The question is not, “Is the measles vaccine is safe and effective?” (I presume that it is.) The question is, “What are the limits of government power?” A person should not be forced to inject something into their body against their will. Period. Everyone else can take steps to defend themselves. Maybe not perfectly, but that is a price we pay for freedom. Neither government nor any majority should be able to use force against those who are peaceful and honest, and who don’t use any force or fraud against others.
Libertarian Perspectives 
My Libertarian friend,
No offense, but it appears to me that you’ve completely lost your mind.
LikeLike
John,
I was in a hurry when I wrote this blog. Here is the rest of the story:
If, for any reason, you do become infected with measles, then you must quarantine yourself or you will be committing physical aggressive force against others. Knowingly spreading disease is assault. If you will not self quarantine, then it is morally proper for people, or governments that they create, to use force to quarantine you against your will.
To summarize, governments should not use force to require vaccination, but they may use force to quarantine an infected person.
LikeLike
Kurt,
I respect your right to your opinion. But here’s what I really believe: In essence, you’ve gone off the deep end with your Libertarian beliefs. You seem blind to common-sense ideas and solutions. I’m with you 100% that we need to remain vigilant in protecting our liberties. However, in my opinion, requiring a relatively few to receive an injection against their (or their parents’) will, in order to protect many from contracting a potentially dangerous disease, is reasonable; I believe your position turns reason on its head.
LikeLike
I don’t think that common-sense or reasonableness is the issue. Those are words that are used when someone believes that the ends justify means.
My opinion stems from my philosophy that no one, including a group of people through their government, should be able to use force against a peaceful person. In such a case, the ends do not justify the means. In this case, an UNinfected person is peaceful. An infected person is not peaceful if that person does not self quarantine.
Individuals or groups who sacrifice a peaceful individual in order to achieve what they believe to be the greater good should be subject to appropriate punishment. Just like if you murder someone for what you believe to be a justified reason, you should be subject to punishment. It is very possible that a jury of your peers will agree with you and set you free. I actually don’t have a problem with that. If an impartial unanimous jury agrees with what you did, I will accept that, or if I don’t, I may be subject to punishment for my actions in response.
LikeLike
Kurt,
I think what bothers me the most is that, with you, there is never any gray area. Your precious “philosophy” can never be violated under any circumstances. What a boring approach to the wide array of issues of the day! You certainly aren’t the thinking man I once believed you to be. But that sentiment shouldn’t surprise you — after all, how much thought is required to determine whether something falls within your narrow view of things?
One final thought — if it weren’t for those aggressive, unpeaceful wascals back in the ’50s and early ’60s, the polio virus might still be with us today, instead of being virtually wiped out. And yes, you bet your boots, sometimes in the real world, the ends DO justify the means, any perceived injury to your so-called “peaceful persons” notwithstanding.
LikeLike
John,
You might be interested to know that I have been a member of Rotary International (Rotary club) for many years. One of our international goals has been the extermination of polio. I have given directly to our polio vaccination campaign a number of times. The problem is that all people will not agree to vaccination. i wish they would. But I would not be in favor of forcing them.
LikeLike