The Bipartisan War on Liberty

Liberal and conservative elites agree on one thing: Americans are too free for their own good.


To outward appearances, it might seem as though the left and right have never been more at odds. And for the average man in the street, drawn to the Tea Party on one side or the Occupy movement on the other, this might be true. But it is not so true for elite opinion. The nation's high and mighty may be divided about many things, but on one point they often agree: Americans are still too darn free.

For example: Not enough people exercise their right to vote. Problem, right? Well, William Galston of the Brookings Institution has a solution: Force them to. The other day he took to the pages of The New York Times to explain why we should be "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else." (It doesn't seem to have occurred to Galston that making people exercise a right takes that right away, by turning it into an obligation.)

Galston is hardly alone. Mitt Romney considers it a problem that many foreign nationals enter America without a government permission slip. His solution: Force every U.S. resident to carry a biometric ID card. (Just the thing to present at the polls when meeting your mandatory-voting requirement, eh? Great minds think alike.)

One of Romney's GOP primary opponents, Michele Bachmann, laments that many Americans—53 percent of them—pay no federal income tax. So she proposed forcing everyone to do so, even if they don't have any income to pay taxes on. That'll show 'em.

Time magazine proposed forcing every American into national service. A federal advisory board has decided, to much applause, that we should force boys as well as girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Proponents of ObamaCare believe the government should force everyone to buy health insurance.

The Obama administration also has lots of other bright ideas about how to bend the American people to its will. Last year Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told those at a National Press Club that the administration's "livability" initiative "is a way to coerce people out of their cars." The administration also wants to force insurers to pay for birth control and abortifacients, and to force consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Voices outside the administration, however, fret that it is not being forceful enough. In a recent Washington Post column, Dana Milbank advised the president to emulate the ruthless tactics of JFK. Milbank recounts how Roger Blough, chairman of U.S. Steel, raised prices in defiance of the president's wishes. "'You have made a terrible mistake,' Kennedy told him. Subpoenas flew, FBI agents marched into steel executives' offices, and Kennedy spoke about IRS agents examining 'hotel bills and nightclub expenses [that] would be hard to get by the weekly wives' bridge group out at the country club.'"

Ahh, the good old days. When J. Edgar Hoover pulled stunts like that, liberals considered it proof that the dark night of fascism was descending across the land. But when their own guys do it, they call it getting things done. Nary a word from Milbank about what business the president has dictating steel prices, by the way.

Yet Milbank is a piker in the thuggery-worship category, at least when compared with The New York Times' Thomas Friedman. In 2009, Friedman penned a column about how China's one-party autocracy was better than America's two-party system: "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks," he wrote, "but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people . . . it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies to move a society forward." He went on to list some of China's critically important policies, which were—surprise!—policies of which he personally approved.

Well, anyone can write a stinker of a column now and then (heaven knows!). But a year later Friedman was still at it, relating on Meet the Press how he has "fantasized" about "what if we could just be China for a day?" Then "we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions." He didn't actually want America to "be China," mind you, he just wanted "my democracy to work with the same authority." That way, Friedman could impose his will on everyone else, and life would be grand.

This is what power fetishists always do: assume the power will be used in ways they like. (And since the ends are noble, they surely must justify the means, right?) Sometimes it is. But power changes hands, and the inheritors may be a rather different sort. The people pushing for more government power never seem to think of that—until it's too late.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.


NEXT: Reason Writers at the Movies: Peter Suderman Reviews The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is what power fetishists always do: assume the power will be used in ways they like. (And since the ends are noble, they surely must justify the means, right?) Sometimes it is. But power changes hands, and the inheritors may be a rather different sort. The people pushing for more government power never seem to think of that?until it’s too late.

    Wrong wrong wrong…if the Chinese have shown us nothing else its that once the right people have the power it never goes back to the “others”. I find this refreshing.

    1. Displaying, as ever, ignorance of the Iron Law:

      Me today, you tomorrow.

      1. RC you just don’t get it. I write books so I’m never subject to reality. You see the world is hot,flat and crowded…….

        1. I thought you did not have to face reality because you married a women with a rich family.

          1. I can assure you that it is precisely because all of my material needs are more than met that I can be trusted to make the tough decisions that the rest of you will have to live with.

          2. …a women with a rich family


    2. You underestimate the evil of these people. Thomas Friedman isn’t a well-intentioned fool. He looks forward to the day when people can be made miserable for his enjoyment.

  2. From HERE:

    A commitment to greater statism begets more such commitments, and if what we may call the Ronald Dworkin generation pooh-poohed the “silly proposition that true liberals must respect economic as well as intellectual liberty,” the Cass Sunstein generation repudiates as even sillier the proposition that liberals cannot impose on the free market of ideas the same doctrines and controls they impose on the free market in widgets. (The esteemed professor has insisted that speech, like commerce, must have its own “New Deal.” With Sunstein [who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration] as thought control’s FDR, who will be its LBJ?)

    As the no-end-in-sight march of greater government demonstrates, there is no reason to think that democracy is a check on despotism. An electoral majority can indeed embrace the concept and agenda of unlimited statism. “Totalitarian democracy” exists, not merely as a troubling construct, but as a threatening possibility.

    1. I would say it’s not a threatening possibility; rather, it’s a threatening certainty. Fallacious premises also meet their logical conclusions. The only way to avoid despotism is to gut the power of despots, whether they’re individuals or the masses. A codified respect for individual liberties above all else would go a long way.

      1. You mean like the Bill of Rights?

    2. I’ve been puzzling this for awhile I think I’ve finally got an answer to what is “democracy” (as it is used by politicians and pundits):

      Democracy is a system of government in which the elected or unelected govern according to what they consider “the will of the people” as opposed to “the consent of the people.” “The will of the people” allows them to say they were just doing what they did for our own good. “The consent of the people” would actually require them to listen to the public and that would prevent them from spending money by the trainload.

      1. “The people” means “everyone but you”.

        So if you object to some policy, it doesn’t matter because “everyone but you” approves.

    3. “Totalitarian democracy” exists, not merely as a troubling construct, but as a threatening possibility.

      Threatening possibility? What do you think they meant when referring to the dictatorship of the proletariate?

      This has been done before and we already know how unpleasant the outcome will be.

  3. This is hardly anything new. Okay, Team Red says “free trade” and “pro-business” every few sentences but beneath the words their no different than the other team.

    1. Well, Team Red probably talks more about being “pro business”, but not pro free market. Mises called it the difference between private capitalism and free market capitalism.

      1. Is it not “Monopoly Capitalism” vs: “Free Market Capitalism”?

  4. There is absolutely no excuse for that tie.

    1. That’s right. Play extra frames!

  5. Whoopee. This is like writing that people who want to go to the mtns. & people who want to go to the shore all agree on getting away from here.

    1. Nope. It’s saying that when the Damnocrats and the Repugnantans agree, the individual loses worst. Usually they take turns digging at different parts of our home-is-our-castle walls, but either way we’re still being undermined.

      The question is with Hannibal ad portas how do we begin reclamation?

      1. “Hannibal ante portas” is the exclamation, I believe.

  6. There are other countries where people are forced to vote, Australia is one example. In most countries however, voting numbers have declined over time, when a politicians becomes a state head with only 20% of the country voting for him, it does raise the question of the legitimacy of democracy.

    1. I’ve come to view democracy as simply being the best of a bad situation. Then again, America didn’t start out as a democracy but as a “democratic-republic” originally. It would appear that even the founding fathers must have had their doubts about “pure” democracy…

      1. /sarc off

        The founding fathers viewed democracy with contempt.

        “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
        John Adams

        “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
        Benjamin Franklin

        “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
        Thomas Jefferson

        “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
        John Quincy Adams

        “Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.”
        James Madison

        1. I am an idiot. Been using that line for months and had no idea it was Franklin.

          1. Not so idiotic. According to wikiquote:

            Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence, it is not found in any of his known writings, and the word “lunch” is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet.

            Sorry, sarcasmic. Still a great turn of phrase, just not Franklin’s.

            1. Oh well.

            2. The Jefferson quote is spurious, as well.

          2. Forty years ago my father credited it to Mark Twain and said,
            Democracy’s two wolves and a sheep deciding who’s for lunch.

            It’s also not Twain’s.

    2. Sorry to be pedantic, but in Australia we are NOT forced to vote. We are, at most, forced to attend (not attending incurs a fine). I have on many occasions left the voting slip blank or written “No” in the boxes I’m meant to number.

      Mandatory attendance means that, in Australia, the election winners are actually endorsed by a large proportion of their constituents, if not the majority. The same can not be said of countries where attendance isn’t mandatory. As NotSure states, politicians in those countries are often elected by a small minority of the population, which is not what I would call “Democracy in action”.

      There is a big difference between being forced to endorse a stranger to make decisions on your behalf and being forced to participate in the electoral process in whatever way you see fit. I only wish more people understood that crucial difference.

      Mandatory attendance allows people dissatified with the system to effect a powerful vote of “No Confidence” when necessary. If the number of informal votes is significant or even overwhelming, the legitimacy of the winner is highly questionable. Legal challenges will ensue.

      Mandatory electoral attendance and citizens initiatives act as powerful checks against government excess, but only in the hands of well-informed voters.

      1. Thanks for the insight! I didn’t know how it actually worked in Australia.

        (That sounded sarcastic but it really isn’t, I’m genuinely interested)

  7. This is what power fetishists always do: assume the power will be used in ways they like. (And since the ends are noble, they surely must justify the means, right?) Sometimes it is. But power changes hands, and the inheritors may be a rather different sort. The people pushing for more government power never seem to think of that?until it’s too late.

    That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to the government-worshipers of my acquaintance for some time now. Some of them think that the next administration will for some reason respect the difference between government power directed at them (bad) and government power directed at someone else (good). Others give me that all-purpose scathing rebuttal known as “La la la, I can’t hear you.”

  8. Ice…that’s from the new Rorschach line….we see in the tie that which we are looking to see.

  9. A federal advisory board has decided, to much applause, that we should force boys as well as girls to receive the HPV vaccine.

    What is wrong with this? HPV infects about 80% of the population. Eliminating, or lessening this infection rate seems to be a net positive for humans.

    1. Well feel free to get the injection…no one is stopping you.

      1. It’s not about me, or you, it’s about immunizing the population in general. Kind of like polio, and small pox, and diptheria, and pertussis, and measles, and rubella, and mumps, and …

        If an effective vaccine against exists, then why would we not use it to eliminate/minimize a disease? How can opposition to such measures be considered anything but stupid and malignant?

        1. “It’s not about me, or you,”
          If you’re talking about using force, it certainly is.

        2. There is a difference between opposing that something be done, and opposing that something be forced onto people.

          I do not oppose vaccinations, and I fully support informing people and persuading them to vaccinate themselves and their children.

          I do however oppose using the state’s power of coercion to force people to be vaccinated against their will.

        3. U must B new here.

          1. I am pretty sure that I have been here longer than you, or most others posting her.

            1. Congratulations.

            2. Again Wayne feel free to get the injection…no one is stopping you.

              Since the vaccination premise is that by getting one you greatly reduce your chance of contracting the illness it is in your power to alter the possible outcome…for you! Why would you care one way or another what happens to anyone else? It sounds callous but it’s the decision process everybody engages in subconsciously every day.

              Spare me the “Greater Good” nonsense.

              1. fish, you apparently fail to recognize that by getting the vaccine I reduce my chance of getting the disease AND I REDUCE THE CHANCE OF PASSING ON THE DISEASE. Is that so hard to understand?

                Do you send your kids to school with Chickenpox?

                1. “”Do you send your kids to school with Chickenpox?””

                  I guess you’ve never heard of chickenpox parties, or chickenpox lollipops. It’s some what popular to expose kids to it early. Maybe you meant smallpox?

                  HVP is not like smallpox. If HPV was killing people, not just giving people and increased risk of cancer, I’d be more inclined to agree.

                  1. TV, maybe you are not aware but there is now a vaccine for chickenpox. Chickepox parties are a thing of the past, except for the luddites amongst us.

                    1. That doesn’t mean they should be applied by force of law.

                  2. “…killing people, not just …increased risk of cancer…”


                    please tell me you’re being ironic

                    1. “”please tell me you’re being ironic””

                      I’m not. The gist being the use of law to mandate a vaccine should be used only for diseases that have a disasterous affect, at best.

                      I understand the arugment against mandated vaccines and I generally agree, with very few exceptions. HPV does not cross that threshold.

                2. Do you send your kids to school with Chickenpox?

                  I don’t send my kids to school with an illness for the same reason I don’t send them to the supermarket at 11pm. They need their rest.

                3. ….AND I REDUCE THE CHANCE OF PASSING ON THE DISEASE. Is that so hard to understand?

                  Nope. But why would those children who elected (whose parents elected) to receive the shot be threatened by a kid with the chickenpox showing up at school. Any kids who aren’t vaccinated (they have the option….parents again) theoretically know the risks.

                  Problem solved. Choose to have the shot…reduce the likeliehood of contracting the disease. Choose to decline the shot….live with the consequences.

                  This really isn’t so hard now is it?

                  1. An individual who is vaccinated against a disease gains the personal protection of that vaccination. This person’s vaccination also protects all other people from the disease by making it harder for that disease to spread.

                    Assuming pure rational self-interest, individuals will under-vaccinate, because while they capture the surplus of their own protection, but capture none of the social surplus.

                    People who choose not to vaccinate face the opposite incentives. They benefit from the social surplus created by other people vaccinating, but by choosing to free-ride, increase the risks of everyone else contracting the disease.

                    We should pay people to get vaccinated in order to have an efficient allocation of vaccinations.

          2. I’m pretty sure that we have had this argument 100 times before and there is always some disagreement.

            Are any of the vaccination requirements really absolute legal requirements? Or are they requirements for attending public schools? I really have no problem with requiring vaccination for public school attendance. Since the HPV is not really casually transmitted, I could go either way with it, but for the really deadly diseases if you don’t want your kid to be vaccinated, you should expect to be ostracized from polite society.

            1. Better question: How long should someone go to prison for choosing not to let the government stick a needle in their children’s arms?

    2. “What is wrong with this” is that you are trying to use the violent, coercive force of government to stick a needle in my arm. Maybe the warm serum thereafter injected will do me good ? maybe it won’t. But morally, you have no right. It’s my goddamn arm.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Hey, give Wayne a break. He knows what is best for us all. When you are that morally certain you should have unlimited power to coerce compliance. If you don’t agree with people who are right then STFU and get out of the way so they can do what is right.

    3. “What is wrong with this?”
      “we should force…”

    4. HPV is transmitted usually by sexual contact though. While there are cases of it being transferred through objects, it’s not airborne like polio and other diseases. Airborne diseases are involuntary, while sexual contact is usually voluntary. (Obviously. raping someone then giving the HPV would be similar to cases of knowingly transferring HIV.)

      1. Dekedin, your comment is so dumb that it is painful to read. Sex is one of the most powerful drivers of human conduct in existence. Sex amongst a population is no less voluntary than breathing. There are 7 billion of us on the planet! We all got here the same way.

        1. I’m bothered that you think breathing on someone and having sex are the same things.

          1. Even dumber than your first comment.

            1. Hey, as the initiator of coercion, the burden of proof is on you, yet you’ve failed to create a convincing argument. Don’t worry, you’d be right at home on our Supreme Court, where the public good trumps individual liberty on almost every case.

              1. He calls himself a libertarian and then uses the “common good” as his guiding philosophy, and then he accuses others of being dumb.

                Oh btw Wayne, actually STD are not the same as the flu. People can actually choose who they have sex with, if you want to bang every whore in town, thats your problem, don’t make it mine.

                1. “He calls himself a libertarian and then uses the “common good” as his guiding philosophy….”

                  That sorta thing happens a lot around here .

                  “Normally, I’m not fan of big government, but…”

                  It’s like the passers know the only way to get their comment read is to claim to be part of the club, and then once they have our attention they launch into the state-hugging diatribe.

            2. wayne, is that a stick up your ass, or are you just happy to see me?

        2. Dekedin, your comment is so dumb that it is painful to read. Sex is one of the most powerful drivers of human conduct in existence. Sex amongst a population is no less voluntary than breathing. There are 7 billion of us on the planet! We all got here the same way.

          To riff on the old Lent joke, since sex is now involuntary, then why did they ban me at the Sherwin-Williams store?

          It’s utterly charming to see someone so hopelessly illogical chastise others for being dumb.

  10. I consider myself a libertarian, but I have to admit that on some issues some libertarians are complete morons.

    1. “I consider myself a libertarian,”
      You should reconsider.

      1. U might have misidentified yourself.

        1. Sorry…that was for wayne.

    2. “I consider myself a libertarian”

      Based on what? Is it based on an understanding of libertarian principles, or is it just a word you heard on talk radio and figured sounds good?

      1. Is it “libertarian” to embrace ignorance and willfully spread disease? How does willfully spreading disease jibe with the non-agression principle?

        1. Has nothing to do with ignorance or willfully spreading disease. It’s about someone telling you what to do with your own body (for “the common good” no less).

          If you want to protect yourself (or me myself), fine get vaccinated. If you choose not to, you aren’t hurting anyone but yourself since anyone you infect ALSO had the choice to be vaccinated.

          It’s the difference between individual responsibility and nanny state.

        2. Because people are able to get the vaccination (just not forced) and have choice of who they associate with (and esp. sleep with)?

        3. False dichotomy. Not allowing force does not equate to thinking vaccinations are bad, nor to being one who spreads disease.

          Just because a woman denies you the right to force her to have sex does not mean she will not choose to have sex.
          Just because we deny you the right to force us to be vaccinated does not mean we will not choose to have be vaccinated.

    3. New term for people on here claiming to be libertarian but espousing the opposite:
      Sorry, sorta-black America.

  11. My Bro in CA, got a $25 ticket for burning wood in his fireplace on a day the “city” said was a no burn day. Can you believe it? The same town fined him $100 because his daughter was “busted” not wearing a bicycle helmet for the 3rd time, she was under 16. This crap is really getting out of hand. Where CAN I smoke anymore? Maybe I should call city hall and find out.

    1. The time nears.

    2. Freedom is dangerous and can kill. Vote against it.

    3. It’s his fireplace, but it’s everybody’s air.

      Parents are expected to provide for the safety and health of their children, and can be fined or jailed for negligence.

  12. “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks,” he wrote, “but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people . . . it can also have great advantages. ”

    That would make a great plot for a movie, or TV show episode: The Scientists Take Over and Life if Perfect!

    Oh wait… Simpson’s did that one. Didn’t work out too well as I recall.


  13. “Force” was Hinkle’s word, not mine. I presume the “force” would be in the form of a requirement to prove vaccination before a kid can attend school, etc. This is the same requirement for most of the vaccines I listed earlier, the only exception being smallpox because the disease was eradicated as a result of public health measures. Public health is a legitimate function of government and is in fact one of the towering successes of the last 100, or so years.

    Opposing such public health policies puts you in the same camp as Jenny McCarthy and other ignorant luddites.

    1. This is guilt by association crap.

      Mccarthy opposes it because of specious beliefs about vaccines and autism.

      Libertarians oppose FORCED vaccinations because it limits choice. One can be 100 percent for vaccination and 100 percent against FORCED vaccination.

      1. Do you disagree with the requirement to prove vaccinations (pertussis, measles, etc) for kids before being admitted to school? Is that the sort of “force” you are referring to?

        1. I think that certain vaccinations can be required if the diseases are communicable with CASUAL contact.

          1. 80%. Keep that number in mind. 80%. That is the definition of endemic.

            1. Asked and answered

            2. So, Passer Wayne, are you saying my kid can get HPV by sharing a pencil with your kid?

        2. Shut down the public schools as obvious threats to public health.

          Private schools, as private organizations, can set any standard they want for the little disease vectors known as children.

          1. As much as I woudl like that to happen, it’s just not going to.

          2. Private schools exist status quo.

            How can reducing the number of choices (by eliminating public schools) increase your freedom to choose?

    2. waste your breath, wayne. Libertarians cannot grasp the idea that there are degrees to certain issues…they can only see in black-and-white.

      “I received several increasingly terse letters, and then was levied a fine because I refused to comply”


      “An armored group of SS soldiers burst into my home, raped my wife, and sent my children to a gulag, where they were shot in the back of the head”

      are exactly the same scenerio to a libertarian. They cannot grasp the distinction between those two concepts. Taxes are slavery, all coercive force is bad, etc. They’re like children.

      1. You’re an idiot. Try not paying a ridiculous fine and see what happens. When we were under the Common Law, gov’t had no power over us, unless an inidvidual entered into a contract with gov’t. Now we’re free to do as we’re told.

      2. Excellent, so lets force everybody to vote, have a one party state for the day, put biochips in everyones arm, force everyone to do a years national service and all the other things mentioned in the article, because hey, its not as bad as the ss raping you.

        What really is childish is thinking that its not as bad as the SS raping you so therefore its ok.

      3. Libertarians cannot grasp the idea that there are degrees to certain issues…they can only see in black-and-white.

        Easily falsifiable statement, sic:

        TrickyVic|11.18.11 @ 1:46PM|#
        […] If HPV was killing people, not just giving people and increased risk of cancer, I’d be more inclined to agree.

      4. If SS, then KL.

        If Gulag, then NKVD.

        Keep your socialist (Bolshevik or National) oppressive organizations and lagers properly matched.

  14. wayne, you are an utter clown, supporting forced vaccinations and then at the same time calling yourself a libertarian is laughable. Public health is most certainly not a function of government for libertarians and many others as well.

    I suppose you would support public education, public broadcasting, public welfare etc. and then call yourself a libertarian, you are not.

  15. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

    I’m afraid you, wayne, have more in common with socialists than with libertarians.

  16. Without a concerted public health program of vaccinations do you guys think smallpox would have been eradicated?

    I do consider myself libertarian, but I refuse to check my brain at the door to the convention.

    1. shorter wayne – iv guvmint didt doo id nubudy wud

    2. Actually the incidence of a wide range is diseases fell coincidently with better sewage, personal hygiene and food handling practices. Vaccines kinda just rode along with the good news…still Wayne you go ahead and get the innoculation and leave the rest of us alone.

      1. Smallpox was eradicated because of vaccinations. Better sanitation helped, but all the places in the world without clean water are smallpox-free because of concerted efforts to vaccinate everyone. It worked, and now nobody needs to get vaccinated for smallpox ever again.

        1. Hi rectal.

          But we weren’t talking smallpox now were we? We were discussing a malady that, if you’re not a “window licker” like Wayne you can avoid. I’ll discuss the merits of smallpox vaccinations with you but the trend is to vaccinate against every potential illness under the sun including depression. Keep the lectures confined to your own POS blog!

          PS: Smallpox eradicated? Somebody needs to let the White House know!


    3. Analogizing smallpox and hpv?

    4. Polio is making a comeback because people aren’t getting vaccinated.

  17. Notsure, the infection rate is 80%. Eighty f&$#ing percent. The “whore” you are banging is most likely infected, and so are you.

    The “whore” Dekedin is banging is almost certainly infected as well.

    Libertarians are complete morons on some issues.

    1. And so what’s to stop people from getting vaccinated themselves, voluntarily, to protect themselves?

      Should condom use also be mandated?

      This isn’t like smallpox.

    2. Hey clown, it is not my fault you are infected it is yours, you want a vaccine then pay for it yourself. If you want to be a socialist troll that is fine, stop pretending you are a libertarian, public schooling, broadcasting, health etc. are stock standard libertarian ideas.

    3. Again, so what? If it’s not communicable by casual contact, then it shouldn’t be FORCED on school kids

    4. Again, so what? If it’s not communicable by casual contact, then it shouldn’t be FORCED on school kids

    5. Nobody has argued here against the utility of vaccines. What we are arguing against is mandatory vaccination. You seem to not get that; I suspect this is willful failure to engage the argument for liberty which includes liberty to do stupid things.

      Ironic how you claim no harm will come of surrendering this sort of control to the state. Check out 11Bravo’s 12:33 PM post above. It’s a short slippery slope from mandatory vaccines “for the public good” to intrusive BS like (s)he describes.

  18. The “whore” Dekedin is banging is almost certainly infected as well.

    Seize the moment Wayne use your uninfected state as an advantage to take over and rule over us all in Friedman like fashion! We bow before your power over disease!

  19. Citation for the 80% infection rate?

    1. Wiki has the following table:

      Age (years) Prevalence (%)
      14 to 19 24.5%
      20 to 24 44.8%
      25 to 29 27.4%
      30 to 39 27.5%
      40 to 49 25.2%
      50 to 59 19.6%
      14 to 59 26.8%

      Most forms of HPV go away on their own within 1-2 years. I believe the 80% figure isn’t for people who ‘have’ the infection, but represents your lifetime chance of ever becoming infected.

      1. Matt,

        If you add up all those percentages the actual number is 195.8% gee maybe Wayne is right we should be forced to get the shot.

  20. I have to admit that I am baffled by the attitudes of some of you. HPV immunization seems to a be a complete slam-dunk “let’s do it” issue to me.

    The risks are minimal, the pay-back is large. We already “force” vaccination against a whole host of communicable diseases, and for good reasons. If we require immunization against measles, Why not require HPV immunization?

    1. Put a kid with measles into a room with other kids, and the other kids stand a decent risk of catching the infection.

      Put a kid with HPV in a room with other kids, and (unless the infected kid goes and has sex with every other kid in the room) the other kids stand zero risk of catching the infection.

      You’re right. There’s no difference at all.

      1. 80%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        How can you be so fricking obtuse?

        1. Yeah, there’s no difference between sharing air and unprotected sex.

          No difference at all.

          1. 80%.

            I am sure all you puritan virgins are safe, but apparently a sizable majority of the population don’t share your virtues.

            1. Kids are having orgies in class?


              I never thought I’d wish I was still in school, but hmmm maybe I should reconsider.

              1. Only if my Grade 8 teacher is involved.

    2. No need to put force in quotes, it really is forced.

      As has been already asked why not force condom usage ??????? I mean the pay back is huge, it will eliminate almost all STD’s, don’t bother with some dumb um and ah argument why it is different, forcing condom usage has bigger pay off and lower risk than your vaccination, so according to you this is a “slam dunk”.

      1. How would you force condom use? Who is being dumb here?

        1. Only an unimaginative oaf like you does not think this is not possible with future technology, mandatory biochips (another slam dunk, don’t you agree) can monitor for sex and report it to government should no condom be used.

          The point is not how the law is implemented, it is whether you support it, you clearly don’t, but it would be greater gain with less risk, so you should support it, why don’t you exactly ? moron.

        2. The lack of a reliable, efficient enforcement mechanism has never been an impediment to the passage of stupid, intrusive laws (see Volstead Act).

          History isn’t your strong point, is it?

          Unenforceable laws lead to public contempt for the law, pump up organized crime, and allow the authorities to arrest anyone when compliance is non-existent.

          Please address the liberty arguments.

    3. Your question had been answered several times. It comes down to force. You can make a minarchist case for vaccinations, but the burden of proof is still on the guy proposing that we point a gun at somebody and make them do something. Since HPV isn’t deadly for the most part, and you don’t get it from casual contact, I don’t think we should point any guns at anybody. Neither do most people here. It’s not that complicated, and your decoder ring is definitely in danger.

    4. “let’s do it” =/= “let’s point a gun at people and tell them they’ll do it or else”

    5. Liberty! Freedom from state coercion! Self-ownership! How can you be so dense, man?

  21. Vaccinations….did you say vaccinations

    ‘Cause when the going gets tough…

    (Patriotic instrumental music)

    the tough get going! Who’s with me?

    Let’s go! Come on! Let’s force those shots on everyone!

    (Wayne screaming)

    (Tense instrumental music)

    What the fuck happened
    to the Delta l used to know?

    Where’s the spirit?

    Where’s the guts?

    This could be the greatest night
    of our lives…

    but you’re gonna let it be the worst.

    “We’re afraid to go with you, Wayne.
    We might get in trouble.”

    1. Forget it….I’m rolling.

    1. I was wondering a bit about the discrepancy between wayne’s 80% (80%!! 80$!!) and the figures cited by MattJ. Fortunately, wayne’s linked article has a description of the study:

      The study said the rates observed among the 60 study participants from three primary care clinics in Indianapolis exceeded the HPV rates reported in previous research? Eighty-five percent were African American, 11 percent were Caucasian and 3 percent were Hispanic.

      Yup, the clientele at the free clinic is a 100% reliable and generalizable sample of the American poplulation.

      1. Exactly. I believe the CDC reported the STD infection rate among black teenage girls to be 49%. Doubt they get much abstinence education.

        1. They certainly do at church.

          1. Doubt they get much abstinence education at home.

            1. Care to make a non-racist defense of that assumption?

              1. 75% out of wedlock birthrate

                1. Could just as easily be caused by incorrect or non-use of contraceptives as a lack of abstinence education. Religious attitudes towards abortion can also explain the discrepancy.

                  And abstinence education means abstinence until marriage? What nonsense.

                  1. I agree! The racist drugstores won’t sell contraceptives to blacks, school nurses won’t teach them how to use a condom, libraries won’t allow them to enter, schools refuse to teach them how to read, etc.

          2. Doubt they have the same participation rate at church services as at (public) school.

            1. They have a higher church attendance rate than white teenage girls as well as a higher STD infection rate.

              Maybe abstinence education just doesn’t work.

              1. They have a higher church attendance rate than white teenage girls

                What does this have to do with their school attendance rate vs. their church attendance rate?

                1. It indicates that the ratio of church attendance to school attendance is higher than for their peers.

                  1. So? They go to school as much as the other races; they get the same sex ed in school as the other races; yet it seems that they have a higher STD rate than the other races. Why? Is your explanation that their higher church attendance rate is the cause of their higher STD rate?

                    You start to babble about church and abstinence education but you conspicuously ignore the fact that they participate in the same public school “education” (including sex ed) as their peers. If public school sex ed “works”, then they should have the exact same STD rate as their peers, don’t they?

                    1. It’s incorrect to assume that public school sex ed is uniform across the nation. Both the content and the quality of instruction vary widely. These differences in quality are not equally distributed. Black students are more likely to attend low-performing schools. So no, we shouldn’t expect the exact same results.

                    2. Then the problem isn’t with their church attendance rate and/or abstinence sex ed (actually those might alleviate the problem) but that their public education is shitty.

      2. 100% of the crackheads at the needle exchange reported being crackheads.

        We must have a crackh vaccination NOW!

  22. Libertarians need to get their heads out their asses and recognize the only hope we have for anything like a free future is for the “Liberal”/Democratic/Progressive machine to be defeated, and that anything the Republicans come up with will be better than what the Dems have in mind. Or are you still waiting for Obama to legalize pot?

    1. Were you in a coma between 2000 and 2008?

    2. And your mandate for defining our needs comes from where, exactly?

      Fuck off, slaver. (RIP, jSUBd, we miss you).

    3. I’m not a libertarian, nor a liberal, nor a conservative.

      I have always voted Republican, because Republicans have been the least-worst of the available choices with a chance of actually winning.

      However, I have noticed that within my adult lifetime, the Republicans have never offered anything to vote FOR.

      It’s always, “You better stop Bill Clinton by voting for us!”

      Then the Dems ran Howdy-Doody and it was, “You better stop Algore by voting for us!”

      And then there was the poodle, and on cue, “You better…”

      So now I had better vote for Mr. Romneycare or…

      You know what?

      Stuff it.

      Let it all fall apart. Go broke. Fine.

      I’ll make something out of the pieces left over.

  23. thank you a lotssssssssssssssssss

  24. Thomas Friedman – dumbest winner of a Pulitzer Prize, yes or no?

    1. He may be dumbest, but I’m evilest, so there!

  25. Conclusion: Vote with your feet.

  26. Well, very good post with informative information. I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information.

  27. Hinkle shows that the 1% are the politicians and those politically connected to them (aka. rent-seekers).

    I’ll add that Hinkle’s analysis applies the Republican ranks as well, as shown by their desire to keep the spending and government burden high. If you look at the Paul Ryan budget, it doesn’t even balance for 50 years with the debt swelling to over $20 trillion. While the tea party debt commission has put forth a better plan, only Ron Paul’s addresses the spending. None of the other presidential candidates have provided specific spending cuts or a budget. This leads me to believe they don’t really want to cut the spending. Like Bush who talked about fiscal conservatism, his actions speak louder. After all, they could have forced Obama to balance the budget this year simply by not raising the debt ceiling, which has gone from 14.3 to over 15 trillion in 3 months.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.