Individualism, Collectivism, the Non-Aggression Principle, and Mandatory Vaccinations

Mandatory vaccinations are an inversion of law that makes the collective’s rights more important than the individual’s rights, and this is irrational since collective/group rights do not exist, but only an individual’s natural rights exist. Mandatory vaccinations are a collective solution and not an individual solution, because they make each individual responsible for the collective’s well-being, rather than allowing each individual to be responsible for themselves and their family’s well-being. “For the greater good” is the rallying cry of collectivists, tyrants, and totalitarians, and not that of individualists who claim that each person has the right and the duty to self-govern and direct their own lives as they will.

THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
I find it maddening when a libertarian or other liberty minded individual thinks that when those who exercise their right to provide informed consent for a medical procedure, especially in regards to vaccinations, could be violating the non-aggression principle (NAP) against others, aka, that they are violating other’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by not behaving in a way that they think that they should. To demand another person perform an action for your well-being is actually a positive right as opposed to a negative right, because you are demanding a sacrificial action as if you were a victim of the unvaccinated person’s inaction; such reasoning is essentially making a case that it is criminal neglect to remain unvaccinated. The inverted argument is that it’s a criminal act of aggression to decline a vaccination or vaccination schedule because they think a vaccinated person might get sick from an unvaccinated individual, but this is patently ridiculous anyways, because they got vaccinated to prevent themselves from getting sick in the first place. Their argument avoids the initial act of aggression, as mandatory medical procedures infringe upon the individual’s natural right to assess for themselves the risk to reward ratio of any given medical procedure, and therefore prevents their ability to provide informed consent for themselves and/or their family. Providing informed consent to a medical procedure is a natural right, since our body is considered our personal property, and leading a self-directed life in regards to how we deal with our property is the inheritance and responsibility of each free man.

CIVIL VS CRIMINAL LAW
It should be pointed out that mandatory vaccinations are a product of civil law and not criminal law, meaning that they are subjective laws created by legislature and not objective laws found in the criminal code or nature; thus they cannot be a violation of the NAP because while it may be breaking a civil statute to remain unvaccinated, it’s not objectively victimizing anyone. Why aren’t such laws being written as a part of the criminal code if they are supposedly aggressive or neglectful? In New York recently, the police simply went around fining people who were in public and who were not vaccinated; fines are civil and not criminal. I wonder if the fines made the unvaccinated people healthier, and if it prevented the spread of the so-called infectious disease? They’re treating people as if they are a building code violation, and not as a criminal. To put things into perspective, the Nuremberg Code was specifically formulated to deal with the issue of informed consent, since Nazi doctors forced medical procedures on countless individuals without their consent, and did so claiming that it was for the greater good of Germany, and those same doctors paid with their lives when they were executed for their crimes against their “patients”. It may be a violation of civil statute law to decline a vaccination, but it is a violation of international criminal law and natural law to force a medical procedure on another human being, even if it is for the so-called greater good.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
By its very nature, mandatory vaccinations are a collective solution to an individual‘s personal health, so the government, whose only responsibility is to protect the individual’s natural rights from harm, cannot mandate a group solution on private individuals, especially when that solution is based on inductive reasoning (the basis of the scientific method), as inductive reasoning provides probabilities and generalities, and cannot provide certainties and guarantees. For if even one individual is harmed by a mandatory medical procedure, then the government not only failed in their duty to protect that individual’s natural rights from harm, they are in fact the criminal that violated their natural rights. Since the scientific method can never guarantee with certainty that an individual will not be injured by a vaccine, especially since there is high variance in each individual person, nor can it guarantee that a certain procedure, including vaccines, are 100% effective, it is therefore immoral to implement mandatory vaccinations, and to use force to violate the individual’s natural rights, even if it’s in the name of the collective’s “greater good”.

Bringing this full circle back to the idea that because another person supposedly got sick from an unvaccinated person, it is a violation of the non-aggression principle due to the unvaccinated person’s inaction, where the unvaccinated person exercised their right to not consent to a medical procedure, we again see that with the nature of inductive reasoning, it’s impossible to guarantee that a vaccine is either 100% safe or effective. Therefore those afraid of being victimized by their neighbors inaction are risking (and possibly sacrificing) the health of the unvaccinated individual (the so-called aggressor), in the hopes that (and that’s all it is—hope, because vaccines are far from 100% effective) they will be protected from harm. I must make it absolutely clear that nobody has a right to make another person take a risk to protect them from harm, because then the one demanding others take action are no longer taking responsibility for and living a self-directed life, but have shifted the responsibility they have for their body over to others, and are using coercion to force people to take responsibility for them via arbitrary civil laws; another word for forcing another person’s property to care for your property is slavery. This is essentially the same expectation that socialists have for coerced taxation, free medical care, and other free stuff, and the causal belief pattern is that of expecting other people to be responsible for one’s own well-being and happiness. Rather than pursuing their own life, liberty, and happiness, they expect others to provide it for them—and this includes those who wish to force medical procedures on others out of a fear for their own well-being.

Are you worried about your safety, or the safety of your family, and have you come to the conclusion that vaccinations are the path to achieve well-being and personal health? Great, get vaccinated, but shouldn’t that protect you and your family from those who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their family? Maintaining the health of my neighbor is not my responsibility—they need to take ownership of their bodies and health and do what they think is best for them, and I will take responsibility for my body and health and do what I think is best for me. I’m not going to set myself on fire just to keep you warm, and I expect you to avoid doing the same for me.

About Nathan Martin