We've seen in recent weeks arguments being made in the media that vaccination should become compulsory; with being unvaccinated compared to drink driving.
Obviously I'm quite against compulsory vaccination. The body is sovereign in my eyes, and I would hope most other people share this view. However, the mainstream media can be quite persuasive, and as almost all people support things like drink driving laws the comparison can be quite difficult to counter when first confronted with it.
[We've dealt with similar arguments over the course of this crisis. With other things, such as mask mandates, being compared to seatbelts and other restrictions placed on driving.
See: Drive an inch, take a mile ]
Ultimately, unless you're a total libertarian, where you draw the line on state infringements upon liberty will be a personal judgement. It's a balance, which we all weigh up slightly differently. However, some infringements are clearly more serious than others and you would hope that most people would be honest enough to at least acknowledge this.
Most people instinctively understand that compulsory vaccination is much more serious an intrusion than restrictions on driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol. It can be hard to explain this understanding though when caught on the hop. Especially when the argument is reduced to a simplistic:
"Well, you accept this one infringement in the interest of public safety; therefore the argument is settled and you must accept this new infringement too."
A little list..
Anyway, I've been listing the reasons why the two things are different. In the hope that I can put together a simple and robust refutation.
For the time being it's fairly rough, but I'll note it down now as a springboard towards something a bit more neat and fully formed.
- Being stopped from driving whilst drunk doesn't endanger you, whereas with vaccines there's a risk to health, however small.
- It sets a precedent for other compulsory medication. Why not mandate flu vaccines for similar reasons?
- Once the right to say "No" is removed it will result in diminishing standards (see the cake example below).
- Cars are heavy machines that amplify human agency - meaning it's harder for an individual to choose to avoid an oncoming high speed vehicle. Whereas you can choose who you do and don't interact with.
- Likewise the weight of a car makes death or injury highly likely. Whereas the risk of death or injury from walking past someone and potentially catching a virus is incredibly low.
- It's almost impossible to prove that someone has caused death by infecting another person with a virus - especially when you take into account the fact that both people choose to interact with each other. Whereas if a drunk driver runs someone over culpability is obvious.
- Restricting people's access to work, healthcare, supermarkets, etc because they're not vaccinated causes harm. Particularly if people are not free to set up their own healthcare, work, supermarkets, etc that do not require vaccination.
There are also some other, more politik reasons.
- The people pushing this have
lied from day one- sorry, I'll put that a little more kindly - have continually shifted the goalposts. "Three weeks to flatten the curve" .. and so forth. - Once adults have been forced, children will be next.
- The conflation of vaccines with vaccine passports and apps means social credit systems and the like will become more realistic possibilities.
Returning to the idea that it's virtually impossible to convict someone in court of murder via accidental flu spread. It's conversely the case that people have been prosecuted for forcing medication on people against their will.
So to allow the latter to prevent the former is just absurd.
*******************
the cake example..
(click to enlarge)
No comments:
Post a Comment