Ah... perhaps I left something out.

How do you get the herd vaccinated? ..in a free society that is.

I got a zealot, sweet! I was fishing for someone like this.

Ok, fair enough. Can I choose to opt-out? If so I agree entirely. (opt-out means totally, as in not paying for it, and not required to do anything at all in regards to it.)

Well.. a child has rights of his own. A parent is a ward of that child nothing more. That being said you have a right to not do whatever you would like to not do. Philosophically the Lockean Theory of rights operates in a negative seance, so a "right" or a "freedom" could never compel you to take action. Now if you harm that child, it may be in that child interest to seek a new ward, but the child is the one who should make that decision (when they are able to communicate.) Many do too they "run away" I think that's fine.. most come back but sometimes there are good reasons for this action. Freedom does require you to have to allow people to make choices you don't agree with.

I wasn't talking about a child. Will you mandate vaccine for adults? What would happen to me if I say no to that? Will you kill me?

I'm an anarchist. I don't believe in government. The reason why is because whereas there are people who think they represent government, and there are building that are called government buildings.. nobody have ever been able to show me what government actually is beyond that of what is called a "body corporate" (or body politic). In other words, created in law, a type of "legal fiction". All governments exist in the minds of men, (or are nothing more physically than a document lying in some file cabinet somewhere.)

In subscribing to a kind of mass religion, there are a great many people out there today who do actually believe in government. they believe it's "the government" not people who solve problems, or that "the government" requires them to do various things, not the police man with the gun..

So you can see.. just because a majority of the people believe in something, it doesn't make it true.

Beyond this..

How do you intend to "get enough people vaccinated"?
What type of assurance do you have that that year old flu shot will work on todays virus?

What do you mean by "Its also questionable if freedom should allow you to let your child suffer and possibly die if a cure exists."?

Freedom is freedom, you can't redefine what freedom *should* be. It is what it is. "if freedom should allow" what kind of bullshit statement is that?

The very last question I have for you is.. If you mandate a vaccine, and I think you would be in favor of that given your attitude.. What will you have done to me if I say no?

Well, lets say I don't believe they work. Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't believe antibodies fight anything at all and I choose not to get them.

Now what will you do to me?

I see, so what your saying is they don't work.

So in other words they don't work.

Risk? What risk? How could someone who takes a vaccine (and thus becomes protected) be "at risk" from someone who did not?

Are you saying vaccines *DON'T* actually work? Then why would it matter if Jenny McCarthy was wrong?

So the government says their vaccines don't cause Autism and you can't sue the crap out of their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. No? Merck has been trying to make Gardasil mandatory. God know how much they spend on lobbying.

Yeah, I get why the court ruled the way they did. The thing I don't understand here is.. if vaccines actually work.. then why is it that the people who take them get all freaked out when you tell them you don't. If you believe they work and your child got one then you believe your child is safe from one that didn't get one right? Why mandate by law that every child get them?

I don't want to argue if they work or not.. I don't know, I'm not that smart.. all I want to ask is why can't people have a choice in the matter? What's with you anti-freedom Nazi's pushing vaccines on peoples children?

They pass this I'm moving.

Goodbye police state Washington, goodbye Seattle, it was fun paying your incredibly high sales and gas taxes.

Just get rid of the zoning laws so my work doesn't have to be 30 miles away from my house. Traffic problem solved.

Man I hate City Planners..

"Ohh no no no nooo citizen.. *THAT* does not go *THERE*. :snobbish laugh: You see it is only *I* who have been given the divine authority to plan this city, only *I* that has the wisdom to know where you should build your house! You wouldn't want some rabble present trying to build a.. :gasp: pig Farm next to your condo would you. (you interject something about land values and how pig farms would probbly choose cheap land..) YOU DISREGARD citizen such things! For it is *I* your majestic CITY PLANNER who decides these "land values" you speak of!"

Ya know.. When we decide to rid ourselves of 1/3 of our useless population.. these bastards should be first on the ship.

This conversations pretty old and .. I only have a short bit to add a guess and that is.

If it's true that I somehow owe people before me for the "security of" this land, or something like that.. I'm not actually able to repay that debt to them as they are dead and gone. I don't believe collectives exist outside of the individuals that make them up so I couldn't possibly owe a debt to the general abstraction known as "the people". I mean.. if it's a real debt.. how much is it and who exactly would I pay it too?

Just a small note:

Sea Steading is a real idea.. http://seasteading.org/ (run by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman) and as early as *last year* Montana threatened to secede.

Holey crap, way to go Montana!

The state of the souths economy would have been just fine if it wasn't for the restrictive tariffs the north imposed (and intended to impose) upon them. Lincoln blamed the recession of 1857 on the south. "Vote yourself a tariff" was actually one of his campaign slogans. If you can fairly export than you can buy whatever you need from others, there is no reason to go to war if you can fairly trade with others, but that kind of trade policy was not advantageous to the northern states. A one size fits all trade policy could not work (thus that in itself is an argument for peacefully dissolving the union.)

I don't know why it matters if they are "paramilitary militia" or farmers.. but..

Legally, I believe it comes down to the fact of land ownership. In the United States it's impossible to own land in an allodial title because all land in the united states is subject to expropriation by the federal government (by eminent domain under the 5th Amendment.) I believe Texas is one of those states that will allow an allodial title, but I believe the Federal government could trump it. In order to actually own it they would have to sign a treaty with the United States government granting them sovereignty over that land....... however... In the case of the Lakota Indian tribe, they have presented a case that shows the Federal Government has violated the former treaties signed them and that they retain the sovereignty of their land in breach of those treaties. Landholding before the creation of a state or even the united states *are* recognized by law. So I think they have a much more reasonable case than a "paramilitary militia" group. You can look into that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah It's really kind of interesting how they are attempting to go about it, and yes I actually support them in doing it, I'm originally from Montana and I can tell you there are few people there that see anything good at all from the federal government. .. So far the Federal Government has ignored them, and Lakotah has stated they will not attempt to use force.. so this should be interesting..

So legally there is some problems, but morally, I absolutely believe it is right.. Those people did not agree to the Constitution, and governments should be voluntary. I'm sorry if that throws a big kink in the whole works but this is what I believe is right. I don't believe it's right to forcefully control others or force them to adhere to your rules and laws. You can act in defense against an aggressor, but when you encourage force or enforce laws that 19 century philosopher Lysander Spooner would call a vice, or crimes that have no true victim, on unwilling people then YOU become the aggressor. I believe that it's wrong force on other men? Am I in error for that belief?

And the argument is indeed "kill them to prevent them from leaving" For if those "paramilitary militia" people intend to defend themselves and "their" land from the aggression of the state.. they will be killed. Your not allowed to say no to the government. If you do, at first they will threaten you and fine you, if you continue to say no, they will send men with guns to your house and attempt to put you in a cage.. if you fight those men and continue to say no.. they will kill you. Don't pretend that our government is not capable of barbaric acts of violence against people.. because it is.

I find the symbolism of much of Washington.. disturbing. Where as you say it shows the power rests with the people.. why are the people still then bound?

Regardless, that's of a minor issue. More to the topic, why do you believe the civil war was a good idea?

Let's pretend the South had never fired upon Fort Sumter. What then would be justification for open war with the South? (technically and legally the Unions occupation of Fort Sumter was illegal, but we can never mind that.) Why should states and the people in them be forbidden from leaving the union if they so desire?

What if the State of.. ohh I don't know.. Alaska, holds a vote and 90% of the people vote to succeed from the United States. In your opinion, is it a good idea to kill them to prevent them from doing so?

I believe if people can voluntarily form unions, then they can also disband them.. but it would appear it's not a voluntary thing.. at least not according to Lincoln.