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-----

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.

-----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-----
>
>