This problem is simple to fix, no lawsuit needed.

If you refuse to manufacture a thing that you control with patents (or copyright or any intellectual property), then your IP claims become invalid. No exceptions.

Oh, what? You want to keep manufacturing that drug after all? Okay, great.

" A good cab driver knows the turf. S/he gets you to your destination safely and efficiently... and doesn't rip you off or make you feel creeped out."

These skills were extremely important until we invented GPS-based in-car map systems. Now a computer will tell you the most efficient route.

Recently a cab took me way out of the way going to the airport. I balked and the cabbie snapped at me. I paid his fare with no tip. Maybe next time I'll try a different service.

...said the anonymous person with words on internet.

If the card machine is broken then they can't accept payment. Yahtzee. Give them a business card and ask them to swing by after they fix their machine.

I'm not aware of any laws against putting drugs into your body. Can you cite any? I'm pretty sure all drug laws are possession laws, not consumption laws. Strictly speaking, possession is a superset of consumption: you must possess the drug before you can consume it; and you still possess it even after you consume it, while it is in your body.

In any case, pedantry aside, the simile doens't hold because one is the government telling you that you can't do something, the other is the government telling you that you must do something. Compare this to the controversial "individual mandate" in Obamacare. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not mandate that you buy health insurance; but that they could tax you if you refuse to do so.

That is consistent with how I think about actions: the government can't force you to vaccinate, but they can deny you access to schools and roads and public squares if you refuse to do so. I suppose they could even tax you.

This is my position. The good of public health does not, in my opinion, outweigh the legal principle of bodily autonomy. You can't force one person to use their body for the betterment of other people (cf. abortion).

Thus, I don't think we should forcibly inject vaccines into people.

But I DO think we should require vaccination for all sorts of common public goods, and schools is probably the very first item on that list.

Asshat cavepeople can go live in holes away from society if they insist that that is their notion of freedom, but they can't bring it into schools.

We know that vaccines are save for 9,999 out of 10,000 people, and we know they are dangerous for the other tiny fraction. We did the math and concluded that saving 9999 was more important, but we didn't forget about the other 1. We set up a big lumbering system with a lot of money to compensate those people.

Seat belts sometimes cause a person to die.

Sometimes people choke while eating healthy food.

Some car crashes result from people paying less attention on safer roads.

Some people bonk their heads on safety railings.

Police officers sometimes shoot innocent bystanders.

And yet all of these things make the world nicer to live in. Oh, to live in a world where good choices never had bad outcomes; we can dream.

What you say is wrong and I know because I've had my two-year-old on the normal vaccine schedule. Children receive up to three shots at a visit, plus a mouth squirt. There might be about 14 vaccines TOTAL across two years of time, not "14 shots at 2 years old".

So not only are your facts wrong, your interpretation is absurd. 30 vaccines isn't a lot, it's a tiny bit. Every child -- every human -- experiences exposure to tens of thousands of microbes per minute, every minute, through their entire lives. An infinitesimal fraction of those are dangerous, so we've taken about 30 of those bazillions and made special medicines for them. You should be very happy that we already have the technology to alleviate the exposure to those 30 microbes.

Autism usually sucks. I hope your family member turns out okay.

"home schooling still has some educational requirements and standards, which many homeschool proponents are explicitly trying to avoid"

Is there any other reason parents homeschool their kids? That's the only one I've ever heard: "I want my children to be ignorant of the things you will teach them in school". Typically they don't even shy away from that reason.

Right. We'll give you a fairly decent education supported by taxpayers, or you can go get your own education. So what's the problem?

If I hire a private security guard to watch over my mansion, should I get my police-supporting taxes back? If I would rather just have open borders, should I get my Border-Patrol-supporting taxes back? No. Taxes pay for public goods, and if you want to buy a similar private good then you can but that doesn't affect your taxation.

"For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing."

Obvious troll is obvious.

I don't know. The professor is "gone"; he was fired.

I've pondered the best corollary and I think this is it:

Would we ask his former students to forget the knowledge he taught them? No? Then why would we ask his future students to never learn the knowledge he will teach them?

You nailed it. Let's take this argument to Congress and see if it is absurd enough to make them think.

I've never personally encountered that. Maybe I need more adventurous browsing tastes.

Perhaps advertisers should finally move away

I stopped reading after this opening phrase because I agree with it so strongly that I assume everything else you said is equally agreeable.

Advertisers should move away.