public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I will certainly keep to LD format. One thing to note quickly: My opponent's case only covers the scope of the US. ("I contend that the US government uses language alteration to manipulate the way people feel. ") ======= Definitions ======= WebMD defines Public Health Concerns as Society's interest in assuring conditions in which people can be healthy Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Compulsory as Mandatory; and Immunization as a process that increases the ability to resist or overcome infection ======= Framework ======= I agree with my opponent that we should look to Locke's Social Contract. (. http://plato.stanford.edu...) Let's just be clear of what Locke says the duty of government actually is in social contract. "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good. " "[Man] has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it. " --- Now my opponent says: Locke emphasizes the importance of personal property and freedom to do with that property what the owner pleases. However, this is not what his quote proves. Locke said "a LIBERTY to follow my own Will in all things, WHERE THE RULE PRESCRIBES NOT. " As the political theorist Hanna Fenichel Pitkin has observed, liberty implies a system of rules, a "network of restraint and order," hence the word's close association with political life. (. http://www.wehaitians.com...) As Locke says, we have liberty, freedom where the rule prescribes not. We can do whatever we want so long as we follow the law. Creating laws does not restrict liberty, as people can still do whatever they choose under the law; creating laws restricts freedom. ======= Contention ======= My only contention is that compulsory immunization is justified under Locke's Social Contract. Social Contract gives the government power to act in society's general interest. Compulsory immunizations are in society's general interest. A. Parens Patriae Parens Patriae is Latin for "father of the nation. " In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The government can step in to protect the general interest of children and this is no exception. Most vaccinations are given to children, and a parent who refuses to give vaccines to their children is certainly endangering them. There is no reason why the government couldn't step in and compel the child to be vaccinated if the parent refuses. B. Biological Warfare & Bioterrorism Let's say that Chicago is hit with an Anthrax bomb. It is spread through Chicago and many people inside are infected. The government, to protect the rest of America, ought to be able to isolate the vaccine. This would require all people in and around Chicago to be immune. Those few who would exempt the vaccine could transmit the disease to another city and start the epidemic all over again. Compulsory vaccination is necessary in such instances to stop the spread of these biological agents. C. Disease Extinction This is seen with multiple diseases, such as smallpox and polio, the vaccines for which have been made mandatory. Polio killed 30,000 per year in the US prior to the mandated vaccination in 1984. Shortly afterwards, the disease was all but eradicated in the US and confined to 2-3,000 cases worldwide. Scientists have posited that removing all exemptions could exterminate it completely. This is the benefit of compulsory immunization. 1-2 generations with 99.9% vaccination rates is enough to kill these diseases permanently. Compulsory immunizations are clearly for the overall public good. Read the 1st quote under 'Framework'. I win the debate right here because Locke's Social Contract allows the government to justify action in the name of the public good. ====== His Case ====== A. 'Manipulating language' doesn't do what he says it does. Simply using a word with a positive connotation isn't unjust. At the point 'immunization' means the same thing as 'vaccination', just has a more positive tone, there is nothing unjust about using 1 over the other, because the same message is being conveyed. I don't think we can call democracy just and still assume that people are too stupid to reason for themselves. B. "There are a few words that the media uses to manipulate the thoughts on immunizations and viruses" "the media intentionally takes advantage of people" "the media is intentionally manipulating our opinions" His Conclusion: "a government manipulating its people through the alteration of language is denying individual liberty" You see the problem? He consistently blames the media, privately owned companies, for skewing data on immunization among other things with their sugar-coated language. He then somehow concludes that the government is denying us individual liberty. The government shouldn't be able to control the media (freedom of speech), so anything the media says can't be attributed to governmental injustice. C. "viruses cannot be cured; only treated. " We are not debating a 'cure' for anything. We are debating 'immunization' from disease. Viruses CAN be prevented with 99-100% effectiveness in many cases. D. "[Immunization] is intended to make a person free from the necessity of fighting a disease" He continuously contends that immunity somehow means, or meant, freedom. That's not quite the right word. Immunity is protection, not freedom. I am protected from disease with an immunization. I am protected from the law if I have diplomatic immunity. If I am immune, I am protected, not free. Therefore his idea of the government contradicting itself by saying "compulsory freedom" is unfounded. Compulsory immunization is "compulsory protection. " E. There is no link! Even if he proves that governments are abusing us by feeding us misinformation (I have no idea how he would), what does it have to do with this resolution? Is having compulsory immunizations going to increase the amount of propaganda? Will propaganda decrease? I don't see why him choosing an issue unrelated to immunizations and ranting about it constitutes and argument. He has to prove that compulsory immunization is not justified, and simply stating 'the government abuses us through language' doesn't prove anything of the sort! ====== Summary ====== He sets a standard in this round of John Locke's Social Contract. He then misinterprets it and fails to meet that misinterpreted standard anyway. He rants on and on about an issue that doesn't even exist, that the government has no control over, and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, you look to my case. I clearly meet the standard that he sets of abiding by social contract. Locke clearly outlines that the government must act in favor of societal good. I have certainly proved that immunization being made compulsory would certainly benefit society. This is a clear PRO vote.