Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Government Mandated Vaccines as Government Pre-Crime Coercion

By Robert Wenzel


Monday evening here in San Francisco at Circle Rothbard, the discussion turned to mandated vaccines for measles. During the discussion, it struck me that what we were really talking about was government action against possible pre-crime.

Consider two people A and B. A demands that the government force B to get a vaccination against measles so that  A couldn't possibly get measles from B. Isn't this pre-crime action against B?

B doesn't have the measles. He may never get the measles, but, in complete pre-crime fashion, A is demanding that aggression be used against B because B is in a possible pre-crime state. That is, he wants B to be forcefully vaccinated against measles because he believes B may infect others if he does get the measles. Thus, a mandated vaccination is being demanded to eliminate the possibility of this pre-crime.

But, in a libertarian world, B is not aggressing against anyone as far as measles is concerned, if he does not have measles. The only possible time he could be infecting anyone is if he does have measles and it is the communicable period. According to the Mayo Clinic, a person with measles can spread the virus to others for about eight days, starting four days before the rash appears and ending when the rash has been present for four days.

Thus, it is at the start of the rash and ending four days later that a person with measles would know he could spread the virus. If during this period, he does not quarantine himself and spreads the virus, it is the only period that he could be considered agressing, in measles spreading fashion, against others.

What about the 4 days before the rash appears and the person can spread the virus without knowing it? This is similar to a person who has practiced unsafe sex, is infected with HIV but does not know it. Would he be tried in a court of law for infecting others? Of course not. On the other hand, if he is infected with the HIV virus, is aware of it, and continues to practice unsafe sex, without telling his partners he is infected, of course he is aggressing against those people, but only under those circumstances. Should the government mandate that sex only be done with condoms, except when a woman is actively seeking to get pregnant, to stop HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases? Of course not, that is as nightmarish an act of government attempting to stop potential pre-crime as are mandated vaccines.

According to the Center for Disease Control:
More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose.
Those who want to take the vaccine should be free to do so. But mandated government vaccines against people who have not aggressed against others via the spreading of measles, but are coerced into getting a vaccination on the possibility of pre-crime is a very slippery slope. If such government coercion against pre-crime is not stopped now, you can be sure coercion in the sense of stopping potential pre-crimes won't stop with measles vaccination coercion.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics


  1. Sooo, let me get this straight. You get 2 measles shots and your immune. Why would you care if anyone else gets one or not? Up to them. The whole government argument is faulty.

    (First time... [faceplant])

    1. Hmmm. Not sure what your point is. I don't recognize the prose....a wait logic...i think i remember that anachronistic way of thinking. What is this throw back thursday

  2. The argument against the idea posited in the article that I've heard most often, even from libertarians, is that to put someone else at risk is a violation of the NAP. This, of course, is absurd. Any manner of things that we take for granted or even that we argue should not be illegal, should in deed be illegal if that were a correct interpretation of aggression. Risk does not equal harm. It's an absurd notion that one could sue another because they ALMOST rear ended them with their car. No victim, no crime.

  3. I totally agree, Robert. There is no question that forced vaccinations are equatable to "pre-crime" aggressive violence against innocents...and, yet, the sheeple baaa and beg for it!

    The issue is, spreading fatal diseases is considered to be a crime (murder), but passing a mild condition like a cold or the flu is not considered a crime. Of course, knowingly going to work, out shopping (avoid anyone with multiple cans of chicken soup!), etc. when feeling ill is different only in degree than taking a gun out, and shooting it in multiple directions. Are you responsible when cute little Timmy down the street is hit by one of your stray bullets? Of course!

    In the same way, spreading illness of any kind is a property rights violation. If it is provable that A caused B to be sick, B is owed restitution by A. To the point of the article, A cannot justly be forced into vaccinating any more than A can justly be forced into quarantine to prevent B from illness. The distinction lies in the timing of the intervention, the Statist and libwap will argue for the pre-crime approach, and have absolutely no reservations about the State hypocritically violating individual property rights (your body) to prevent individuals from violating other people's rights. The libertarian must hold that the concept of "pre-crime" is fatally unjust, but that individuals who are found to have spread illness should be held liable to the injured party.

    1. On top of that it is a made up threat to instill FEAR the great motivator

  4. I haven't heard the forced vaccine crowd decry the dangers posed by driving cars. How many die needlessly because someone had to drive...?

  5. Walter Block is pro-forced vaccinations: