Tom Toles for February 04, 2015

Isn’t that also the vaccine for foot in mouth disease? I hope so, ‘cuz Christie’s got it bad. OTOH, he’s so very cute and entertaining just the way he is, and in any case he totally loves himself that way and ain’t gonna change for nobody.

Sen. Thom Tillis thinks laws requiring sanitary practices, such as restaurant employees washing one’s their hands after using the toilet, are unnecessary. A simpler method would be to require restaurants to post a sign describing what their sanitation practices and policies are, and patrons could read the sign and determine if they want to eat there.This raises the question of whether, in the absence inspectors and legal consequences, restaurants would be truthful in what went on those signs, and how patron would know? It reminds me of a controversy of many years ago in which a company was sued for deceiving its customers about the contents of its products. One side argued that there was an implied contract on the label: if the bakery says it is a one-pound loaf and you buy it based on that claim, it is a violation of that contract if in fact it is a 14-ounce loaf. The court ruled the other way, saying that a vendor was free to make whatever claim he liked about his products, and it was up to the consumer to beware of deceptions, and that to require that products be labeled truthfully was a violation of the principle of freedom of speech. I don’t think modern courts would look at it that way, but who knows? If we get enough regressives in the legislatures and the bench, perhaps we could get back to those halcyon days when there were no “nanny state” “anti-business” truth-in-labeling laws or health codes.

Vaccination is not something I do to protect MY children, it is something WE do to protect OUR children. Vaccinated people are like bricks in a wall holding infection in check: take out too many and the wall no longer serves its purpose.While of course we all acknowledge that a child is his parents’ property, and they have an absolute right to do to and with their own property as they please without interference (sarcasm alert), when what I do to or with my child may potentially kill or cripple your child, you most certainly ought to have something to say about it.

To allow people to opt out of immunization programs in the name of personal liberty is another instance of allowing anti-community ideology to trump science and knowledge. It’s a weird issue because many of the anti-vax crowd are “liberals” while the politicians who, for ideological reasons of their own, are defending the anti-vax movement, are like Christie “conservatives.” Personally, I don’t care whether they are liberal or conservative when their action threaten death and disability to so many people.

Your argument reminds me of the bullsh-t argument that if we allow gays to marry people will want to marry their pets.

So they give him lockjaw?

I mean, really, are the anti government folks ok with doing away with other laws that deal with public health, such as limiting the amount of rat droppings allowed in flour, or banning the slaughter of diseased cattle for meat? Stop “thinking” with your right brain, folks and be rational!

Look! You DO have a choice! In how you want to be devoured, that is.

Doughfoot: With the Supreme Legislature we have now, the same decision 5-4..Where did this “anti-vax liberals” charge come from? All the anti-vaxxers I know are red-necks with TV permanently tuned to Fox. [As for “full-disclosure”, when the measles vaccine went to efficacy testing, my kids were in that test group – safety testing was complete, so why not help society?]

+1, the best part is the two sheep looking at each other with contempt. Kind of like what I see here every day when reading comments….

That needle ain’t big enough.

I think we have to make a distinction in regard to what constitutes FORCING people to do something. There is a big difference between, say, charging someone a fine if they do not do something, or denying them a benefit, and FORCING them to do it. Are you being FORCED to drive the speed limit? Are you being FORCED to fill out a tax return? To say that it is dangerous to allow ones government to require certain behavior of people, is to say that it is dangerous to have laws, or law enforcement. If a behavior is destructive of the common good, society has a right to levy sanctions against that behavior. The question is, what sanctions are appropriate. It would be the first form of excess is the courts sentenced people to death for driving 100 mph on the interstate. Does that mean that levying fines for speeding is dangerous, because “once you criminalize speeding, where and how do we stop government from executing speeders?”When I say that some actions must be taken together, I don’t meet that people must be forced by any and all means to do something. I mean those actions won’t be effective unless with have a high degree of participation. How severe the penalty for non-participation should be depends on how much harm to the community will result from non-participation. Speeding is punished one way, murder another. Nobody wants to see non-vaxers thrown in jail, or their children kidnapped and injected against their will. That does not mean that nothing can therefore be done. One of the many fallacious means used against sensible arguments is the “reductio ad absurdum”: a favorite of polemicistsof all sorts.Your comment seems to be of that sort.