You have no right not to deny vaccinations

submitted by jamesK_3rd from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Recently The Last American Vagabond deconstructed the loopholes and such.

    [–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Well, if you self-isolate as a hermit, you would not infect anyone, so you have a legal argument against them.

    [–]jamesK_3rd[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well regardless of his location, the person who feels in fear of being infected should self isolate or vaccinate themselves.

    It isn't incumbent upon him to vaccinate himself to protect the collective. The U.S. still values individual rights, not collective rights, though the last remnants of these ideas are being swept out swiftly.

    But if tthese vaccines are as effective as claims being made, any unvaccinated individual poses little risk to those who've been vaccinated.. Unless you're calling into question the efficacy of these vaccines... Are you??

    No, the declaration of independence says life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have the right to feel safe. Redo the constitution and the principles for which it stands(the declaration) if you want safety and security. There's a lot of folks, and states, who will be with you, of that i have no doubt.

    [–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I suspect the meaning of "life" and "pursuit of happiness" have a relative value. If there were a perfectly safe vaccine, what do you think of the following interpretations, in this context?

    • Life: the right not to be killed by viruses from other people
    • Pursuit of happiness: the right to move about freely, unvaccinated

    As far as I can see, it is a question of degree. If a virus meant certain death, and people went about spreading it, it would be tantamount to murder. But if it's "little risk", then the right to move about prevails.

    Is my view different from yours? (don't expect a reply from me soon; will go to sleep).