To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate? Why We Should Consult Roe v. Wade

Who owns your body? This is a question the government does not want to answer truthfully.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unwittingly ignited a firestorm earlier this week when he responded to a reporter's question in Great Britain about forced vaccinations of children in New Jersey by suggesting that the law in the U.S. needs to balance the rights of parents against the government's duty to maintain standards of public health.

Before Christie could soften the tone of his use of the word "balance," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul jumped into the fray to support the governor. In doing so, he made a stronger case for the rights of parents by advancing the view that all vaccines do not work for all children and the ultimate decision-maker should be parents and not bureaucrats or judges. He argued not for balance, but for bias—in favor of parents.

When Christie articulated the pro-balance view, he must have known that New Jersey law, which he enforces, has no balance, shows no deference to parents' rights, and permits exceptions to universal vaccinations only for medical reasons (where a physician certifies that the child will get sicker because of a vaccination) or religious objections. Short of those narrow reasons, in New Jersey, if you don't vaccinate your children, you risk losing parental custody of them.

The science is overwhelming that vaccinations work for most children most of the time. Paul, who is a physician, said, however, he knew of instances in which poorly timed vaccinations had led to mental disorders. Yet, he was wise enough to make the pro-freedom case, and he made it stronger than Christie did.

To Paul, the issue is not science. That's because in a free society, we are free to reject scientific orthodoxy and seek unorthodox scientific cures. Of course, we do that at our peril if our rejection of truth and selection of alternatives results in harm to others.

The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? This is a question the government does not want to answer truthfully, because if it does, it will sound like Big Brother in George Orwell's novel 1984. That's because the government believes it owns your body.

Paul and no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected that concept. Under the natural law, because you retain the rights inherent in your birth that you have not individually given away to government, the government does not own your body. Rather, you do. And you alone can decide your fate with respect to the ingestion of medicine. What about children? Paul argues that parents are the natural and legal custodians of their children's bodies until they reach maturity or majority, somewhere between ages 14 and 18, depending on the state of residence.

What do the states have to do with this? Under our Constitution, the states, and not the federal government, are the guardians of public health. That is an area of governance not delegated by the states to the feds. Of course, you'd never know this to listen to the debate today in which Big Government politicians, confident in the science, want a one-size-fits-all regimen.

No less a champion of government in your face than Hillary Clinton jumped into this debate with a whacky Tweet that argued that because the Earth is round and the sky is blue and science is right, all kids should be vaccinated. What she was really saying is that in her progressive worldview, the coercive power of the federal government can be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy upon those states and individuals who intellectually reject it.

In America, you are free to reject it.

Clinton and her Big Government colleagues would be wise to look at their favorite Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade. Yes, the same Roe v. Wade that 42 years ago unleashed 45 million abortions also defines the right to bear and raise children as fundamental, and thus personal to parents, and thus largely immune from state interference and utterly immune from federal interference.

Paul's poignant question about who owns your body—and he would be the first to tell you that this is not a federal issue—cannot be ignored by Christie or Clinton or any other presidential candidate. If Paul is right, if we do own our bodies and if we are the custodians of our children's bodies until they reach maturity, then we have the right to make health care choices free from government interference, even if our choices are grounded in philosophy or religion or emotion or alternative science.

But if Paul is wrong, if the government owns our bodies, then the presumption of individual liberty guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has been surreptitiously discarded, and there will be no limit to what the government can compel us to do or to what it can extract from us—in the name of science or any other of its modern-day gods.

NEXT: Silk Road: Ross Ulbricht's Loss is a Loss for Justice, Liberty, Safety, and Peace

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ooh, Vaccinations and abortion. Well played, Judge.

    1. Finally an article John can sink his teeth into!

      1. He should sink his teeth into this first. How author of Danish study debunking vaccine link to autism ended up on the FBIs most wanted: Geier/poulson.htm

        Also, here is the CDC whistleblower:

    1. Gastrointestinal distress? I’m afraid the queue is up to seventeen weeks before we can see you.

    2. What, another Dalmia fashion article get posted?! Oh, you meant this one…

    3. Sounds like someone is behind on their vaccination schedule.

      1. No one can force him to take his meds

        1. Hillbill can. After all, #Grandmotherknowsbest.

  2. My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend’s has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  3. We’ve always known we don’t own our own body. We’re all renters waiting
    for the final notice that we’ve been accepted to the big pearly house of all discards. Isn’t that the doctrine of choice ?

  4. Hey, Judge. Mr. Gruber just called. I think he wants to talk to you about these so-called rights that you say we have in regard to our bodies.…..twitter_fn

    Jonathan Gruber, long credited as the architect of ObamaCare, once discussed the necessity of taxing fat people by body weight in order to fight obesity.

    “Ultimately, what may be needed to address the obesity problem are direct taxes on body weight,” Gruber wrote in an essay for the National Institute for Health Care Management in April 2010, just months after helping design ObamaCare with the president in the Oval Office and during the period in which he was under contract as an Obama administration consultant.

    1. I am glad I have been using the food pyramid since 1987 and have no worries about becoming a big fat fattie face.

      1. You raise an interesting point. Can I sue the government for being overweight due to my following their pyramid’s advice?

      2. Spewed on the keyboard!

        1. Me too

          /feelz sleepy now

    2. Being male, over 6′-2″, and heavily built, I feel discriminated against by Gruber’s suggestion. He can fuck off.

      1. I may be paranoid, but I almost see this as a class thing. If the average lefty was 50 pounds overweight and the average god-fearing, gun-hugging righty was lean and mean, would we see suggestions such as his?

        1. I think the worst obesity numbers would probably be found in Democrat voting blocs (like blacks iirc)

          1. It’s my gut feeling that’s not the case, but maybe it’s because I live in the bible belt. Would be interesting to see the true numbers, if they exist.

            1. I found this from the CDC no less:

              Compared with whites, Blacks had 51% higher and Hispanics had 21% higher obesity rates


              1. Ah, but this presumes “obese” is the same for all races. Think, e.g., “Black ass”.

              2. RACIST!

                Or, more intelligently…

                Whites are fat because they are bad people. Fat whites should pay higher taxes, probably in blood, and not be allowed to breed, esp. with other fatty mc fat-fats. Also, we should put them in diet camps, and possibly hit them with sticks. They wouldn’t be fat if they made a G.D. effort, I mean really, would it kill you to run a mile or not eat pie with every meal you stupid fat bastard?

                However, Hispanics and Blacks are overweight because of trendy things like Food Deserts (different from Dessert Foods) and big nasty corporations like McDs, and other fast food restaurants, for selling high-fat and high-sodium meals. They are really all healty folks who are doing the best they can with the evil tools given to them. Really, if they could get a whole foods in their area all those fat minorities would shed their lard like a butterfly from its husk, but is being kept down by those fat cats. (FAT cats? Get it? C’mon, that is good humor. … Fuck you.)

                1. “Fat whites should pay higher taxes, probably in blood”

                  In pounds of flesh!

                  Take care of the tax and their weight at the same time!

            2. “It’s my gut feeling that’s not the case”

              Or maybe you just can’t stomach the idea

              1. It’s a weighty issue, for sure.

          2. Possibly true. But, I don’t think that’s necessarily relevant to Libertarian’s point. Blacks and Hispanics aren’t Mr. Gruber’s target audience. Urban or suburban progressive professionals (the SWPL class) are. And their body typses tend to conform to what Libertarian is arguing. It roughly parallels cigarette taxes and the loosie phenomenon. The major audience for the moves are largely the same sort of people who this is targeted to appeal to. Of course, the victims are very likely the same groups, as well.

      2. Is ‘heavily built’ PC for big fat fattie face?

        1. “big boned!” Ever see a skeleton from a big boned person? Yeah, me neither.

          1. I have, but it turns out my DM meant for it to be an orge skeleton, not just an undead fatty.

        2. I am as tall as my father but have bigger hands and wrists. While zi zm heavier than I should be, my healthy weight would be heavier than most people.

          Don’t be dickish,

    3. Gruber is the gift that keeps on giving. The focus should be that this kind if thing inevitably follows from the statist decision to make taxpayers responsible for other people’s health care.

      1. We ain’t seen nothing yet. If being fat, etc. costs others money, then there will be constraints or taxes on our behavior.

        “If I’m healthy and slim and don’t cost the national health care system money, why should I pay into it as much as my 350 pound neighbor?”

        “I don’t take chances with my safety. Why should I pay the same amount into the national health care system as my neighbor who goes hang gliding every weekend?”

        1. Have everyone pay the same into the health care system per se, but charge a sur-penaltax every time a citizen wants to engage in risky behavior. Of course, this will require constant monitoring of everyone, but at least you’d be free to do what you want.

          1. charge a sur-penaltax every time a citizen wants to engage in risky behavior.

            Sur-penaltax you say? John Roberts likes the cut of your jib.

          2. this will require constant monitoring of everyone

            It’s a feature, not a bug!

          3. Or just abolish the health care system. Pay for what you need, not what your neighbour needs.

        2. Duh, fairness.

          It’s not fair that you are healthier with a longer life expectancy than the boredom and gravitationally challenged.

          It’s essential that we redistribute income, which is a proxy for those attributes, from boring healthy people to the unhealthy and thrill seekers.

          To oppose that is to embrace inequality of QALY, which if you think for a moment is the most important type of inequality. Not to mention that doing so is hateful and racist.

    4. “Public health” types are some of the nastier control freaks out there.

  5. I eagerly anticipate the presidential candidate debates. They’re going to be fun.

    The Roe v Wade hook seems a gotcha for progressives who want personal liberty until it interferes with their agenda. But I’m sure they’ll find a way to spin it. Can’t wait to see that one.

    The judge is right: this is about personal liberty, not scientific orthodoxy. Or maybe it’s about liberty versus orthodoxy. Perhaps it’s liberty against the orthodoxy where liberty is the heterodoxy that is always under attack from left and right orthodoxies.

    Long live the Heterodoxy!

    1. “I eagerly anticipate the presidential candidate debates. They’re going to be fun.”

      You’re making the huge assumption that the questioners and moderators will actually do their jobs.

    2. They’re going to be fun.

      No. No they won’t be.

    3. on RvWade. Does Obamacare not violate the Right to Privacy it established?

    4. “Long live the Heterodoxy!”


      Oh — is that not what that means?


  6. But Ben Domenech said we’ve submitted to government quarantine and related things (like vaccines, etc) since BEFORE THE EMANCIPATION PROCLOMATiON, so SHUT UP! They’ve been doing it for a LONG TIME, so it’s OK!

    I don’t find it to be a compelling argument.

    1. Sorry – linky to said article…

  7. The way I would put it is: should you get your kids vaccinated? Yes, if you want to keep them alive. Should the government put a gun to your head and force you to do it? Hell, no. Not everything that should be done should be made mandatory.


    1. Not everything that should be done should be made mandatory.

      Does not compute!


    2. “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.”

      1. Exactly. Because to socialists, government is of society; by society; and for society. Individuals only exist as cells or organs within the greater society. Individual choice is anathema. Heterodoxy threatens orthodoxy. There’s no question as to why Wilson and Obama have such contempt for the Declaration and the Constitution–natural rights threaten to dissolve the glue that binds their utopian society.

        Progressivism/socialism is the biggest threat to liberty today. And the biggest lie is progressives calling themselves liberals. It’s doublespeak.

    3. The way I would put it is: should you get your kids vaccinated? Yes, if you want to keep them alive.

      That’s ridiculous. I grew up before the MMR vaccine, almost everybody got those diseases, and they are almost always fairly mild childhood diseases. For otherwise healthy kids, these diseases just mean a couple of weeks off from school.

      The primary risk from those diseases is to adults with other medical problems and pregnant women; but most of those people can avoid that risk simply by getting vaccinated themselves. For them to rely on “herd immunity” would be foolish. Only people who are both at risk from these diseases and cannot get vaccinated themselves or have vaccinations fail to work depend on “herd immunity”, and that group of people is tiny and has a lot more to worry about than measles.

      Vaccinating against these diseases mainly made sense because it avoids loss of school days and because women who are stupid enough to get unplanned pregnancies are likely also stupid enough not to get vaccinated.

      (The arguments are different for smallpox and polio, of course.)

      1. Argument from anecdote:

        That’s ridiculous. I grew up before the MMR vaccine, almost everybody got those diseases, and they are almost always fairly mild childhood diseases. For otherwise healthy kids, these diseases just mean a couple of weeks off from school.

        Argument from evidence:

        Though now considered a relatively benign disease, in roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide. (Source

        1. It’s not an “argument from anecdote”, simply a reminder of a basic fact that any reasonably well educated person should already know: measles are not particularly dangerous for healthy kids in the West; mortality rate is probably much below 1:1000, a rate many of us willingly accept for other diseases.

          It really doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the number you cite is irrelevant to US public health; go ahead, give it some thought.

          1. You’re probably mostly right about this. Germ theory and sanitation played a much larger role than vaccination. At least in the United States. We see a substantial decline in measles deaths long before the vaccine was introduced in 1963. Still, the introduction of the vaccine did essentially bring the small remnant number of deaths in the U.S. basically to zero.

            In the third world, it’s a different story. We still see about 150k deaths a year from measles, mostly in Africa and the crappy parts of Asia. But that’s decreased by 75% since 2000. So here vaccination is playing a huge role in comparison to an understanding of germ theory (we only know how poor that is based on the practices exercised during the ebola outbreak). This paragraph doesn’t have any relation to your comment about conditions in the U.S. I just thought it was interesting.

  8. Vaccinations are like wearing seat belts. It’s no one else’s business if you do or don’t, and certainly not up to some state agency to say you must, but you’re a damned fool if you don’t.

    1. I guess the counterargument is that there are some people who have conditions that prevent their being vaccinated and these people would be put at some peril by people voluntarily forgoing vaccinations.

      1. So this argument can be made, but what shocks me is that the mere suggestion that perhaps forcing parents to do this might not be the right course, or a hesitation to opt for state coercion, is the subject of such an outcry.

        1. My guess is that public stigma will turn out to be enough of a deterrent that regulations won’t be necessary. It’s an issue which sensible people of every political stripe tend to agree on.

          1. The government discovered years ago that this “unnecessary regulations” phenomenon people insist on referencing is not merely a fallacy, but an impossibility. I’m sure there was a memo.

      2. There are some people who will die because I refuse to give them my blood, bone marrow, or one of my kidneys. Does that mean the government should be able to compel me to donate blood or a kidney?

        I mean, even a utilitarian argument or balancing of interests doesn’t work: while donating a kidney is somewhat risky, donating blood or bone marrow is not. And it is hard to argue that blood donation, which is a predictable time span of mostly boredom and some discomfort, is worse than vaccination, which will often make you feel sick for a couple of days.

        I think vaccinations in general are quite sensible (I’ve been vaccinated voluntarily against most serious diseases and even against mostly harmless ones like measles). But I strongly object to the notion that the government has a right to poke a needle in my arm because it helps someone else, because if that’s the logic for vaccines, it can be extended to any other medical procedure.

        1. When you don’t give blood marrow, you’re not actively contributing to someone’s demise. You’re just not doing anything to prevent it. If you’re spreading disease by not being vaccinated in spite of overwhelming evidence of the efficacy, you are actively harming someone. Your cases are not at all comparable.

          1. Not being vaccinated does not mean spreading disease. Lots of people aren’t vaccinated and never contract or spread disease. So your argument is really a false dichotomy. What if you’re not spreading disease even though you’re not vaccinated? In that case, you aren’t contributing to someone’s demise either. It only becomes a problem if you happen to be the rare case that does spread a disease. We have restitution for that.

            1. I can see that it’s poor wording on my part. I don’t mean to say that being unvaccinated means you’re spreading disease. I’m mean that being unvaccinated AND spreading disease, two separate things which do not necessarily entail one another. I do take issue with your notion that it’s a rare case, however. In the case of measles, where the chance of infection is so high, failure to vaccinate and spreading the disease are nearly one and the same.

              I’ve argued for restitution during the entirety of the vaccine debate. I’m not for compulsory vaccination, but I’m certainly for there being punitive measures when a person’s poor decision not to vaccinate screws over one of those unfortunate souls who were wise enough to vaccinate but unlikely enough not to have immunity conferred as a result. But, no, we don’t have a mechanism in place for restitution when the disease is spread by those who haven’t been vaccinated. It’s a hard issue to deal with, no doubt, since it can be very difficult to achieve attribution. Then you get into things like John’s notion of contributory negligence, which has its own problem.

              1. Restitution for what? Measles is no more serious than a lot of other diseases that people routinely transmit to each other without even giving it a second thought. That’s part of living in human society. If you are such a hypochondriac that that scares you, you are free to live in a bubble. The idea of having people pay restitution for that is ludicrous.

                We vaccinate against measles not because it is particularly serious, but because it’s easy to do, because it makes sense for millions of kids not to lose a couple of weeks of school, and because some stupid women get pregnant without getting vaccinated.

                Again, I think it’s quite sensible for people to choose to get vaccinated voluntarily. But this hysteria is unwarranted. And you certainly don’t have a right to force me to undergo medical procedures over something as trivial as this.

          2. You are assuming that the base is a sterile world. This is, frankly, dumb.

            Think about your sentance this way:
            If you’re spreading disease by not WEARING HAZMAT SUIT EVERYWHERE in spite of overwhelming evidence of the efficacy, you are actively harming someone.

            Or this:
            If you’re spreading disease by not STAYNG HOME ALL THE TIME in spite of overwhelming evidence of the efficacy, you are actively harming someone.

            Or this:
            If you’re spreading disease by not WASHING YOUR HANDS AFTER YOU POOP YOU DIRTY LITTLE MONSTER in spite of overwhelming evidence of the efficacy, you are actively harming someone.

            Look, there are a lot of reasonable and effective things that people can do to reduce the spread of disease. If you go down the “you must not spread disease when you reasonably could avoid it” road, you will end up in derpville with compulsory handwashing and mask wearing. The world is not sterile, don’t assume you have a right to a hospital-like environment when you leave your house.

            1. Firstly, I would hope that I don’t have a right to a hospital-like environment. Hospitals are notorious places for the spread of disease. And, yes, I’m willing to say that doctors and nurses should be held accountable for their role in the spread of things like MRSA. This sort of thing spreads almost entirely as a result of poor medical practices (e.g. not changing gloves between patients) that should be standard practices of care.

              1. Secondly, I’m in no way saying that we live in a sterile world. In other vaccine articles, I’ve noted that the vast majority of our antibodies come from exposure to things like soil bacteria or food pathogens, where we encounter literally hundreds of different strains on a daily basis. Very few of these represent problems because our immune systems are so effective at dealing with threats.

                1. You can bring out absurdist examples of things that would lessen disease all you want. At some point, there is a bright line. It’s analogous with the car accidents that everyone here loves to talk about. There are all kinds of things that we could do to reduce the chance of our driving behaviors injuring or killing someone. We could mandate that everyone drive no faster than 10 mph. We could mandate that all cars have 1000 airbags and be coated with 15 feet of bubble wrap. We could implement liability for reckless driving that leads to an injury. Wait – we actually do that one. Yet it’s not categorically different from the absurd ideas that I’ve offered. Why? At some point, society agrees that there is a standard of behavior beyond which one is liable for their actions. No one bubble wraps their car. Most people don’t drive negligently. No one wears a hazmat suit. Most people get vaccinated. There is a bright line to be drawn here. To me, it seems pretty obvious that such a line lies in a regime of liability in the event that your idiocy hurts someone else.

                  1. This strange need to carry out everything to absurdity will always lead to absurdity. In every sphere of human interaction, it is always necessary to choose an arbitrary cutoff for rights, wrongs, and the like. It is impossible for a system of law governing 300 million people to function in any other manner.

                    1. We do need a law government 300 million people to function together. That law can be either mandatory measles vaccinations or voluntary measles vaccinations. The rational choice in a free society is the latter, because the slight public health benefits of mandatory vaccinations do not justify the large infringement of individual liberties.

                2. Okay, DJK, fair. Point taken. But you haven’t addressed the issue.

                  There are a lot of things that individuals can do to decrease the risk of spreading disease. Like washing their hands, wearing a face mask, etc. But if I come to work sick knowing that I am sick, but coming to work anyway because I have work to do/am a dick, I sneeze on my coworker and my coworker gets sick, is that the same kind of issue? People die from The Flu, and if I spread it when I could have reasonably prevented doing so (not going to work, washing my hands, covering my mouth when I sneeze), am I culpable in that, as well?

                  1. This is why opening humans up to liability for the remote risks of harm posed by non-owned wild animals, microbial or otherwise, sounds pretty nightmarish. There’s already precedent for reasonable cases of negligence in the transmission of disease, it’s just that simply not being inoculated against a myriad of diseases, could not reasonably be construed as negligence. Not unless he were a person working with those diseases professionally or something, which would introduce culpability and decrease the relative remoteness of risk compared to regular people.

    2. Using car analogies, I’d say it compares more to drunk driving because it doesn’t just put yourself at risk.

      1. I have changed my mind about drunk driving. “Placing someone at greater risk” is not harming them. If you cause my risk to increase from 100 to 1, to 1 to 100, and I am not actually harmed, then the statistics of my risk are meaningless.

        Should being sleepy while driving be illegal? Sleepy drivers increase your risk. Old drivers certainly do. A couple of screaming rug rats in the back seat almost certainly increases the risk to other drivers.

        Until there is an actual accident, my BAC does not harm anyone. Drunk driving laws are basically just thought crimes dressed up as statistical science.

        1. Some accidents are just that, accidents. Other accidents may have a guilty party whose excessive risk makes them liable for damages. The problem with not having some mechanism to threaten and/or punish drunk drivers prior to an actual accident is that the result is sometimes death. If it were just forcing them to pay for repairing your damaged vehicle, you’d be working from an excellent premise. But the victim often ends up dead and if something can be done to reduce that significant risk (ban drunk driving), the government has a legitimate duty to enforce that ban on public roads where the government has a duty to protect our lives, liberty, and property to the extent possible. We can debate the BAC that is considered drunk, however. .08 is probably not an impairment significant for being liable in an accident.

          1. Civil damages are fine. But criminal penalties for “taking a risk” should not be. Especially as the current BAC breakdown bears no relation to actual risk.

          2. if something can be done to reduce that significant risk

            Risk still does not equal harm. Calling it significant does not change this. If you increase my risk to 1 to 10,000,000 and I am not harmed then I am not harmed.

            There is really no difference to a victim killed by another driver if that person was distracted by personal problems or by alcohol consumption. Lots of things increase your risk to others significantly which we do not make felonies. How is my choice to increase your risk by having children in the car different than increasing your risk by my being shitfaced drunk? Puritanism? Alcohol bad, parenting good?

            Of course, negligent homicide might be appropriate if some harm actually occurs but the chance of harm is not harm.

            1. In this context (Drunk Driving), drunk is an adjective. If that which it modifies is not a crime, adding the adjective should not make it one.

              Im for criminalizing Drunk-Stop-Sign-Running, Drunk-Left-of-Center, Drunk-Reckless-Driving, etc. but since those things are already illegal, how about we just enforce the law on both the drunk and sober?

              People who are charged with Drunk Driving plus nothing else are guilty of a thought crime…not agreeing with the state that the risk is too great.

              1. Agreed. I’ve always thought that the drunkenness aspect should be treated similarly to aggravated aspects of certain violent crimes. Kill someone as a result of your drunkenness? Aggravated vehicular manslaughter. Destroy property as a result? Treble civil damages. We already have well-established criminal and civil law to deal with these issues.

              2. I could go with criminalizing everything left-of-center, but I am not sure that is your point.

        2. That may be so, but it is missing the point. The real problem is that roads are public property instead of private property.

          If roads were private property, no justification for excluding you for a high BAC would be needed. Property owners would come up with policies that reflect what people generally believe to be reasonable, regardless of what lobbyists want. If lobbyists wanted property owners to adopt irrational policies, the only way they could do it is by compensating each property owner for the loss. If MADD wanted to have roads free of this excess risk, they’d have to pay property owners to restrict access.

          The problem with public roads (and public schools etc.) is that there is no choice in paying for them, and the people setting policy for them can determine those policies without incurring a cost. MADD doesn’t pay the cost of enforcing drunk driving laws, neither the CDC employees nor hysterical parents pay the cost of vaccinating or not vaccinating children. So, people set arbitrary, irrational policies not based on risk/benefit tradeoffs, but instead based on lobbying and benefit to administrators and politicians. And those laws are backed up by irrational penalties that may make those found “guilty” suffer far in excess of the harm they caused.

          The question whether drunk driving “should be illegal” is really just asking the wrong question.

          1. *buys all the roads surrounding Win Bear’s home and then refuses to let him leave until he starves to death*

            1. I have lived in the middle of several square miles of private roads with no ill effect; we have binding contractual agreements for that.

              I have also lived in the middle of a country where most things were government owned, and where they government killed people for no reason other than that they had decided they didn’t like what they had to say.

              And I’ve lived surrounded by public roads where the government decided, out of the blue and without any input or say from me or my neighbors, to put in “improvements” and send me a bill for thousands of dollars.

              When it comes to capricious, dangerous, and lethal actions by road owners, governments have a much worse track record than private ownership.

              1. I’ve always found the notion that people would just buy up all the land around you just to extort you to be a strange one. That’s a very large capital investment that they’re unlikely to recover from you through extortion. The only way I could see these types of things happening is if you had really pissed someone off or they just happened to be a huge asshole. Neither are particularly likely.

                1. I’ve always found the notion that people would just buy up all the land around you just to extort you to be a strange one.

                  I find plenty of arguments against libertarianism via property rights to be equally absurd. They usually boil down to Bridges of Konigsburg type thought experiments that involve who people are both horribly mean to each other and zealously motivated to do so.

                  The sort of situation that makes a Monty Python sketch look salient.

            2. *buys all the roads surrounding Win Bear’s home and then refuses to let him leave until he starves to death*

              Common law easements have existed well over a thousand years. That is to say, the argument you’re making has been wrong for a thousand years and it’s still wrong.

  9. Needs more deep dish pizza made by an aborted illegal immigrant who still has a foreskin.

    1. Is the aborted illegal immigrant gay? Because that’s the peak.

  10. a gay cakemaker who also makes pizza from an unregulated food truck.

  11. Penetration without affirmative consent apparently is not OK if it’s a penis, but it is OK if it’s a needle.

    1. ^^^WINNER^^^

    2. I’ve seen the needle and the damage done.

      1. Nice ref. Great song.

    3. INDEED.

  12. Today’s paper says there have been no death from measles in the U.S. since 2003. I just wonder how many deaths there have been from legal abortions in the same time? (note – I’m pro-choice).

    1. Did it mention if there had been any deaths from the measles vaccine since 2003?

      1. Medical professionals aren’t forbidden from ruling a vaccine as the cause of death, but it’s widely considered a statement of negligence on the part of the vaccinator.

        Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is to report more ‘product defect’ type errors to vaccine manufacturers.

        See the Snopes article below.

        1. Well, so you can rest peacefully in eternal slumber, secure in the knowledge that it was human error that killed you during a medical procedure you were forced to undergo. But at least the noumenon of the vaccine was safe (mostly)! Philosophers rejoice!

    2. Snopes says 2 died in 2009 and 2010 despite the fact that Top Men told us in 2000 that measles had been eliminated from this country.

      Note: I’m not proposing foregoing MMR vaccinations for you or your children is a wise decision. Rather if you need the government to tell you to do it, literally the decision might be better left to your children.

      1. That is, 2010.

    3. 108 have died from the MMR vaccine in 12 years, no one has died from measles in the USA during this period.…..n-measles/

  13. Wall Street Journal, not quite a prog’s hangout, blistered both Paul and the Libertarian viewpoint offered by Andrew. One quote:

    “He will have to avoid these LIBERTARIAN DORMITORY PASSIONS if he wants to be a credible candidate,” the editorial says, adding that government requirements for vaccinating school children is “a legitimate use of state ‘police powers’ under the Constitution.”

    Uh oh, you just got called out for your conspiracy theories in addition to a lack of understanding of science. And from the right!

    1. And from the right!

      “The right” is a bunch of social engineering corporate cronies; you know, just like the left.

      adding that government requirements for vaccinating school children is “a legitimate use of state ‘police powers’ under the Constitution.”

      So was slavery until we amended the Constitution. Being “legitimate” doesn’t make it morally right or beneficial to society.

      lack of understanding of science

      People who lack an understanding of science are those who treat measles like it’s Ebola. Getting vaccinated against measles is sensible (in particular for women intending to get pregnant), but for most people, tripping is a much bigger risk. Science, you should try it some time!

      1. Really? I might point you to Ronald Bailey’s op-ed today, which he quotes here at Reason:

        “The data suggest that vaccinations since 1924 prevented more than 103 million cases of polio, measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis A, diphtheria and pertussis. Researchers estimate that vaccination saved between 3 million and 4 million lives.”

        You should just think a bit about those numbers, before you relegate the whole issue to measles and ebola.

        Anyway, tell it to the Wall Street Journal…even the right is getting tired of the dormitory passions. Even Ronald Bailey, I guess.

        1. Anyway, tell it to the Wall Street Journal…even the right is getting tired of the dormitory passions. Even Ronald Bailey, I guess.

          In all truth; Ron has his own set of dormitory passions that he has managed to turn into a writing gig.

          1. I must admit, that was funny.

        2. You should just think a bit about those numbers, before you relegate the whole issue to measles and ebola.

          So if imposing 9pm curfews, GPS ankle bracelets, and in-home audio monitoring saved millions of lives, you’d favor those too? If massive wealth redistribution would save millions of lives, you’d favor that too?

          “The government believes this policy will save lives” is neither a proper nor a rational basis for public policy. And it certainly isn’t an acceptable basis for what ultimately amounts to little more than injecting bits of dead animal meat into people’s bodies at gunpoint.

          1. “At gunpoint”? This seems a bit hyperbolic, doesn’t it? What are the actual current consequences for failure to get vaccinated? Not allowed to enroll in the public schools that you already disfavor? That hardly seems like gunpoint to me.

            1. Current consequences are not what’s at stake. That’s the inherent premise to these discussions: anti-anti-vaxxers think there oughtta be a law/rule/health code/executive order/building regulation.

              One you accept that “there oughtta be a law”, force is a given and it’s all just quibbling over the fine details.

            2. No, it’s not hyperbolic. Such mandates are ultimately backed up by police with guns in one way or another.

        3. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

          The Data don’t suggest shit, sucka. A giant pile of data is nothing until it is interpreted by one able to intrepret it. But stupid semantics aside…

          Scientists who interpret the data draw conclusions, are often funded by corporations with an axe to grind or a dollar to make, and, like all humans, have a hard time seeing anything objectively. How many of those data-interpreting scientists said at the end of their experiment “Well hot damn. I guess my hypothesis was way the fuck off! Well, I’ll be!”

          (And what college is going to allow a biology professor to publish a paper with the title “Holy Cannoli! In 5000 recent cases in a 3rd world country, vaccinations didn’t do shit!” No researcher will write that, no matter what the data says, and no journal will publish it.)

          Finally, how many of those 3-4 million deaths would have been prevented with a healthy diet and soap and water? I am guessing quite a few. How many with better nutrition? You do NOT get to look at the past 90 years and pull out ONE development and say “THIS IS IT! THIS DID EVERYTHING!”

          You shoudl just think a bit at all before you relegate the whole issue to popular opinion.

          (Note: I am pro vax. But stupid still irritates me.)

          1. Wow.

            Sorry. I just reread my post.

            That was a bit crazypants. I feel like Tony or AmSoc.

            Sorry. I’ll go take my pills.

            1. The soap and water versus vaccination is pretty easy to pull out statistically, given the different times and adoption rates of basic germ theory and sanitation versus vaccination. T-tests and all that. 3-4 million is the statistically significant number for vaccinations, all else equal. Data analysis really isn’t that difficult…

              1. The soap and water versus vaccination is pretty easy to pull out statistically, given the different times and adoption rates of basic germ theory and sanitation versus vaccination. T-tests and all that.

                Wow. It’s pretty easy to pull out statistically, averages, p-values… you get the drift. It’s easy when I just regurgitate buzzwords and then add conditions that don’t make sense out of hand. All else equal and all that.

                I don’t mean to argue for or against vaccinations by this comment. Just pointing out that your response is colossally, if not insultingly, vapid.

                Next time, just pat him on the back and say, “There, there. It’ll be okay.”

  14. The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? This is a question the government does not want to answer truthfully, because if it does, it will sound like Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel 1984. That’s because the government believes it owns your body.

    Is Paul’s belief that my parents own my body (and he literally said “parents own their children”) that much better?

    1. Parents are trustee’s of a child’s body. They have most of the ownership rights associated with self-ownership, the scope of rights over the child diminishes with the rising age and/or intellect of the child.

  15. Certainly there’s a problem with ppl claiming the state can’t tell them not to get an abortion, and, at the same time, that they have to get a shot. You could argue that there’s no externality with the first, but that really won’t fly. The issue here is really over treatment of what we call externalities. These are instances where the effects of individual actions are believed to be beyond the market to cope with. Liberals use it to justify regulation. But the concept is flawed to begin with because nothing is innately “rivalrous” (ie, individual) and Locke, Hobbes and Smith would be among the first to point that out. The solution is as Paul implies to let people make up there own minds based on enlightened self-interest.

    1. How about the reversal of that claim? That the state can’t tell people to get a shot, but that it can tell them not to get an abortion. That seems to be the judge’s position, based on this article and the huge number of articles in which he’s brought up his pro-life position if there’s even the tiniest possibility of connecting it to a completely unrelated issue. It reeks of hypocrisy, contradiction, and caring only about proving a predetermined conclusion. This guy is a blowhard and always has been.

  16. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,

  17. “The earth is round and the sky is blue and science is right”

    Otherwise known as the “Chewbacca Defense”.

  18. I object to Ronald Bailey’s description of ant vaxxers as “hucksters”. The ones I know are sincere people, right or wrong. Even Jenny McCarthy deserves to be regarded as sincere. I also wonder about the science he relies on. The flue vaccine is proven by science to be inneffective, but the CDS continues to push it every year. Other vaccines are effective, but are they really safe? Remember, we are not just talking about the observable reactions to the vaccine. We are talking about possible APPARENTELY unrelated side effects, like a rise in allergies among vaccinated children.Remember Bastiat, Ron? There is difference between what is seen and what is unseen. Anti vaxxers also believe that measles attacks can be mitigated by Vitamin A. Unlike Ron, I do not think the science is settled. There has never been a longitudinal study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, for example.

    1. There is a study done in vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids and it isn’t pretty done in New Zealand and Germany.…..-children/
      Here is the USA 1 in 68 are autistic, whereas in unvaccinated kids was closer to 4 in 13,000 and a couple had a high amount of heavy metals in their blood.

      However the USA announced they will never because it would be too cruel. Congressman Bill Posey tried to introduce a bill forcing the CDC to test vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids.…..accinated/

      I think a private doctor in Chicago also did his own private study to which no unvaccinated child became autistic.

  19. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it.
    Click on this link to get started and see for yourself????.

    1. Great! Now pay off your fucking loans.

  20. “The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? ”

    Paul’s answer: YOUR PARENTS!

    How the fuck is that bodily autonomy?

    1. Well, I’m sure if you ask kids themselves “do you want me to jab this needle into your body”, you are going to come up with an even higher percentage of “anti-vaxxers”.

      1. What if you asked them, ‘do you want to die from a preventable disease?’

  21. Such a pointed, provocative parallel, Mr. Napolitano!

    However, as a former judge, you should know that a far superior Supreme Court parallel is the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which confirmed the right of states to mandate vaccination.

    To quote,
    “The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is…hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and…is nothing short of an assault upon his person.

    But the liberty secured by the Constitution…does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint…Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.

    Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

    That you didn’t bring up this or other vaccine-specific cases makes suspect your motive is less to educate and more an attempt to smear and misrepresent the legitimacy of two disparate court precedents because you don’t like them.

  22. There’s probably a case for risk either way, leaning towards getting vaccinations, but at the end of the day, it’s a personal judgement.It’s a reasonable argument.

  23. The vaccine policy he refers to is actually current US policy ( and in most states) originally supported by many Libertarian and Democrats. The government now pays millions for defective vaccines.

    What is probably needed is more transparency, not more mandates.

  24. My question: Should government force vaccinate children who have no medical reasons not to be vaccinated?
    My argument is ‘if a parent starves his child because of his belief don’t you consider that as a child abuse and the state takes guardianship of the child and shouldn’t there be a similar approach for vaccines where either the parent has to prove the child has to medical condition or the vaccine is not safe, when the risk of the child suffering a medical condition due to the vaccination is fare less then the disease.?Can anyone explain?

  25. If I’m obese, should the government force a gastric bypass?
    If I’m a smoker, illegal drug user, or alcoholic should the government force me to take pills to quit?
    If I’m on welfare and pregnant, should the government force an abortion?
    If I’m on welfare should the government sterilize me by force?
    If I’m Catholic should the government vaccinate me by force with vaccines derived from aborted fetus?
    If I’m HIndu, should I be injected with vaccines derived from bovine fluid?
    If I truly believe that vaccines caused Autism in my child, should I be forced to keep giving him the same toxins that made him ill?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.