Ebola is just so yesterday, isn’t it? Ebola, a dangerous, infectious and communicable disease, was treated as a political issue rather than strictly on the merits of risk. We weren’t going to incorporate a monitoring period before travelers were allowed into the country because of politics. So is the problem of illegal aliens streaming across our open borders. If we were truly concerned about preventing the transmission of communicable diseases, wouldn’t it be prudent to 100% seal our borders to maintain control over what is brought into the country?
By the way, I am not a libertarian either. But, the measles outbreak we are currently experiencing is looked upon as a parental rights issue. Parents wish to reserve their right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children. If you’re one of those who choose not to, you are labeled an extremist.
Bear in mind this is not an issue about autism. It makes no difference what your reasoning is for not vaccinating your children. The debate is whether or not you should be forced to. And according to politicians like Chris Christie, you don’t get to decide.
Christie, who spoke Monday after making a tour of a biomedical research lab in Cambridge, England, said that he and his wife had vaccinated their children. However, the governor added, “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”
The government has to decide? Lest you think that Christie is alone on his stance, how about that of a libertarian, Rand Paul?
Later Monday, Paul said in a radio interview that he believed most vaccines should be voluntary.
“I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” Paul, an eye doctor, said in a subsequent interview while suggesting vaccines were “a good thing.” ”But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children.”
The parents should have some input? Now we get to the crux of the issue. Who gets to decide the red line? Christie and Paul both allude to the idea that parents only get to make parental decisions about their children over and above some level that is decided upon by others. Read the government. Maybe you have no problem with that. After all, who else would be qualified to set standards?
Should that be the case? Are there some issues in a civilized society in which the greater good outweighs any personal choice? Should the bar be set at a point in which a decision you make has the potential to harm others? Now there’s a can of worms. We could compile quite a list of things that one person may do that may adversely impact others.
This gets to a point I have made in other posts concerning rights. I contend that you don’t have any. You only have privileges extended to you by others, generally the government. Measles is the perfect example. If vaccination becomes involuntary, you have no ‘right’ to do otherwise. Which means you never had it because a ‘right’ is theoretically inherently yours and cannot be taken by others. Yet clearly, this happens everyday. It doesn’t matter if you agree that it’s a good thing and a wise decision, the fact is that the choice was taken from you.
I suppose it’s all semantics. If the country as a whole were to just come to the realization that we don’t live in a free country and accept the fact that there are always going to be certain tradeoffs in exchange for citizenship, it would neuter many of these debates. A slippery slope to be sure. Once you go there, you’ve given the green light to the powers that be to make more and more of those decisions for you. On your behalf of course. For the greater good.
So, measlegate 2015 is just another chapter in the age old struggle between liberty and collectivism. How many people who are now scared out of their wits about their children contacting measles will agree to make vaccinations mandatory? You know, because they are the good, responsible parents who did the right thing and got their kids vaccinated. Even though we’ve already seen a vaccinated child contact measles, but that’s a another story, isn’t it?
Is that a parental ‘right’ we should just give up because it’s the right thing to do? And where does it stop after that? This post isn’t trying to tell you what you should do. It’s only to point out the obvious. You may not have any ‘right’ to decide here. If your neighbors empower their elected officials to pass a law requiring immunization by all (once again, illegal aliens don’t count), they have taken away your privilege and made your parental decision for you.
Maybe you don’t have kids and couldn’t care less. Maybe you were always immunized and have no problem with your kids being immunized. The point is, every American has skin in the game here. Deciding what privileges we allow ourselves affect us all. Hillary Clinton is jumping in on the politics of it all by Tweeting that grandmothers know best.
“The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.”
Let’s protect all our kids? Hillary, why do you allow fluoride in the public water supply? It’s an industrial waste byproduct that is a carcinogen and transporter of lead and arsenic poisons. Don’t you know best? Why would you do this to your kids? Ah, I see. That makes me an extremist because the government says it’s safe. We could do this tit-for-tat all day long.
Do I hope you get your kids immunized? Yes. I was. My kids are. But I don’t believe I have the authority to force you to. And I have no intention of giving our government any more authority to do so.