From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.taxes
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:05:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.taxes
Distribution: usa,riggs@tec.army.mil,mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Apr9.014232.4438@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>From article <RJC.92Apr8214239@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, by rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley):
>> In article <1992Apr7.200154.28014@hal.com>, Minister of Silly Walks (mosw) writes:
>> 
>> mosw> The problem comes in that there is a lot of conflicting evidence,
>> mosw> both ways, as to the effectiveness of vaccination.  
>> 
>> Hm. Here's some one way, whooping cough epidemics come around regular
>> as clockwork each time the proportion of children being vaccinated
>> against the disease drops. this causes more parents to get their kids
>> vaccinated and that causes the incidence of the disease to drop which
>> causes fewer parents to bother to get their kids vaccinated which...
>> 
>> Anyway, this is pretty strong evidence that whooping cough vaccination
>> works. Now it's your turn, please come up with some evidence that
>> whooping cough vaccination does not work.
>
>It is not that it does not work.
>There is no doubt (at least to you and me) that it almost always works.
>
>That is not the issue.
>
>Both of my children were immunized because I wanted them to.
>(not because the school insisted)

	Logical, responsible parenting. No problems here.

>
>BUT, some children/adults have serious reactions - become disabled or die.

	This is factually correct.

>
>It is a value judgement whether the potential value exceeds the risk.
>I think it is worth the risk and so do you. But some people object for
>religious, medical, or other reasons.

	It is not a value judgement. It is an act of faith. Some people are
pessimistic by nature. Some are incapable of deciding based on powers 
beyond themselves. It is a fantasy of late 20th century America that such
decisions are not needed, either for the common good, or one's individual
well-being.

>
>It is this medical judgement that should not be forced on a person.

	Well, doctors do not "force" their medical judgements on people.
But I have yet to meet the doctor who didn't strongly urge the parents
to get with the program. In our "scientifically correct" society, we
are inclined to place our faith in people like doctors who become lightning
rods for responsibility. This is why there are malpractice suits.

>
>Anyone who is concerned about getting whooping cough should be allowed to get
>the shot and those who do not want should not be forced to get it.

	I suspect that the same kind of people who are likely to be afraid
of their kids' getting their shots are also those who need public assistance
to get their kids immunized (and whose kids are in the most danger of 
catching the whooping cough. Your statement is correct in theory - I've
posted similar thoughts recently - the difference being that the child
has no real choice in his/her parents' decisionmaking. The reason we have
social workers is that some of the population needs the right combination
of carrot and stick to "do the right thing." But on this issue, I think there
should be about 95% carrot and 5% stick, which is probably the more 
expensive way to get the job done. Justice sometimes costs money, which
is why the Libertarians lose again !


>---------------------------------------------------------
>I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
>a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
>---------------------------------------------------------

	But how do you feel about a government which promotes "good"
at your expense? Or is this just a value judgement on your part ?


	Bill R.
-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general