Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
camcc@abraxis.com (Alec) writes:
Tim,
There would be more room if your sig weren't so long. :->
Guys with short dicks use long sigs.
As you know, every year there are a certain number of child deaths as a result of reactions to state-mandated innoculations/vaccinations. Gone too?
Perhaps the difference, or rationale, here is the possible spread of disease to others, rather than trying to protect the individual from himself.
Suppose X chooses to innoculate their kids and Y chooses not to innoculate their kids against, say, polio; and Y's kids get it. They're not going to give it to someone whose parents chose to innoculate them. (This is a kind of borderline example, not unlike circumcision. The individual affected by the choice is too young to understand what it's all about, but doesn't want to be stuck with a needle. Why are the parents more qualified to make decisions for him than the state?) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
*sigh* I'm responding to Vulis... The short answer, perhaps, is that government should as a general rule adopt those policies that allow the greatest freedom over the long term. Private social pressure from families and communities may then develop into a more powerful force. -Declan On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
As you know, every year there are a certain number of child deaths as a result of reactions to state-mandated innoculations/vaccinations. Gone too?
Perhaps the difference, or rationale, here is the possible spread of disease to others, rather than trying to protect the individual from himself.
Suppose X chooses to innoculate their kids and Y chooses not to innoculate their kids against, say, polio; and Y's kids get it. They're not going to give it to someone whose parents chose to innoculate them. (This is a kind of borderline example, not unlike circumcision. The individual affected by the choice is too young to understand what it's all about, but doesn't want to be stuck with a needle. Why are the parents more qualified to make decisions for him than the state?)
---
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 11:54 AM -0500 3/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
*sigh* I'm responding to Vulis...
The short answer, perhaps, is that government should as a general rule adopt those policies that allow the greatest freedom over the long term. Private social pressure from families and communities may then develop into a more powerful force.
Precisely. One of the ways I look at this (it's a big topic, so there are lots of ways of looking at it) is that when Big Brother or Big Mommy makes decisions for people, they tend to lose their ability or desire to make moral choices for themselves and their families. As a sort of "Neo-Calvinist" (if you haven't seen my spiel on this, sorry but I don't have time now...try the archives), I think it profoundly immoral to take away the choices of others. If one's neighbor is not allowed to kill himself with drugs and alcohol, he is denied the ability to make a choice. (The issue of alcholics or drug users killing _others_ is of course a different, and separable, issue. I have nothing against drunk driving laws, for example.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <9HHR4D12w165w@bwalk.dm.com>, on 03/18/97 at 06:21 AM, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:
camcc@abraxis.com (Alec) writes:
Tim,
There would be more room if your sig weren't so long. :->
Guys with short dicks use long sigs.
As you know, every year there are a certain number of child deaths as a result of reactions to state-mandated innoculations/vaccinations. Gone too?
Perhaps the difference, or rationale, here is the possible spread of disease to others, rather than trying to protect the individual from himself.
Suppose X chooses to innoculate their kids and Y chooses not to innoculate their kids against, say, polio; and Y's kids get it. They're not going to give it to someone whose parents chose to innoculate them. (This is a kind of borderline example, not unlike circumcision. The individual affected by the choice is too young to understand what it's all about, but doesn't want to be stuck with a needle. Why are the parents more qualified to make decisions for him than the state?)
The issue of who is more qualified is irrelevent. The parents are the ONLY ones who have a right to determin the welfare of their childern. If the parents determin that the risks of reaction to the innoculation outways the benifits that choice is their's and their's alone. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Fuctionally Challenged" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000 iQCVAwUBMy89kI9Co1n+aLhhAQEwWwP/e2/NpvOnHwv0Ydh/NeHRio3kRTe0xzQY 5PxtjvW2/mjaRLvF8NoUtqyH1vUOXR3tWgDWv3TrG+EkUBr9HDq1ALIdWA2ZSYG5 YkYyA02pDQM4X80elX6HZeVDzUQZpkcW3mp7A59+jkvexn298yCGya17XFdjzhJs eWqIMdbuS+E= =m7Rw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:11 PM 3/18/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: *|-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- *| *| *|In <9HHR4D12w165w@bwalk.dm.com>, on 03/18/97 at 06:21 AM, *| dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said: *| *| *|>camcc@abraxis.com (Alec) writes: *| *|>> Tim, *|>> *|>> There would be more room if your sig weren't so long. :-> *| *|>Guys with short dicks use long sigs. *| *|>> As you know, every year there are a certain number of child deaths as a *|>> result of reactions to state-mandated innoculations/vaccinations. Gone too? *|>> *|>> Perhaps the difference, or rationale, here is the possible spread of disease *|>> to others, rather than trying to protect the individual from himself. *| *|>Suppose X chooses to innoculate their kids and Y chooses not to innoculate *|>their kids against, say, polio; and Y's kids get it. They're not going to *|>give it to someone whose parents chose to innoculate them. (This is a kind *|>of borderline example, not unlike circumcision. The individual affected *|>by the choice is too young to understand what it's all about, but doesn't *|>want to be stuck with a needle. Why are the parents more qualified to make *|>decisions for him than the state?) *| *|The issue of who is more qualified is irrelevent. *| *|The parents are the ONLY ones who have a right to determin the welfare of *|their childern. If the parents determin that the risks of reaction to the *|innoculation outways the benifits that choice is their's and their's alone. *| Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is not able to consent to such treatment for himself. In many instances courts have stepped in to authorize blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's Witnesses, who follow Biblical injunctions not to "eat" blood (Gen. 9:4). Recently the Church of Christ Scientist [?] has been under societal and governmental attack for insisting on substituting healers for medical teams even in cases of children afflicted by cancer accompanied by apparently unbearable pain. Parents most certainly are not the only ones to determine the welfare of their children; society has assumed a significant role and typically moves to protect the child from the parents or from the _beliefs_ of the parents. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMy9R7SKJGkNBIH7lAQEngAP8DfkEN5VDUz1dN5Nu2gVYXP8+dXDicO0v MU9OtzGRY4pNiissfcnPZsDOBIa8TVFMUsZFiUG3LT4QWV695pER6GcdIHVQr5Ui KMTyKNBNiUxMm3p3VjxeaF3/xoqXlRINN8VNdv7uekHEsgeB3l/Aa54MpI4CvARY sOkt83+xSfQ= =VTdX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yeah, children. They are a hard thing for anarchy. Looking back, Bukharin, Lenin, didn't have much to say about children, as people. OTOH, since the workers at that time included children, maybe the were justified in ignoring the issue and just robbing banks. Where, then, there was no FDIC.:) MacN If the sarcasm isn't dripping, scuse me I tried.
*| *|The parents are the ONLY ones who have a right to determin the welfare of *|their childern. If the parents determin that the risks of reaction to the *|innoculation outways the benifits that choice is their's and their's alone. *|
Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is not able to consent to such treatment for himself.
In many instances courts have stepped in to authorize blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's Witnesses, who follow Biblical injunctions not to "eat" blood (Gen. 9:4). Recently the Church of Christ Scientist [?] has been under societal and governmental attack for insisting on substituting healers for medical teams even in cases of children afflicted by cancer accompanied by apparently unbearable pain.
Parents most certainly are not the only ones to determine the welfare of their children; society has assumed a significant role and typically moves to protect the child from the parents or from the _beliefs_ of the parents.
Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5
iQCVAgUBMy9R7SKJGkNBIH7lAQEngAP8DfkEN5VDUz1dN5Nu2gVYXP8+dXDicO0v MU9OtzGRY4pNiissfcnPZsDOBIa8TVFMUsZFiUG3LT4QWV695pER6GcdIHVQr5Ui KMTyKNBNiUxMm3p3VjxeaF3/xoqXlRINN8VNdv7uekHEsgeB3l/Aa54MpI4CvARY sOkt83+xSfQ= =VTdX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William H. Geiger III wrote:
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:
Suppose X chooses to innoculate their kids and Y chooses not to innoculate their kids against, say, polio; and Y's kids get it. They're not going to give it to someone whose parents chose to innoculate them. (This is a kind of borderline example, not unlike circumcision. The individual affected by the choice is too young to understand what it's all about, but doesn't want to be stuck with a needle. Why are the parents more qualified to make decisions for him than the state?)
The issue of who is more qualified is irrelevent. The parents are the ONLY ones who have a right to determin the welfare of their childern. If the parents determin that the risks of reaction to the innoculation outways the benifits that choice is their's and their's alone.
I inherited three kids (9, 11, and 13) in November, and am starting to get used to the schools' intrusions just now. So far, I've prepared one form for the kids to hand to the teacher when there is an off-campus trip scheduled. Like who's driving, are they certified by the school board, chaperones (who are they), etc. Recently they did a surprise dental inspection of the youngest kid. I'm preparing a form to tell the schools that any certification they require on the kids as to health, etc. will be provided by our doctors, not theirs, so the kids can skip their inspections. So far I haven't met with any serious opposition, but who knows? (I'm informing them that I'm a Puritan, and follow very strict religious practices) Today's Long Beach paper had an extensive article on "pregnancy counciling support groups" for sixth grade girls (in Santa Ana?), and the "support groups" were mandatory. Religious fundamentalists are certain to hit the ceiling on this one - not just the increase in sexual awareness aspect, but the hoodoo-voodoo aspect of a "support" group that smacks of New Age practices (their article, not mine). According to the article, the groups have an amazing record, i.e., pregnancies down by 80% or more among the teenage girls.
participants (7)
-
camcc＠abraxis.com -
Dale Thorn -
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Mac Norton -
Timothy C. May -
William H. Geiger III