Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

Perhaps that is the view of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that you Canadians are used to. If so, I am not going to dispute what you say when you apply it to Canadians. But that's not how things work here. If you want to start calling having a job some kind of privilege, you are going to have to subtract rights and privileges that people already enjoy before you start doling them out as carrots. You've admitted exactly that. Such policy is rightly considered a stick.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You replied to me. If you think what I have to say is dumb, then leave it alone.Sensible readers will realize I was talking about following the bus through its route and not simply being behind the bus.Anyone who's ever been followed by someone else knows what it's like; they know how it's different than there being someone who is 'just behind them'.And any busdriver worth a damn should be equally as wise.

Why should I have to opt out when the contract changes? It is you that wants to change the agreement. Why don't you leave?

I am suggesting that every time we have to coerce people into behaving a certain way that our society becomes weaker. Yes the strength comes from the willingness of the individual to subordinate their desires. The willingness comes when they understand that the apparent subordination is actually in their best interest. When they don't understand that and instead feel forced to go against their own conscience then that strength is lost.You are right that society is an extended family. I have been brow beating my wife for quite awhile now about this issue and I am making some progress. Were I to move ahead unilaterally the cost would be substantial. It would be a breach of trust and an assumption of inequality. This is not compatible with my idea of a family.

I empathize with your situation. When Mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy. There is not much in this world that is worth alienating ones family over.Presently your law does not compel vaccination so you do not have to do it. You can do what you see as best in your personal situation and I cannot fault that. In fact I support that.Let's set aside your personal situation as settled and get on to what I believe is the greater issue.You acknowledge that vaccinations are effective and are of benefit to children, the population and to society as a whole. Correct me if I have misread this but I think you also agree that unvaccinated children can present a danger to other children and, if the population of unvaccinated is large enough, can present a real danger to society at large. I think both the Pennsylvania and California cases point this up quite dramatically.The problem here is that we are dealing with people and despite the fact that the writing is on the wall in big red letters for everyone to see, nothing becomes a real problem for most of us until it walks up to us personally and kicks us in the balls. Then, of course, the screaming starts, "Well, why didn't you do anything about this before the kids started dying!" oblivious to the fact that they are screaming into a mirror.Eventually the law will catch up to the reality and some requirement for vaccination will come about. At that point the issue of "rights" will come up.What I hear from you is that you see such a requirement as some kind of diminution of your individual rights.I submit that, in this case, you have no such individual right. You have no right to put my children in jeopardy. You have no right to harm me. I deny you any such right to cause me suffering and to place my children in harms way.And you will deny me any such right as well.It is this taking by groups onto themselves an assumption of a "right" to place others in danger just for their own selfish purposes that free people take up arms against.You have no right to harm me and my children by your action or inaction and I have no right to so harm you and yours. We each deny the other, and all others as well, any such individual right.Compulsory vaccination is not some restriction on your "right" to cause harm but is an acknowledgement that no such right ever existed.Agreed? Edited by AZPaul3, : add

Yes, I would say having a job is a privilege. The basic necessities of life are a right but the ability to give something back is a privilege. (It is more blessed to give than to receive.)Again, if you understood the carrot/stick scenario, you'd be able to tell the difference between a carrot and a stick.

I'm not talking about coercion. I'm talking about motivation.

In what way? Who's granting the privilege, the employer?Would they be the one to demand that you be vaccinated?

Society. Yes.

How so?That just doesn't make sense to me. I go up to a guy and say: "I'll shine your shoes for a dollar." and he's says okay, then I shine his shoes and he gives me a dollar.Where does society enter in and grant me that privilege of having that job? The employer? Or society?

Did you invent the shoe-shine? Combine the chemicals? Weave the shining rag?Did the other guy make the shoes on his feet? Kill the calf? Tan the leather?Did either of you construct the streets, buildings, or sidewalks and make them dusty and dangerous for a nice pair of shoes?Society makes the interaction possible in almost all ways except for the random chance that put you with your shoe shine serendipitously in front of a fool with scuffed shoes.Because society has been so instrumental in making this interaction possible, society has some basic right to involvement in that interaction.And that is beyond the simple fact that societythe people and their governmenthas the power to involve itself in that interaction and can therefore do so as it pleases.

No disagreement here.But don't we all have access to those resources?So, how does all that mean society granted me the privilege of having that job?Anybody could have shined the guys shoes for a dollar. I went up and did it, how was I granted a privilege by society?

It has granted everyone with access to those resources the privilege of having that job.

If its granted to everyone then it isn't a privilege.A privilege is given to some people and not others.

I didn't say it was granted to 'everyone'. I said it was granted to 'everyone with access to those resources'. How many shoe-shining transactions do you think take place in the remote jungles of South America?