If there was a Mandatory Mandate for HPV
Libertarians often speak of government as a necessary evil, as we know there are times when all available options are unfavorable, though some options may seem more favorable to us. Let us consider the necessity that if government must take a role in a thing, we must support the legislation that benefits society most (I mean, detriments society the least).
On the topic of vaccinations for HPV we have considered a government mandate in favor. It is unappealing to lovers of freedom that a thing should be forced upon them, especially when that thing seems beneficial enough in itself as to not need enforcement. Despite this distaste, we can recognize that effective mandates for HPV vaccinations would minimize the proportional occurance of the disease in our society. But is this a good thing? Who is this good for and who is it bad for? Let's face it: only reckless sluts benefit from this mandate. Who suffers under such a thing? Surely society suffers, as personal responsibility and intellectual Darwinism become diluted under this kind of governmental regulation.
So if there has to be a law about HPV vaccinations, they should be illegal. STDs are good tools for reminding society that there are consequences for behavior. The demographic who suffers under this legislation is very small - those who do not have HPV that want to involve themselves sexually with someone who has HPV. The demographic who benefits is large - everyone else. Case:
If government must make laws, those laws should promote the personal responsibility of the populace. Without regulations against a negative thing, a person must self-regulate.
If government must make laws, those laws should promote the welfare of the most common sensical of citizens over the welfare of idiots. Without regulating common sense, people behave on their own common sense so that the stupidest people get weeded out by natural selection.
I do not support laws, but if I had to support a law about HPV vaccines, I'd support their illegality over their forced distribution.
On the topic of vaccinations for HPV we have considered a government mandate in favor. It is unappealing to lovers of freedom that a thing should be forced upon them, especially when that thing seems beneficial enough in itself as to not need enforcement. Despite this distaste, we can recognize that effective mandates for HPV vaccinations would minimize the proportional occurance of the disease in our society. But is this a good thing? Who is this good for and who is it bad for? Let's face it: only reckless sluts benefit from this mandate. Who suffers under such a thing? Surely society suffers, as personal responsibility and intellectual Darwinism become diluted under this kind of governmental regulation.
So if there has to be a law about HPV vaccinations, they should be illegal. STDs are good tools for reminding society that there are consequences for behavior. The demographic who suffers under this legislation is very small - those who do not have HPV that want to involve themselves sexually with someone who has HPV. The demographic who benefits is large - everyone else. Case:
If government must make laws, those laws should promote the personal responsibility of the populace. Without regulations against a negative thing, a person must self-regulate.
If government must make laws, those laws should promote the welfare of the most common sensical of citizens over the welfare of idiots. Without regulating common sense, people behave on their own common sense so that the stupidest people get weeded out by natural selection.
I do not support laws, but if I had to support a law about HPV vaccines, I'd support their illegality over their forced distribution.