MRSA does not stop at the skin. It can infect many others.

Therefore, Twinkies must be well-regulated by the government, because they cause harm to others.

Even emotions are 'contagious'. Maybe we should regulate emotions as well. Wouldn't want any contagious negative emotions toward government officials poisoning the collective mind.

Interesting. We start

Interesting. We start talking about how many degrees of presumed cause and effect we go back when we assert that some action either does or doesn't follow the libertarian ideal of do no harm to others.

I've not looked into how the intellectual argument has been parsed by libertarian thinkers. But it seems to me that you make a good point; we could parse right back to what most folks would consider intrusive control.

The author of the Reason piece was only taking the idea back one step, but it seems to me that the logic that sustains that step also sustains the steps you make.

Goodness, you could probably build an argument around the cause and effect distance between me pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at you. That whole, "I just pulled the trigger; his dying was between him and god" thing.

Fascinating. I'd thought of the do-no-harm-to-others principle as a bright line, but I guess there's a lot more to it. And perhaps it's more murky gray than I'd like. It would be fun to hear how this debate has played out among libertarian thinkers.

You are forgetting intent

Since by not vaccinating, you may be more dangerous to others, but you have no intent to harm others - thus not vaccinating does not have much to do with the do no harm principle. I suppose you can argue a butterfly effect, but the factors that allow infection are so many, it seems impossible to isolate one cause, or blame just the offending vector.

Additionally, there are things you can do to minimize your possibility of infection. Private organizations should be able to discriminate against people who are not vaccinated - for instance private schools should be able to require vaccinations, as should airlines. I would want to send my kid to polio vaccine mandatory school, and fly on airlines that take measures to screen passengers for certain diseases.

It seems due diligence by an individual should be required.

Very good points ...

And an excellent critique of the logic ...

The problem is that the author was not endorsing regulation or government action.

The author was endorsing coerced vaccination by private industry.

Wow!

Unbelievable totalitarian style drivel.

Here's the comment I posted (with just a tad of sarcasm)...

Swifty|12.8.13 @ 9:58AM|#

Yes!

After all, if your kids do suffer from one of the many possible adverse effects caused by invasive vaccination injection, you can now MAKE A CLAIM for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pu.....cp-def.pdf

That way you can be compensated should your child become a victim of vaccine-related injury or death.

So, if you are FORCED to allow the Medical Industrial Complex to pump toxins into your child, STOP COMPLAINING!

They have got that covered.

If your kid should drop dead or suffer neurological disorders or so on... All you have to do is meet the criteria and have a physician appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services allow you to proceed to court.

Ok, you may lose your kid, but if it does happen, think how much they might allow you to claim (should you meet the requirements)!

What's the problem!

If you can't trust politicians and their friends in the Medical Industrial Complex, you are a kook!

Forced medication is the future, roll up your kids sleeve and SHUT UP!

We know best.

;)

hold up, stop the music

Shouldn't we be attacking the writer of the article, rather than Reason? What kind of twisted collectivism are we engaging in here? If someone creates a dumbass thread on DP, which happens EVERYDAY, do we say "DP has jumped the shark!" or "DP is not libertarian!"? No, we blame the dumbass that posted it.

Granted, there is a huge difference in that the Reason has an editorial staff that, I am assuming, approves what is published. But even then, we should be angry at a particular editor for letting crap like that publish. But do we get angry at Michael for having a lenient dumbass policy? No, a lenient policy is a plus for free expression. Let the reader judge.

So, in this case, let's just crown Ronald Bailey, the author of this article, the dumbass king for the day. I will continue to read Reason, because they have some great writers.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

If this were an isolated

If this were an isolated incident, I'd agree. But as far as I can tell Reason exists to try mislead others as to what libertarianism is. They put out an article like this, an now when the neo-cons hear I don't want coerced vaccinations, they think, "This guy's psychotic, hell, even the crazy libertarians agree with coerced vaccines, I read it in Reason." Fuck that shit, Reason sucks!

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

fair enough

I relate to your concern. I have problems with Rand for the same reasons. Stay vigilant, brother.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

The thing is, this has been a habitual problem.

Reason Magazine has a track record of having screwed up articles on a number of issues, not the least of which being the extremely passive/aggressive relationship they've had with Ron Paul and his supporters. As best as I can surmise their ideology, they are pseudo-libertarian with a strong helping of conventional, Hayek-based small government views that line up more with the Bushes on foreign policy than anything resembling the "non-aggression principle".

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't tried to hire Glenn Beck as a writer given that he would fit in perfectly with most of their crew. And could you lay off on the "twisted collectivism" mantra? Calling out an organization for having a questionable publication is fair game, and giving such an organization a pass because you don't want to sound collectivist is asinine.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Bailey is by FAR the worst of Reason.

I generally enjoy Reason, not always but often. I see Reason as a loosely knit group of individual writers and pundits. Only one writer among them sticks out as having contributed not a single good article as far back as I can remember. That's Ronald Bailey! I wish he'd go away! I'm a science guy. He's not. He writes like he pretends he's one. He had no background in science whatsoever before entering "journalism". He landed in science reporting at a time when there was high demand yet few science reporters. He developed his niche quickly as he was [and still is] the kind of guy who is bedazzled by well-funded science guys. As such, he's evolved into a shill for big oil, big pharma, GMO, and the like. I have never used the term "shill" in my life until now, and it is most certainly appropriate here. Reason would be far more enjoyable for me if they dumped him. They don't even need to replace him, as I've never done anything but roll my eyes when any journal such as Reason gets all scientistic on my ass. Feels like a mosquito on my butt.

Stop responding to troll bomb throwing.

It seems that this has been a pattern on here lately: trolls. Reason does not "suck". It enlightens much more than most other sources of information. This is meant to trigger people's emotions; it does not have much substance.

Reason Magazine Sucks!

They were awful to Ron Paul during the last election.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

WOW! "Fringy candidates" No

WOW! "Fringy candidates" No me gusta! :(

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Reason were the ones

Reason were the ones advocating black box mile counters for taxation, which made others think libertarians were for it! I don't like them at all. Not libertarian!

Just say...

...you are 'allergic' to eggs.

donvino

Yep

They rarely mentioned the exceptions. You can't make some one take a vaccine that will kill them. Or some one with a religious objection.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Hijacked

I don't know about Reason's internal politics, but CATO was hijacked by corporatists who staged a Stalinist purge of actual libertarians.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Reason jumped the shark on

Reason jumped the shark on libertarianism years ago. At best they can only be considered libertarian oriented today.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Magazines?

Magazines? I dropped them 10 years ago.

I have the internet.

I have the Daily Paul.

Magazines are those things that are fading out crying for attention...

Moving on...

Whether or not someone

Whether or not someone beleives in the safety or effectiveness of vaccines isn't related in any way to libertarianism.

ugh

True. But weather or not they have a right to refuse one is.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

true but

True. But weather or not they have a right to refuse one is.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

The principled libertarian stance

is quarantine. I think that is a dirty word with libertarians, but it is what the scripture teaches. If the choice is coercive vaccination or coercive quarantine, I would go with quarantine.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

I guess you

would self quarantine since you would be sued if you infected someone and it could bee proven in court.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

That's correct

But they would have to prove negligence or intent, I do believe.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

I dropped Reason magazine about 16 years ago.

When science editor Ronald Bailey went over to the dark side and joined the "global warming idiots".

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell