Hey Texas girls! Don't want/need vaccinated against STDs? Too bad...

[Helm]

Do you see laws for mandatory seatbelts, vaccines etc. unconstitutional (eg. limiting a person's freedom when it is done for a preemptive/preventative reason)?

If the only person getting hurt in a situation is the person making the choice (though someone raised an issue with people in the back seat crushing people in the front seat in a case of an accident sans seatbelts, and I'm sure it has happened, this sort of thing is a freak exception that can be applied to a host of things for which there is no mandatory precaution yet and nobody complains) like, let's go for the sake of clarity here with the lone motorbike driver or lone car driver and mandatory wearing of a helmet/seatbelt, then yes, the state telling you what to do with your own wellbeing at fear of fining and prosecution, is in my opinion a controversal point.

People should have the right to hurt themselves and to take their personal risks and chances. The state should educate more than it should regulate, and where it regulates, the citizenry should be VERY attentive to what power it passes to it for such means. Freedom is more important than well-being.

[Nikolas]

People should have the right to hurt themselves and to take their personal risks and chances. The state should educate more than it should regulate, and where it regulates, the citizenry should be VERY attentive to what power it passes to it for such means. Freedom is more important than well-being.

This is all nice for mature or thinking persons. But do you believe that 100% (or 99%) of the citizens in any country are mature enough to think for themselves? I would argue that a country with no laws, or at least with no "guides", mandatory or not, to help citizens, would probably crumble.

I mean it's all ok, when discussing over the forum and all that, but if you had not had the vacinations you had when you were 2-3 years old, then you could be dead by now. Or if not maybe crippled, or maybe unable to bear children (just a few examples...).

Point is: IF one wants to kill himself then I really don't mind. Either way +1 vacination, won't change that. But there are millions (me included of course) that are careless at some points in our lifes. May this be crossing the street where there is no traffic lights (what about traffic lights btw? Wouldn't the world be a better place without them telling us how to drive?), or taking a vacination, or being careless when I have sex with a complete stranger. Isn't it all pretty much the same?

BTW, education is a two way system. It's NOT only the state that educates, but also the citizens that get educated. And if one of the two is not doig a right job then... :-/

[biothlebop]

Freedom is more important than well-being.

This is quite hard for me, for I feel that I cannot take on the responsibility involved with complete freedom, and gladly exchange some of my freedom for well-being. Then again, this is how I have lived my entire life, and I guess I might even adapt to such circumstances, learn to be more cautious.

But when I look at America (which I still consider more free than my country), it seems like people are much more jumpy, media generates irrational fears like the athf bomb scare, and money exchanges hands to promise security.
The people still give up their freedom for well-being but do it individually, according to how much they can pay,
rich people live rather in nice suburbs, etc.

I guess I am only predisposed with opinions based on the big-brothering my state has provided my entire life, and
therefore usually only see the faults in systems different than mine. So thanks, this has been a slightly eye-opening thing for me, but I'll still have to evaluate if I value my freedom more than well-being (and how much of it I am prepared to give up). So, although you seem consistent in your reasoning, I don't know yet if I agree entirely. I'lll have to examine my own state's doings more carefully first.

[SSH]

Helm, while you may be correct in theory, in practice NOT making these immunisations mandatory would generally make two groups suffer most in the long term: the children of least educated (hence the poorest) and the children of the most religiously conservative. Most others will assume that the government recommendation is best. I'm not sure that this is the best possible outcome.

[MillsJROSS]

I'm not sure in which direction I should be arguing. Should I go to the theories of what I think is right or wrong, or point out the actualities of the current situation.


Driving: In theory it would be great if we were free to not buckle up and do whatever we wanted, like talk on cell phones. In actuality, this is the case. The right to travel is a fundamental right that the goverment can not take away from you, or use goverment action against you for it, as long as you're not damaging property. The only time you're really not allowed this right, is (for some reason), if you're driving with commercial purposes (I'm not sure why). However, there are a couple of things that prevent this from actually happening. One of the biggest reasons you have, is with a drivers liscence comes a contract that waives your rights to certain freedoms, and bounds you to the rules of the State. Even though this is a fundamental right, the beliefs of your law enforcers, legislators, and courts have been in error for the a while. Which means, even though you may be excersizing your right to this freedom (assuming you don't have liscence), the way the sytem works, makes it very difficult to get away with this right.

I, honestly, do think giving up some freedoms for some safety, isn't bad. It's only bad, when it's forced upon everyone. Giving up certain freedoms should be left to the individual.  (Under the logic that freedom doesn't cause injury on a person or their belongings).

-MillsJROSS

[Andail]

The typical freedom debate always struck me as rather artificial. There is no absolute freedom; one freedom takes away from another, at least in a macro perspective. Certain nations advocate the freedom of carrying guns. In return, their citizens miss out on the freedom of walking down a street without risking being gunned down. (Please don't turn this into a debate on gun-laws, I was just picking an example.) The freedom of personal integrity versus the liberty of press, etc, etc. Laws will always be compromises.

It's a completely different thing with the strife to attain personal freedom, but that has to be regarded more as a philosophical pursuit and not very applicable in a society. Submitting to various external procedures does not reduce your chance to actualise yourself, unless it's a matter of some sort of intellectual abuse.

[big brother]

I, honestly, do think giving up some freedoms for some safety, isn't bad. It's only bad, when it's forced upon everyone. Giving up certain freedoms should be left to the individual.  (Under the logic that freedom doesn't cause injury on a person or their belongings).

Isn't the freedom to exchange freedom for safety an example of freedom?

[esper]

It's a freedom not everyone wants to take advantage of, but the people who don't want to exercise their freedom in that particular way aren't free to do so.

[Andail]

This a bit paradoxal: If you trade away freedom, then you don't have the freedom to trade it back again.
There exist real examples though; certain casinos can let you choose to put yourself on their ban-list, to prevent addicts from gambling away their money. Of course, once on that list, they're not free to remove themselves until after a long period of time.

[The Ivy]

Forget freedom and democracy for a sec and think about what this is actually about.

Say there's a hypothetical virus that's spread by coughing, and that a large portion of the population carries it without ever having a problem. However, let's say 2% of them go on to develop lung cancer. A vaccine is developed. It's made mandatory for the population because cancer is bad, difficult and expensive to treat, etc. etc.

The only reason this vaccine is different is because
1) The virus happens to be spread sexually
2) Some people believe that only "bad" people get STI's, or that they're some kind of punishment for "bad" behaviour.

Frankly, I believe that religious considerations should always take a back seat when it's a matter of public safety. If a particular religious sect doesn't believe in medicine and instead trusts in god to heal them, should their children be exempted from the usual childhood innoculations?

[MillsJROSS]

Isn't the freedom to exchange freedom for safety an example of freedom?

It seems paradoxical, as mentioned, but the answer is no. The decision itself might be based on the freedoms I have, but after the decision is made, I have limited my freedom. Since I am a dynamic being, I might not like the choices I made previously, and may yet still be bound to them, regardless of the fact that I no longer wish to be bound. I could eleborate more, if you don't find my logic to be correct.

Frankly, I believe that religious considerations should always take a back seat when it's a matter of public safety. If a particular religious sect doesn't believe in medicine and instead trusts in god to heal them, should their children be exempted from the usual childhood innoculations?

While, I personally, agree that religion shouldn't take as big a part in our decision making. I do think, though, that if you're a religious person, you should have the ability to decide whether or not you want your kid to have a vaccine. You shouldn't, however, be able to decide if anyone outside your family should have to, or not have to take a vaccine. It should be a personal decision, and if that decision is based on religion, than so be it. If a parent doesn't want their kid to have a vaccine because they're afraid of their kid becoming sexually active, it's really up to the parent. Regardless of the fact that the cancer might be contracted in other ways. They should be free to decide these things by their own set of personal beliefs, not mine or anyone elses. And I should be able to decide these things by my own beliefs, and not be bound by someone elses.

-MillsJROSS

[Helm]

I never talked about absolute freedom, which it is correctly said that is traded for other benefits when one accepts a social contract. If you want to be totally free, go live in the wild and see how you fare up. There's a reason human beings came together in the first place: security.

My point of view was that sacrificing freedom for security, when it happens, it should happen after very careful consideration and always with failsafes, and never because the goverment is strong-arming something (or even worse, letting is slide under the table while nobody seems to pay attention). Andail is correct that the absolute freedom versus social limitation issue is largely academic (though neither artificial nor irrelevant to actual human affairs as he also implies) but this isn't the case I'm making.