And sometimes the best of hammers will mangle a perfectly good nail. Yes, the tools we have are imperfect; no one is disputing that.

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. The default state of a human body is unvaccinated. No one is removing a vaccine from themselves. No one is removing antibodies from themselves in an effort to make themselves or others more susceptible to disease. The default state is unvaccinated. It isn't about "if too many people decide not to", it's "if enough people decide to do it... positive things can happen". And yes, there's a huge difference. See the previous post.

I completely understand that. However, you need to understand that disease is part of the human existence. Don't want to deal with disease? Stop being alive; that fixes the problem. Otherwise, accept the existence of risk and understand that your desire to minimize your risk and the risk of your loved ones does not entitle you or the government to strap a child to a gurney, jam needles in their arm, and pump them full of drugs (albeit very good and beneficial drugs).

Vaccines are a wonderful tool of modern medicine. The fact that that tool's effectiveness increases when more people make use of it does not entitle you or anyone else to force others to make use of that tool. You are not entitled to a risk-free or even a risk-reduced existence. The default state of a human being is naked, defenseless, and susceptible to all manner of diseases and predators. The fact that you're now safer than any other human being in the history of the planet ought to be enough. You have no right to perfect safety and you have no right to force others to help you get closer to perfect safety.

No, you appear to think that everyone else is doing as well as you are. There are plenty of families barely putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads with two incomes. There are plenty of single mothers and fathers who aren't even doing that well. Homeschooling is not an option for them. It simply isn't.

Yes, I am. You seem to be advocating that people who make different decisions than you or I might should be punished by the state. That's not just unreasonable, that's tyrannical. These people have every right to be idiots and if you don't want their kids in school with your kids, free up the tax money so they can send them somewhere else. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE ELSE'S LIFE AND START JUST LIVING YOUR OWN!

That's not only absurd, but requires the kind of despotic tyranny many would fight with force of arms. Let's take it in another direction so maybe you'll see just how ridiculous it is. How about a law requiring everyone to be armed with a loaded M-16 in public? After all, there are all kinds of threats in the natural world that can be significantly reduced when lots of people have M-16s. Therefore, everyone must always have an M-16, fully loaded and ready to fire, while out in public so the public can be protected from physical threats.

It's also stupidly backwards. People who are not vaccinated are not some kind of super-threat we need to be protected from. They're simply not using the tools of modern medicine to reduce a threat which already exists and has for millions of years. And those threats are quite few among the natural world. If 0% of the population is vaccinated against a disease, then the threat is at the NORMAL level found in NATURE. As more people get vaccinated, that threat is reduced. Does that fact make it right to strap unwilling citizens (children, no less!) to a gurney and jam a needle full of drugs into their arms so they can be injected against their will? No, it does not. To say otherwise is to invite all kinds of other dictatorial bullshit and eventually it'll be the kind of dictatorial bullshit you won't like.

Of course, you won't be able to do anything about it by then.

The simple fix is to do what some countries in Europe already do: have the tax money used for schooling children attached to the individual child. As such, whichever school the parent chooses as best for their child gets the tax money allocated for that child. Schools then compete with one another to get students (and the money that comes with them). Not only does everyone end up with a better education (no monopoly produces better results and that holds true for education as well), but you'll also end up with a small subset of schools allowing unvaccinated kids to attend. That results in no additional cost to the idiot parents who aren't vaccinating their kids and everyone else can take advantage of herd immunity. And perhaps when the first few waves of preventable disease decimate the population at those schools allowing unvaccinated children, some people will take the hint and start using the tools of modern medicine to reduce the natural threats of our world.

Then I guess their kid just has to take their chances with the natural world like everyone other human has for millions of years.

I think it's a stupid decision to not vaccinate your kids (when that's possible which is nearly always), but vaccines are tools of modern medicine used to reduce a threat that already exists because of the fact that we live in a natural world. The moment a person makes the decision to bring a child into this world, they accept all the risks that come with that, and disease is merely a small part of the risk. More people getting vaccinated results in lowering the risk for one of a hundred million different ways to die. If some choose not to do that, so what? They're idiots and it's unfortunate. Would it be beneficial to the kid who can't get vaccinated if more people did? Yes. Does that give them the right to jam a needle full of drugs into someone else's arm and and inject them? No.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid decision, but parents make stupid decisions all the time. Is every poor decision impacting the health of your child now child abuse? Mac and Cheese is a poor decision impacting the health of your child. Ever feed them that, abuser? Soda? Child abuse! Cotton candy? Child abuse! McDonalds? Child abuse! Ice cream? Child abuse! Failing to get them to the dentist on a perfect schedule? Child abuse! Dishes left in the sink a little too long or trash left in the trash can a little too long? Child abuse! Pizza party? Child abuse! Using [cleaning product that isn't specifically designed to be completely child-safe]? Child abuse!

You really, really want to wander down that slippery slope? Think before you speak, lest you find your own home visited by Child Protective Services.

In some other countries, the money allocated for the schooling of each child follows that child to whatever school the parents decides is best for their kids. That's the easiest way to solve this. So long as there's at least one school in the area allowing unvaccinated kids (and certainly there would be in areas where many parents are dumb enough not to vaccinate their kids), they can all face the full brunt of natures fury together in small, confined spaces. And maybe some of these idiot parents will learn some lessons after the first few waves of preventable diseases decimate those schools' populations.

In the meantime, everyone else wins out because all the schools in the area suddenly have to compete with one another to get the kids (since they're only getting the money attached to the kids actually attending their school).

Fine, refund them all property taxes tied in any way to public education. You can't force them to pay for an education system they're denied access to because of their wrongheaded, stupid beliefs. Or better yet, have the tax money follow the kid so that every parent can actually choose where their child is schooled. That way everyone wins because schools have to compete with one another to get the money from the kids. Hell, even some of the Europeans have figured this out already.

In terms of unvaccinated kids, you'll likely see a concentration of them in a small subset of schools that allow them to attend and you'll also likely see disease after preventable disease make its way through those schools' halls. Maybe after the population there is decimated once or twice, some of those morons will wake up and start vaccinating. Or not; their choice. The diseases are all from nature and refusing to use the tools available to keep nature at bay should be every person's choice for themselves and their kids.

Of course, a government strapping citizens to a gurney and jamming needles into their arms to inject them with drugs will certainly breed the kind of independent thinking and acting individuals who comprise a healthy democratic state. What could go wrong?

This is, frankly, every bit as stupid a thought process as not getting your kids vaccinated because some guy somewhere said maybe it might be harmful (in the face of decades of blatantly obvious evidence that it saves tremendous numbers of people). Why? Because YOU AREN'T A THREAT SIMPLY BY THE NATURE OF YOUR EXISTENCE ALONE. Vaccines are great tools of modern medicine that are saving huge numbers of people from diseases. But the diseases ALL COME FROM NATURE. They're PART OF THE NATURAL FUCKING WORLD and THAT is where the "threat" is coming from! If you don't want to live under that threat, remove yourself from the natural world.

I think people who don't get themselves or their kids vaccinated against preventable, dangerous diseases are idiots because there's nearly no downside to doing that. However, they aren't increasing any threat toward anyone. They're simply not acting to DECREASE the threat which is being posed by the natural world. There's a huge difference. Now, are the odds increased that an individual who cannot receive a vaccination will contracted a the disease inoculated against by that vaccine if those in regular contact with them are unvaccinated? Yes. But if 0% of the people around them get the vaccine, their level of threat is EQUAL to the level of threat in the NATURAL WORLD. As the people around them get vaccinated, the level of threat drops.

To be as crystal clear as possible, here's the difference between increasing the level of threat and not acting to decrease it:

If I purposely inject myself with active Influenza, get sick, and then walk through an airport coughing on people, I am increasing the level of Influenza threat

If I inject you with active Influenza, I'm increasing the level of Influenza threat

If I simply don't get a Flu vaccine, I'm not increasing anything; the threat was already there. I'm simply not acting to decrease that threat to myself or others.

Why do I care about the difference? Because it's horseshit to accuse these idiots of being a threat. The fact that they're acting like morons is no excuse for everyone else doing the same.

Why? Because you demand it? Let the tax dollars used to educate children follow the children to any reasonable education facility and this whole debate goes away. The fact that everyone is forced to fund some of the most garbage public schools in the modern world is the problem. Hell, even some of the Europeans have choice in education. Let the money follow the kids and this whole problem goes away. All these idiots who aren't getting their kids vaccinated can concentrate on some private institution run by idiots who let them all congregate there and then maybe when some easily preventable disease wipes out half that school's population, some of those morons will take the hint.

Why would there be little reason to think that? Aside from all the expenses of homeschooling itself (books, materials, etc - both for parents and students), there's also the loss of income from at least one parent (when there even are two) not working. That can easily be half the household income gone, plus the expenses, and they still have to pay the taxes. And in a single parent household, what's the option? Live 100% on public assistance all the time?

The poster above hit the nail on the head: "That might be a reasonable compromise if every parent had a real choice where they send their kids to school. Governments take thousands in school taxes, then tell you that if you don't want to send your kids to their public school that you'll have to send thousands more to a private one."

That right there is the problem. If they had a choice, this would all be moot. Dumbasses who refuse to vaccinate their kids couple simply send them elsewhere with little or no cost. As it stands, if you're stupid enough to honestly believe vaccines will damage your child, your options come down to bending to the will of the state that you inject poison into your child or lose half/all of your household income and try to educate them yourself.

But fuck these assholes. Fuck all of them; every one of them who voted for this shit. Fuck them regardless of their party or their stances on other issues, or their charity work, or their stupid kids, or their veteran status. Fuck 'em. Burn in Hell you pieces of shit.

Spoke with a friend in NJ, and apparently they used to get on the order of $700 an SREC! Highest I've ever seen was $180? something like that. And as part of the estimate for ROI when I had my 7.2kw array installed, they modeled SRECs as falling off completely in the next year or so (*I'd have to dig that document out... and that sounds like effort).

I'll provide an example I gave in another post. If the law prohibits minors gambling at the horse track, but Little Johnny stands right there listing off bets to an adult who parrots those bets to the track employee taking bets, then hands the money for those bets to the adult who hands it to the track employee, the law is clearly and obviously being circumvented and the entire intent of the law undermined by a simple loophole. (this actually works by the way, did it for years as a teen) Is this a capital crime that needs huge resources dumped into it? No, but ignoring it breeds disrespect for the law.

Perhaps another example. Let's assume there's a declaration requirement when entering the US which states that you have to declare when they're entering the US with cash in excess of $10,000 USD in value. Now let's say John Smith withdraws $50k from his bank, then flies to the US, where it's discovered that he, his wife, and each of his three young children each have $9,980 on their person. Then the law states that deposits in excess of $10,000 into US financial institutions must be reported, but John Smith fills out 5 separate deposit slips for $9,980 each. These are easy enough to cover in the legislation, you say. Sure, but there are 50 permutations of this you can come up with without getting creative. Then another 50 when you start thinking harder. Then another 100 when you involved a lawyer. And another 1,000 when you involve a creative lawyer. And in a week, you'll find another hundred ways to work around the letter of the law.

The point is that while I agree poorly written legislation is a problem and one that should be addressed, no legislation can ever be written in such a way that its intent cannot be undermined by a motivated individual with an agenda. If we begin with the idea that the intent of the law is valid, just, and good policy, we must endeavor to do all we can to keep obvious circumvention attempts at bay. The idea that one can easily violate the spirit of the law by "rules lawyering" the words and letters within it is just absurd. It's how you end up with ridiculous things like "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Language is an imprecise means of conveying ideas. The intent of a law should be clearly defined and all attempts to violate that intent punishable in the same fashion. Anything less makes the whole thing a stupid game and the law ought to be above that.