So if there is an outbreak of measles, you think the state should be rendered impotent, that the lives of others who, for a number of reasons, do not have the luxury of choice over vaccinations (the very young and immuno-compromised people) should be sacrificed on your altar of absolute liberties?
Nope. As a libertarian and a physician I have absolutely no problems with government quarantining people who are infected or may be infected. I have no problem with the government offering free vaccines for epidemic diseases (not STDs) for people who can't afford it, and it's one of the few areas I don't mind the government spending taxes to help foreign nations.
I do have a problem with the government telling me what kind of medicine I have to take and by extension what kinds I have to give my kids. I get a vaccine for pretty much everything I can just because I can, but I will be the one to decide what I do and don't put into my body. From a moral and ethical stand point I have no problems with people opting out.
In addition anything the government mandates runs the risk of abuse. Who chooses what immunizations make the cut? MMR? Smallpox? Chicken Pox? What about HPV? How much rigging the system will the pharmaceutical companies do to get the new canker sore vaccine included or include something that's not nearly as effective as they claim?
Or, to put things more simply, you should be allowed to be a carrier of harmful diseases, and anyone that objects can go get fucked, and if any of them are harmed via your decision, well, too fucking bad.
If by your actions you knowingly put others at risk you should be criminally and civilly liable. It's the same a people who know they have AIDS then go have bare back sex with others without telling them. Those people go to jail for attempted murder. You take your kid who you know has to Disney? I have no problem with arresting them for that. I also don't have a problem with them facing other consequences like if you don't vaccinate your kid he/she can't go to a public school.
Your characterizations of Libertarians is way off base. You might want to try to speak with a few before you claim us all as heretics.
tea party? The tea party has major corporate backers.
try being an occupy supporter.
So Soros isn't a major corporate backer?
She orders two more online (and gets them shipped to the store instead of her home, I don't know why) and goes to pick them up
Since she's Chinese I'd guess it's because she didn't want to pay for shipping. Same reason I have to go to the Mapple store tomorrow to pick up some iPads. *sigh*
A bajillion years ago when I went to college we had an intro to computer course that was the same kind of thing. How to send e-mail, use word and maybe something else like that. I ended up failing the class because I was so bored I never went.
I went to the head of my department, explained what happened and asked if I could take a higher level course and count that as the Intro to Computing credits. He took a look at the course description of the new class I wanted to take, he approved it, I got an A, credits satisfied, case closed.
True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted. What happened with that?
- - continued the Bush bailout policy
- - stayed in the Bush started wars, later started new ones
- - continued Bush violations of civil rights, and started new programs to curtail rights
- - continued Bush's tactic of screaming terrorist to take away those rights
- - continued torture and "secret" prisons started under bush
- - not only took no steps to reduce the deficit but ramped it up.
So the upside of Bush's 3rd term has been?