If everyone followed this strategy, many people would die as a consequence of even a relatively small segment of the population's choice. At some point, your freedom ends and another's begins. Drawing that line is really hard, especially when some people are frantically trying to give it up and others are frantically taking it for personal gain.
Of course, not all cases are equal.
This is the problem with a government one size fits all system. There isn't necessarily one right answer. And in a system like ours where what government does is influenced most by big pharmaceutical agriculture corporations who have a business interest in sick people and sick animals, well you're likely not to get the right answer at all.
That sounds like the tragedy of the commons.
And the more a vaccinated person is exposed to a disease, the more permutations of that disease get thrown at the vaccinated population. If one takes, then we have the whole problem of the disease all over again. One consequence of the short life of bacteria and the mutation of viruses is that they're basically brute-forcing our immunities of every population they're in contact with.
This is why it's _so important_ that people follow vaccination programs. Eventually we'll have to deal with new diseases, but if we aggressively and correctly vaccinate, we can stave off that day for a lot longer than if we half-ass it.
IMO, vaccination is no replacement for promoting a strong natural immunity and preventative medicine. Both of which are virtually thrown out the window in modern medicine.
Anything less means "controlled study needed."
I agree with you if you are talking about adults. But what about their children? Should a child die just because their parents decided that a prayer would cure them?
Most regulations aren't there to protect what people do to themselves, but to limit what they can do to others.
A responsible child can probably carry a gun to school, but do you trust all children?
The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?
Less than 50 years ago, they carried their rifles to school on the bus every day, and kept them in their lockers. They also took gun safety courses in school. I don't find it at all surprising that kids are less responsible with guns now: when I work with kids, I find they live up (or down) to the level of your expectations.
> The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?
From everything I've seen, many/most farms still don't, so the USDA is more of a nuisance for those that want to do it right, than a way to force the bad ones to improve. The government is made up of people, too: you can't just sprinkle farms with the magic pixie dust of "government regulation" and have everything magically work out.
http://www.documentary-film.net/search/video-listings.php?e=...
Look at it this way: 99% of everything men have ever know has been wrong. All scientific theories (except the current ones) have been proven wrong. And, at every point in history, men who thought the current theories were wrong were labeled heretics or morons. There were men who wouldn't let themselves be 'bled' 200 years ago and men who won't undergo chemo today. And that is their choice.
I think a lot of people make stupid choices, but if it only harms themselves, I say let them. Hell, I would have thought some of Bill Gates' decisions early in Microsoft's history were wrong, but that goes to show what I know.
Every person should be allowed to make their own decisions (and live with the consequences of thereof).
If someone believes in homeopathy or the new age panacea du jour over real medicine, let them. If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a shame, but at least they died free men.