09
Feb
2015
Private Property in the Vaccine Debate
An obvious point, but not one I had seen people making:
The only way to address these fundamental conflicts is to take the State out of the equation. Let private property owners set the relevant rules on their land. Privately run schools, daycare centers, youth clubs, and pediatricians can set their individual policies regarding vaccination requirements for participating children. Health insurance companies can decide if they will insist on vaccination in order for a newborn to remain on a parent’s plan.
Private property doesn’t eliminate conflict, but it is a necessary foundation for the peaceful resolution of very heated disagreements. Bringing the State into the picture will hurt all children.
I don’t see how the line drawing problem you raise is solved if the decision is made by a private property owner rather than a government. On the other hand, if you are trying to maintain herd immunity, letting each property decide for himself would make that much more difficult. Infectious diseases don’t respect property rights.
I have to agree with Josiah on this point. Property rights aren’t a great solution for the unvaccinated.
Let me use an example to demonstrate my reasoning: Art is a carrier of the measles virus and infects Bill. Since Bill did not consent to being infected by the virus, Art has violated Bill’s property rights. Now, if Bill knows that Art is at fault, then Bill or his family could seek damages from Art. Unfortunately the Bills of the world are unlikely to be able to identify the Arts of the world because passing a virus isn’t a crime that leaves a lot of evidence pointing back to the perpetrator. Property rights only work if the burden of destruction falls on the person that caused it. In the case of the unvaccinated, that is unlikely.
It is a choice, the vaccinated, presumably, have nothing to worry about. How do the unvaccinated go about mitigating their risks from the other unvaccinated? It is difficult to weigh your options if you have none.
(1) Vaccine immunity doesn’t last forever. The reason we only vaccinate children is because the measles is typically a childhood illness. However, if you got the measles vaccine and then your child contracts the measles after your immunity has faded, then it is possible for your child to pass the disease to you.
(2) Some people are not healthy enough to receive vaccines. These people rely on herd immunity to keep them safe from viruses like the measles.
“if you are trying to maintain herd immunity”
Whom does “you” refer to? Why is maintaining “herd immunity” a goal that would even exist in the absence of a shepherd who is valuing the herd as a whole? Aren’t you smuggling The State or a State-like entity into the discussion?
What makes you think such a goal couldn’t exist?
Here’s a (semi-related) question I have. Let’s say you’re out getting the mail and you notice that your neighbor Karl is working in his garage. The following dialogue ensues:
Bob: Hey, Karl, what are you up to?
Karl: [Not looking up] I’m building a nuclear bomb.
Bob: [Nodding] That is your right as a property owner. What do you plan to do with it? Home defense, or…
Karl: I’m going to set it off in my backyard.
Bob: Uh… won’t that obliterate the entire neighborhood?
Karl: That’s what the so-called mainstream “scientists” would have you believe. But those guys are all paid off by the government. Once I test the bomb, it’ll prove that radiation is perfectly healthy.
Other than calling his realtor to see if he can sell his house real quick, what NAP-compliant options does Bob have in this situation?
Josiah,
Two things:
1) Individuals can only join a group voluntarily, by Libertarian principle. The idea of compulsive herd immunity is immoral as it violates the non-aggression principle. However, that is not to say that one cannot choose to be part of a group that requires immunization. It could play out that certain neighborhoods have requirements (enforced by the expectations of the other land owners) for vaccines, etc. It could be that in order to participate in a specific community, one must follow some agreed-upon standard for vaccine schedules.
This differs from the state solutions in many important aspects. Probably the most obvious is that such a thing does not violate the non-aggression principle. A close second is that a greater degree of choice would be almost certain. Those who want to live amongst others who are 100% vaccinated by their chose standard can do so. Perhaps what’s not so obvious, though, is that with such a variety, it would be much easier to conduct ethical scientific studies to identify the real risks/rewards of vaccinations are.
2) Your nuclear bomb in the neighborhood scenario is resolved easily when we consider what would be reasonable expectations of Karl’s neighbors. Surely, if one lives in neighborhood X, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that no one in the neighborhood would build or test anything that would likely cause great harm to the neighborhood.
It is unfortunate that Libertarian principle is so commonly misunderstood to mean that everyone can do whatever they want. But that is simply not the case.
1) “…The idea of compulsive herd immunity is immoral as it violates the non-aggression principle. …”
It doesn’t necessarily violate the non-aggression principle. There have been diseases (like polio) where I think people would not have the right to not vaccinate. The risk to other people would be too high. I can’t walk up to someone and practice shooting a target two inches above their head, correct? I would put both of these under threats, which do violate the NAP.
For most diseases, you’re probably right. The risk would not be high enough to cross over the line to threat. In those cases, Bob’s solution would be essential (and far better than the state’s solution).
“…it would be much easier to conduct ethical scientific studies to identify the real risks/rewards of vaccinations are.”
I don’t think I agree with this. You still wouldn’t be able to do a randomized controlled trial (morally).
2) I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. The guy in Josiah’s example didn’t know the bomb would blow up the neighborhood. He didn’t believe the scientists. Anyway, a different example could be made (suppose he was suicidal).
I think a nuclear bomb would also constitute a threat, but I also think Bob’s solution would work fine here as well. Insurance rates would skyrocket long before the bomb was actually built. Any customer stockpiling those materials would be a huge risk to the insurance companies.
The arguments are certainly not exclusive of one another. By providing a response other than what Bob has offered does not in any way mean I disagree with Bob. Surely, insurance would play a huge role in such a society. But I don’t think it makes sense to throw out the argument of reasonable expectations and contracts simply because insurance could cover such a dilemma.
Oh, and yes I realize that such a society wouldn’t allow for randomized controlled experiments. But it would still allow a better look at general trends where most likely other variables would be closer in proximity than if we were to compare the US with, say, Mexico.
That said, I’m not sure how forcing someone to receive a vaccine could not violate the non-aggression principle. Like I said, it may be a requirement to participate in a community, etc., but you still have a choice whether or not you want to live in said community. I think this is the only thing I really disagree with you on.
Tim – Regarding your first part, I agree. I wasn’t trying to say that Bob’s arguments conflicted with yours, although it may have come off that way.
Regarding vaccine studies, they try to sample people within the same country anyway, since there are less other differences that might confound things. It probably wouldn’t be more useful from a scientific perspective to have separate communities like that but you’re right that general trends would be easier to look at. That would be better for public perception. Once a large number of people in the community that was not vaccinated got sick and their children died needlessly, the public would probably think the anti-vaxxers were crazy.
On the NAP and vaccines – Imagine if there was a virus that would infect anyone within 5 feet of the infected person, and they would die within a day, but there were no symptoms. Suppose there was a vaccine that would stop people from getting this disease 99% of the time you otherwise would have gotten it, but without the vaccine you would have a 50% chance of getting the disease. Wouldn’t walking around unvaccinated constitute a threat? This in particular would be more risky than my target practice example (of a few inches above someone’s head). If you agree that this example would violate the NAP, then there has to be some cut off point. A lot of vaccines are around 99% efficient. The chances of getting various diseases are much lower, and the danger of the diseases are usually lower. But it doesn’t change the basic point that there is a line somewhere. If you agree something like reckless driving constitutes a threat, then I think there have been some cases in history where not getting a vaccine was also a threat.
On the NAP and vaccines – Imagine if there was a virus that would infect anyone within 5 feet of the infected person, and they would die within a day, but there were no symptoms. Suppose there was a vaccine that would stop people from getting this disease 99% of the time you otherwise would have gotten it, but without the vaccine you would have a 50% chance of getting the disease. Wouldn’t walking around unvaccinated constitute a threat? This in particular would be more risky than my target practice example (of a few inches above someone’s head). If you agree that this example would violate the NAP, then there has to be some cut off point. A lot of vaccines are around 99% efficient. The chances of getting various diseases are much lower, and the danger of the diseases are usually lower. But it doesn’t change the basic point that there is a line somewhere. If you agree something like reckless driving constitutes a threat, then I think there have been some cases in history where not getting a vaccine was also a threat.
In a free society, all land used is owned by someone. The owners of said land would almost certainly not wanting anyone walking around who is a major threat, regardless of reason. I don’t think your example necessarily violates the non-aggression principle. It does violate it in the form of trespassing if the private property owners (perhaps roads, business, etc) say that people of group X are not welcome.
Finally, something being a threat or not has little relevance, as far as I can see it. The goal is to respect the desires of others. If a community in a free society says that “we will only service people who have received X vaccine,” then that’s fine. There are many things that are threats in society which the majority of society deems to be an acceptable risk, as determined by their own subjective values. Specific to the topic at hand, society deems the risks of vaccines to be perfectly acceptable. (The risk factors don’t appear to be anywhere near as low as most people think, by the way. And no, I’m not advocating not using vaccines, just pointing out that there are risks that society deems acceptable.)
Okay, I see what you are saying now. I agree to a large extent, but…
1) I think there would be some public land in a free society. In those cases, if the risk was high enough, it would be aggression (a threat) to not be vaccinated for certain diseases.
2) Imagine if I said “Laws against punching people are immoral as they violate the non-aggression principle.” I’m guessing you would disagree with that, correct? But it is possible that businesses would allow people to be punched on their property. My point is that the default could be that non-vaccination would be aggression, just like punching people. When there are extremely dangerous viruses around, I don’t think that land owners should need to put up signs or something to tell people that they have to be vaccinated to enter their land (just like they don’t need signs telling people not to shoot someone else). For things like the flu and measles, I agree that property owners would have to specifically say that people have to be vaccinated.
If you do agree with that statement, then I suppose I don’t really have any substantial disagreement with you, I just disagree with your wording. In other words, our entire argument could be over semantics 🙁
3) We don’t currently live in a free society. How should public property be treated in a society with a state? I would argue that at the very least, other property rights have to be respected. So not vaccinating could be a threat against my body (which I own) on property that nobody owns – that would be aggression.
4) I didn’t mention this before, because children’s rights is a difficult topic, but I would argue that not vaccinating kids sometimes violates the NAP too, and in many more cases than adults not vaccinating.
Again, I don’t think the case is strong enough for most vaccines (like the flu, measles, etc.), but I think it’s important to recognize the possibility. And, just because I’m arguing the right for people to force others to vaccinate themselves or their kids doesn’t mean I support them actually doing that. Just as a clarification.
If only I had devoted a section of a pamphlet on private law to just this question… (Pages 35-37.)
That sure would be nice! 🙂
Oh Bob, do you really think I would pose a hypothetical like this without thinking how you dealt with the issue in Chaos Theory?
Per Chaos Theory, if your neighbor is building a nuclear device your only recourse is you call his insurance company and get them to cancel his policy (hopefully they don’t also cancel your policy given that living next to a guy planning to set off a nuke in his back yard is not that safe). So, okay, when the neighborhood goes kablooey Karl’s ex-insurance company doesn’t have to pay up on his claims. That doesn’t do you a lot of good.
Of course, once Karl’s insurance policy is canceled you go sneak into his house and murder him. Since Karl no longer has insurance you wouldn’t have to worry about them coming after you in response. But that wouldn’t be consistent with the NAP, would it?
It’s kind of ironic that you were complaining about the $1 vs $100 gas tax, and then use this rhetorical move. But in your example, Karl said he was going to murder a lot of people, so killing him would be self-defense. If a guy tells me that he is going to shoot me in the head in order to prove that bullets bounce off skulls, I could kill him too and claim self-defense.
It’s kind of ironic that you were complaining about the $1 vs $100 gas tax, and then use this rhetorical move.
As I said at the time, I don’t have a problem with extreme examples in general. It was the particular example Bob was using that I didn’t think worked.
But in your example, Karl said he was going to murder a lot of people, so killing him would be self-defense.
Wrong. Karl does not think that setting off the bomb will hurt anybody. He says claims to the contrary are just lies spread by the establishment.
Whether Karl expects to kill you is immaterial. If Karl’s actions are going to kill you (or damage your property), then it is not aggression to stop him.
Now, you would probably need to prove in a private court afterwards that your intervention was justified and proportional to the destruction that Karl would have otherwise unleashed. But that’s a lot better than being incinerated or living in a police state.
Yes, exactly. Which is why I wrote the example of a guy pointing a gun at you saying he was going to prove bullets bounce off skulls.
“Private law” still isn’t a thing.
Where is Karl getting his funding?
Josiah, I think that due to Karl’s cavalier attitude towards depleted uranium he would be too sick to see his experiment through. Perhaps you could say Karl is going to blowup a dam because he thinks the near by townsfolk will respond favorably to drowning despite his knowing otherwise.
My understanding is NAP permits self defense. In which case I have the right to shoot someone in the head who tries to set of a bomb close enough to threaten my life. He can make the bomb but the second he attempts to use it he is attempting to violate my, and everyone within several of miles’ right to live. It is therefore within my right to take him out as soon as I see he is about to push the button.
Is a failure to get vaccinated an immediate threat to the life of neighbors who have been vaccinated?
NAP doesn’t mean defense implies killing the other party in return. They could be shot with a tranquilizer and bomb removed. Every case is individual. One could live in a community where voluntary defense services are available that require those living there to not engage in potentially threatening actions, such as bomb making.
In case of measles those forcing others to vaccinate can choose to vaccinate themselves and neutralize the threat. In a private world the premiums for those vaccinated could be lower. Those not happy to take the vaccine can pay higher premiums.
Private property does remove conflict, no? That’s the whole point of having property rights – so we can avoid conflicts. So if a conflict over a scarce resource is imminent, we have rules that assign the person who gets to use it – who has the property right.
“Private property does remove conflict, no? That’s the whole point of having property rights – so we can avoid conflicts.”
No. Property rights are logically prior to contracts and society*, since you have to first have the authority that you wish to delegate to an arbiter for settling disputes.
I can’t “let” you do something with a resource unless I own it; Just like I can’t sell you the Golden Gate Bridge, if I don’t own it.
You have property rights, and contracts are justified if they conform to them (“enalienable rights”, or “natural rights”, if you will).
* Oddly, Stephan Kinsella doesn’t get this, and yet he still rightly rejects the concept of Intellectual Property. I think consistency demands that he accept IP since he believes wrongly that property rights has their basis in societal contracts – and if society thinks there should be a property right in information, then there you go.
No, they do not. It’s plainly obvious that one has nothing to do with the other. They do no “prevent conflicts” with people who disagree with them or people who dispute who owns what.
That doesn’t settle any disagreements. It just sets who owns what.