[Previous entry: "FDA Follies"] [Next entry: "Wologimbat"]
03/20/2004: "Innoculations"
Back in the halcyon early days of this blog (um, 10 days ago), I wrote a sweet little missive (barf bags available in the seatbacks in front of you) to Natalie Solent that she blogged. She quoted me as saying, "If someone wants to avoid the flu, they should stick the needle in their arm, not mine."
Jo, a.k.a. Squander Two, responded.
The more prevalent a disease becomes, the greater the opportunity for the organisms that cause that disease to evolve to the extent that they may eventually be able to beat the vaccines. At that point, choice is simply removed from the system for everyone, as those who choose vaccination find that it is useless to do so - and that’s why vaccinations are a genuine public good.
I am greatful for the opportunity to learn. Jo continues:
If there’s a libertarian out there that has an explanation of how this could be managed by property rights, I’d love to hear it. But, as far as I can see, this is one thing that does come under government’s remit: it boils down to protecting people from other people, after all.
My instinct is that, wologimbat, diseases evolve within people. In my view of strict libertarian economics, the person that creates the new disease should bear the cost of that disease, including the cost of creating the new vaccine, and the recompense to those that suffered because of the new disease. Just as those that use nuclear weapons should recompense those that suffered because of the nuclear fallout. Like nuclear weapons, few -- if any -- individuals would be able to meet such a burden. And unlike nuclear weapons, it would be difficult at best to know who to blame. I do not believe that we should have the right to bare nuclear arms. And I agree with Jo; I support the concept of mandatory innoculations.
As for wologimbat, Jo notes that some disease evolve within animals. Because those animals have owners and because we still won't know the source of those disease, my argument stands.
