Well that would be morally and legally (because of HIPAA rules) wrong. But you can check out all the statistics yourself.

Be careful when you advocate mandatory medical procedures. It can be very dangerous. In 1945 there were about 10 vaccinations recommended for children before age 6. Today, when you count all the booster shots, it's about 200. The benefits of flu vaccines is very questionable (they didn't even include the most prevalent strain in this year's vaccine), and with the pace of medical research it will only grow. There is a long list of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn once it was discovered how dangerous they were in the general population. Perhaps worst of all is the total immunity from liability afforded to all the pharmaceutical companies for approved vaccines. They are not even held accountable if something goes wrong.

I am not anti-vax. Most vaccines are important, and I think it's good that most schools require children to get the important vaccines before they are allowed into the schools. But it can certainly go too far, and the Gardasil requirement mandated by Rick Perry for Texan 12 and 13 year-old girls is a perfect example (note the executive order was NOT approved by the legislature, and Perry received large donations from Merk, the company with the patent for Gardasil).

I have to agree with Rand that there should be ways for individuals and parents to opt out, especially for the less critical vaccines.

And you know what? That's why it would work just fine without regulation. Because businesses that do that will be much more successful. What you do when you regulation anti-discrimination by law is you eliminate the market penalty for discrimination. I know that sounds backwards, but let me explain. I think it's easy to see what the public would do to a business that tried to discriminate against customers (just look what happened to Paula Deen). But there is a labor market penalty, too.

If you're passing up good talent for superficial racial/gender/other reasons, then you're paying a premium for talent. Women and minorities are still behind in salary, so it is sometimes beneficial to hire them, because they are likely just as good as white male counterparts, but offer their services for less. Businesses that don't reject that discount will have an advantage over those that do.

There is more to it, but Milton Friedman explains it much better than I can, describing how affirmative action and anti-discrimination in hiring policies actually harms the people it is intended to help.

FUCK YOU, AC, for perpetuating this asinine straw man bullshit. 87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The Federal IRS tax code ALONE is a whopping 73,954 pages, and is so complicated not even IRS tax attorneys can provide consistent answers to tax questions.

But, sure, to you fucking I-love-dictatorial-and-abusive-central-government fucktards defend every ludicrous piece of shit regulation as if ANY rollback is OMG IT IS LIKE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS!

Yea, well fuck you. And the horse you rode in on. And the entourage that rode with you. And the grooms that stabled your horses.

Cute. You sound like those guys back in the 1930's that were all like "OMG - how can you oppose income tax? It will only ever affect the super rich. Regular working folks will NEVER pay it!!" Or the guys back in 2010 that said "What, do you think the government is collecting your phone calls and emails or something! What a loon you are for thinking that!"

You have to read the entire policy Agenda to get a sense of vast scope of what they are proposing. It's huge. To get an idea of how the UN handles things when large sums of money are involved (carbon trading, support for sustainable development in 3rd world countries, and other policies require international transfers of large sums), you need only remember what happened with the Oil for Food Program.

You might also want to consider that the biggest embezzler from that program was Maurice Strong (he fled to China to escape prosecution) is also involved in the origins of Agenda 21 and helped craft the Rio convention and the initial IPCC report.

You forgot the fourth output from the groups: the "Synthesis Report", subtitled "Summary for Policymakers". This is where most of the information comes from that the media reports to the public.

Oh, it's subtly sprinkled throughout the reports as well as in companion plans from climate-change related UN organizations. For instance, on Page 17 of the summary is this not-so-subtle admonition to create a global governance structure:

Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale ... Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently. Cooperative responses, including international cooperation, are therefore required to effectively mitigate GHG emissions and address other climate change issues. The effectiveness of adaptation can be enhanced through complementary actions across levels, including international cooperation. The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.

And there's more on page 32 that hints at centralized planning as a requirement to avert global disaster:

International cooperation is critical for effective mitigation, even though mitigation can also have local co-benefits. Adaptation focuses primarily on local to national scale outcomes, but its effectiveness can be enhanced through coordination across governance scales, including international cooperation.

What do you think all the "cooperation across all governance scales" is all about, anyway? How would you interpret "Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales", and calling for new "effective institutions and governance"? Hmmm? All over the place in those reports.

That's because the IPCC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Sure, they use scientific studies to justify their political position, but the purpose of the document is to drive a political agenda, one that calls for centralized authority.

As was Agenda 21. Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change is the "threat" that the world's elites decided to use, and Agenda 21 is the "solution". It's an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave, global governance model for every aspect of human life, with specifics for how each parcel of land in the world will be used (see also the Wildlands Project, the land-use companion plan to Agenda 21.

... said every social science report EVER

No, actually, it's quite true. Just a few examples:

Dana Nuccitelli (of Skeptical Science - an AGW support blog) is actually employed at Tetra Tech (the big oil company).

Pew Charitable Trust's Center for Climate and Energy Solutions are principally funded by Royal Dutch Shell, HP, and Entergy Corp.

The World Wildlife Foundation also received a lot of funding from Royal Dutch Shell, and John Loudon (former Shell president) actually served as the WWF president for four years.

Standard Oil's charitable arm has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others.

Four companies sponsor Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project: Exxon General Electric Sluberger (Oil Field Services company) Toyota

This is easily fixed. They can do it the same way they do every time they think they've got a case against someone, but screw up and realize the prosecution will fail. They just find some other scapegoat and charge them with obstruction of justice. The preeminent example is the Martha Stewart case. The feds were going after Peter Bacanovic for insider trading. When they discovered they didn't the evidence to indict, they looked at all the people they talked to during the investigation and decided Martha Stewart had lied, so they went after her for obstruction.

They can do the same switch in this case. Can't convict a suspect because their phone is encrypted? Charge some high-profile Google or Apple executive with obstruction of justice instead.

If you really believe that is true, I suggest you provide a list of all the companies advertising on Dice looking for "source code vulnerability auditors." Can't find any? That's because companies pushing out commercial software don't give a crap. It's hard enough just getting the get-the-features-out-focused managers to get why you're spending time writing tests, much less doing code reviews to look for vulnerabilities. I've even heard them say things like "It's not necessary because I found this free tool on the Internet that scans all your code for that, so we don't need to do manual work like that."

From Webster's:

That's how it's been used since 1947 (it's not something newly made-up), and seems to fit your viewpoint. I only use it because there are totalitarians on the left and the right, and it seems to be the only term to fit both. It also implies the view that there should be no hard limits on the authority of the central state (like the Constitution was intended to impose), and that also seems to fit your viewpoint ("compromise" means the state wants control of 100% of your time, and when you object they "compromise" by allowing you to have some free time).

I find your statement disgusting and completely unacceptable. But I will defend to the death your right to say it. You'll probably have to start your own forum that nobody visits in order to say things like that though, as you will be summarily banned from forums owned by others. Exercising a right does not absolve you from responsibility or consequences.