Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

2. The Government has proven that it can be tricked (Volkswagen) and influenced by big money so its easy to not trusts the Governments medical recomendations, and reports.

3. Since 1986 vax manufactuers can not be sued for hurting your kid because of the NCVIA. Since 1986 the amount of vaccines that have been added to the schedule has increased. Anybody over 30 did not have as many or the same vaccines that are recommend for children now.

Pro-vax 1. Vaccines have eradicated issues that were deadly in the past

2. Vax works best if we all do it.

3. Yeah vax may hurt you but a seat belt could hurt you too. Still the majority of the time it is safer to where the seat belt.

4. I had vax and I'm fine so my kids can have vax.

5. Yeah the vax can cause problems but so can the diseases they prevent.

Vaxx yourself, force your wife and child to vaxx, create a policy of only befriending vaxxed people, but the next time you think about telling me what to do, you can fuck off.

(And yes, the "anti-vax" "movement" is disgusting - a fine example of the stupidity of crowds. Unfortunately, defending freedom often means defending scoundrels).

There's a similar argument around fire coverage. The common argument against a more libertarian approach to fire fighting is that if someone's house catches fire and is left to burn, then it will easily spread to neighbors, increasing their risk. And this the obvious physical reality, especially where things are dense.

But since those neighbors are the only concerned parties, then why (in principle) is that additional risk not theirs to bear and mitigate? It cannot cost any more than the neighbors splitting the cost of the fire protection on the unprotected building. Practically, the fire department would just pool that overhead across all customers.

Of course there is the issue of long term second-order effects - freeloading - since most likely if you didn't pay the fire department would still try to extinguish your house as quick as possible (possibly just busting it up a bit more in the process). But making coverage mandatory also ignores long term second-order effects when an organization does not have to be responsive to the people it serves (which is usually then handwaved away with the wisdom-of-crowds fallacy).

The root of the disagreement comes from different thinking about what society actually is. Is it a monolithic system we're all bound to and the only way to change it is top-down? Or is it the constructive result of the surplus that everyone is willing to bring to the table, implying that an individual should have the option to quit the game and take their ball - even if that individual then watches from the sideline or even returns to play but without their ball?

Both perspectives are needed, but every society is predisposed towards over-centralization - most people have a very hard time seeing anything besides their own perspective, so they falsely think their desires apply to everyone. Yet as demonstrated by the success of free markets, only decentralization can satisfy and incorporate minority viewpoints. When creative destruction is prevented from applying to structures within the society, then it will inevitably occur to the society as a whole.

Not yet. If you don't think propaganda will align "drug-de-jour" with vaccination, you can go back half a century in the history books and find some surprising artwork. The point is that it's a bad precedent to coerce. The whole idea of the federal hammer (all-or-nothing) has betrayed the notions of community and local governance. I see the discussions on Nextdoor.com for my neighborhood, but it's ultimately left up to the Feds to mandate. Why aren't the states doing this? Because they are too afraid of the backlash, while the aloof congresspeople are obviously detached.