If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public school

[Fisherking]

You know, I would be perfectly happy if you all could surrender your rights without it impacting me.

You love it when government cares for you so much.

Forced vaccinations, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, and other things done in your name are all just fine. Taking the rights of others for the greater good is fine and dandy.

Rights are distant and never anything you concern your self with. Rights are for other people to worry about. You never use them anyway.

Well, rights are something you don’t miss until you don’t have them. And by the way, then it is too late.

The level of your wisdom and comprehension is just beyond belief.

I am sure you will take that as a compliment.

[Pannonian]

You know, I would be perfectly happy if you all could surrender your rights without it impacting me.

You love it when government cares for you so much.

Forced vaccinations, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, and other things done in your name are all just fine. Taking the rights of others for the greater good is fine and dandy.

Rights are distant and never anything you concern your self with. Rights are for other people to worry about. You never use them anyway.

Well, rights are something you don’t miss until you don’t have them. And by the way, then it is too late.

The level of your wisdom and comprehension is just beyond belief.

I am sure you will take that as a compliment.

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

[Fisherking]

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

[HoreTore]

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

Do you disagree with mandatory education?

[Pannonian]

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

I see it as something akin to a deadlier version of playing horrendously loud music at ungodly hours. You're not allowed to play music at innard-shaking volumes at 1 in the morning, as it's disturbing your neighbours, and you do not have sole ownership of the area affected by your music. But loud music doesn't threaten life. Sending your unvaccinated kid, because you don't believe in vaccinations, into a school where there are other kids who are too young to be vaccinated, does threaten the lives of those other kids. You're not just making the choice for your kid, you're making the choice for those other kids too, at a stage when they're most vulnerable to the choice you're making. What gives you the right to make the choice for them?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I... But loud music doesn't threaten life....?

Are you so sure?

[Papewaio]

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

Most people don't own their property. Real Estate is really only a long term lease. Just see what happens when you don't pay your mortgage or a wider road needs to be put through your property or a miner finds valuables beneath the topsoil.

[Fisherking]

Most people don't own their property. Real Estate is really only a long term lease. Just see what happens when you don't pay your mortgage or a wider road needs to be put through your property or a miner finds valuables beneath the topsoil.

Yes, government and you. Just how is this supposed to be a good thing?

[Greyblades]

Becuase the alternative is worse? Seriously rage against the government all you want, they're still the closest thing in america to an entity that's both out to defend your interests and powerful enough to be successful. The government wants to evict you they at least give lipservice to rights and tries to pay you off, a coporation would just kick you out.

[Fisherking]

Becuase the alternative is worse? Seriously rage against the government all you want, they're still the closest thing in america to an entity that's both out to defend your interests and powerful enough to be successful. The government wants to evict you they at least give lipservice to rights and tries to pay you off, a coporation would just kick you out.

Brilliant! Who gave your property to a corporation? Was it the government and the twisting of laws? Who created corporations and gave them rights? What protects them or gives the supremacy over you?

The state has a monopoly on violence and coercion.


Most of you are narrowly focused on this one thing and believe it will go no further and never think of unintended consequence. You willingly sacrifice your rights and the rights of others for a good cause and never suspect that it could ever be used to harm you.

I am sure you are bored by all this because you have heard it all before. I will just bore you a bit more with a couple of quotes.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."

Lord Acton

[Papewaio]

Yes, government and you. Just how is this supposed to be a good thing?

Government is the collective you.

Government is the collective allowing the I to do more. Educate, build infrastructure, protect and serve. Ideally the government is a positive force multiplier for its citizens.

Corporations supposedly are only there to profit their shareholders. If that is their only mandate then they do need to have limits placed on them by the collective you.

Democracy/Republicanism are currently the best fit. Got a better system I'm all ears.

[Kadagar_AV]

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

Easy, unvaccinated kids could be marked as such. Possibly with a yellow star or something

This debate is about public schools... If you don't want your kids to hang out with unvaccinated kids, send them to public school. If you don't mind them being around unvaccinated kids, send them to private christian schools.

I don't see the issue?