Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

======= =Rebuttal= ======= "My core value is Justice." I'm glad to here that. Unfortunately, CON has provided no reason that justice should be the 'core value' of anything else, namely this round. --- "First, government is the only entity with the right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Giving this power to any other entity justifies community witch hunts, lynch mobs, and vigilante justice." Why is this a reason that the government should preserve natural rights at all? All CON is saying is that the government can compel people to do things. If anything, this is contradictory to his claim that the government must preserve natual rights, since according to this point, the government can compel us to give our rights up. --- "Second, public health is within the government's purview because all questions of overall community welfare must be addressed by the government. This idea stems from social contract theory." Again, I'm not really seeing the connection between this statement and CON's criterion. How does this in any way mean that the government must protect natual rights? --- "Third, granting any other entity the right to compel individuals to get immunized would erode governmental authority and encourage anarchy." 1. This is the exact same thing he said in his 'First' point. 2. It still has nothing to do with natural rights. --- CONTENTION 1: A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE NATURAL RIGHTS. Well, instead of posting any thoughts of his own, CON just copies the words of William Channing and calls it a contention. It doesn't matter, since Channing contradicts my opponent any way. He argues that the government's "highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful." In that instance, protecting the weak from the powerful supercedes preserving natural rights (in this instance, those of the powerful.) --- CONTENTION 2: NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR THE 'GREATER GOOD.' I would suggest to my opponent here that he actually read the book that he has quoted his entire contention (yet again) from. Rawlsian philosophy is about as far from 'to each his own' as one could get. Rawls's concept of justice is not that we allow everybody to do what he will with his own possessions (in this case, his rights) but that we ought to redistribute wealth so that everyone in society has equal benefit. [1][2] --- CONTENTION 3: COMPULSORY VACCINATION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. "anti-vaccinationists raise the classic American values of freedom and individualism" -and vaccinationists raise the classic American values of not dying "Groups opposed to government interference in personal lives vociferously argue that no one, especially not the state, can dictate what they can do with their body" 1. This contradicts my opponent's previous claim that: "government [can] compel individuals to behave in specific ways" 2. Who cares? Why does it matter what these 'groups' think? 3. The groups I formed have argued that the government can not not dictate what they can do with their bodies. "In fact, nearly 4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination argue that current U.S. immunization laws are a violation of civil liberties." Despite the credibility of "4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination," a slightly more credible source known as the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory immunization is entirely constitutional. [3] "Antivaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as abusive, untrustworthy and paternalistic." -But vaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as jovial, warm-hearted, merry old souls. "Resisting forced immunization, on the other hand, is equated with the noble fight against government oppression." -Resisting forced immunization, on the other other hand, is equated with children whining about getting shots. --- CONTENTION 4: COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO GET VACCINATED VIOLATES A GOVERNMENTS LEGITIMACY. Not a word of this is in my opponent's own words. For the 4th time, he has just cited some other person as a stand-alone contention. However, this entire spiel by Younkins never even once contains the worlds 'vaccination' or 'immunization' ========= =Affirmative= ========= The standard is public health, as explicitly stated by the resolution. My opponent stated in his observation that: "the Neg does not have to prove that all immunizations are bad, and that immunizations are not affective, just that immunization should never be made compulsory." Thus, as long as I can give instances where immunization can be made compulsory, I've fulfilled my burden. 1. Immunizing animals who refuse to allow veterinarians to vaccinate them voluntarily A. This hampers the spread of rabies. B. This allows veterinarians to fulfill their job of providing for the wishes of the pet's owner. C. This prevents terrorist attacks of live stock as a method to wreak havoc. D. This better protects us from future diseases stemming originally from animals (Bubonic Plague, Swine Flu, Bird Flu) 2. Immunizing felons with the cocaine vaccine. A. Felons have no claim to rights since they have violated the rights of others. B. Felons can't be trusted to act in the best interest of society. C. Drug use costs America $100 billion annually in total social costs. [4] D. Many felons resist immunization simply out of a lack of willpower to fight their addiction. 3. Immunizing an area after a bioterror attack. A. Not doing so allows the disease to spread to other areas, causing further damage. B. The quicker the disease outbreak is eradicated, the less it costs society in health care/reparation. C. This makes terrorists less satisfied with their results. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://www.fas.org... [4] http://papers.ssrn.com...