Mandatory vaccination:

“In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in
the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to
him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation,
on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it;
my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that,
therefore, the safer should be chosen.”
― Benjamin Franklin

First of all, I’d like to let clear that I am by no means an anti-vaxxer. Vaccines are one of
the most important improvements in civilization, having saved countless lives in the last
centuries. This article is by no means an affront to the vaccine itself, but an affront to its
obligatoriness.

You may say that a vaccine should be mandatory because “it’s not only about saving your
life, but it is about saving others, too”. And I tell you that this argument makes no sense
whatsoever. As I said before, I will by no means question the importance of the
development of a vaccine, but I can, and I will question its effectiveness. Three studies
published Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that
protection against the coronavirus given by vaccines declined in the midsummer months
when the more contagious delta variant rose to dominance in the United States. 
Data from these studies persuaded the Biden administration to develop a plan for
additional doses to bolster the immune systems of people vaccinated months earlier. Until
now, evaluations of vaccine effectiveness amid delta largely relied on observations from
outside the United States. A study in Israel, found larger declines in protection against
infection. One U.S. report collecting data from Mayo Clinic Health System facilities in
five states, found a drop in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine’s effectiveness against delta
infections to 42 percent. (According to the Washington post)
As the Delta variant became the dominant strain of the coronavirus across the United
States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective
power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and
85%, according to a new study.
- Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early
March, just as the Delta variant was gaining a toehold across American communities, the
three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections.
- But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.
- By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89%
effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two
doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period. (according to the scientific journal
Science)  And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose
vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months

Suppose that the scientists develop an extremely effective vaccine in record time — as
they say, they did — with very little to no collateral effects at all. If it is that good, is there
any reason it has to be mandatory? Don’t you think people would willingly take the shot,
if only they were shown concrete proof that it would work properly?

The obligatoriness of the vaccine tells us a couple of things: it can be not as good as the
developers say it is, for if it was, nobody should be forced to take it; and that the
developers and the governments won’t take full responsibility for unexpected negative
results. Imagine if a person, with no said conditions that could trigger collateral effects —
someone that had no health conditions that would interfere with the results of the vaccine
— , happened to have an unpredictable severe collateral effect after taking the shot. Is that
not the developer's responsibility? And also of those who sold the vaccine to the
population? Even if it happened to just one person to the day, should the victim, its family,
and all the people under the state just accept the causality? Of course, every vaccine has
unpredictable results for different people. But that does not mean that the institutions
responsible should react to that with a shrug and a “shit happens”.
But, imagine if the vaccine is really what it was promised to be, and even then, some
people wouldn’t take it. That could, in the worst-case scenario, trigger new mutations of
the virus on the bodies of those who didn’t protect themselves, making the vaccine less
effective as it was designed to be. And now you may say ‘yes, exactly! That’s why it HAS
to be mandatory!’. And then again, you would be wrong. Now, we go into the ethics of
private property, and the impossibility of “public” property in society.

The concept of private property is a derivate of the axiom of self-ownership — that means,
that one is the only owner of its own body, and every action that affronts that axiom is
unethical. Forcing someone to do something — as taking a vaccine, for example — is an
affront to the concept of self-ownership, even if it is “for a good reason”. After all, can you
really know what is best for another person better than themselves? But knowing what is
best for yourself, you may say again: “But if someone won’t take the vaccine, they will be
putting ME at risk!”. And now, maybe you are right. But that still does not mean you can
force someone to take the shot. You could, for example, not coexist in the same places as
people who don’t take vaccines. That, of course, is impossible under the existence of a
State and the lie of “public” property.

The State itself is an affront to the axiom of self-ownership simply by existing, for it is
supported by the appropriation of private property by extortion. It creates the lie of
“public” property and services — places everyone can go and services everyone can use,
for “free” — to keep destroying private property and enhancing its power over the
individuals. The existence of the State itself is a contradiction, for it promises safety to
individuals, and yet it exploits everyone for its own benefit. As the State bans someone
that pays for the “public” properties and services to use them for any reason whatsoever, it
goes from stealing from this person to give back scraps, to simply stealing and giving
nothing back. In a free-market society that respects private property, one gets what it has
paid for. And someone can refuse to sell a service or a product to someone, for any reason
it likes, including the fact that the client hasn’t taken a vaccine.
“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) strongly opposes federal
interference in medical decisions, including mandated vaccines. After being fully
informed of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the right to reject
or accept that procedure… Measles is a vexing problem, and more complete, forced
vaccination will likely not solve it. Better public health measures—earlier detection,
contact tracing, and isolation; a more effective, safer vaccine; or an effective treatment
are all needed. Meanwhile, those who choose not to vaccinate now might do so in an
outbreak, or they can be isolated. Immunosuppressed patients might choose isolation in
any event because vaccinated people can also possibly transmit measles even if not sick
themselves.

AAPS believes that liberty rights are unalienable. Patients and parents have the right to
refuse vaccination, although potentially contagious persons can be restricted in their
movements (e.g. as with Ebola), as needed to protect others against a clear and present
danger. Unvaccinated persons with no exposure to a disease and no evidence of a disease
are not a clear or present danger.”

Thereby, it is safe to say that anyone can take the vaccine if they want to, but it is
unethical to force others to take it. And it can be dangerous as well, SPECIALLY in a
scenario that both the government and the developers won’t take full responsibility for
negative effects caused by the substance that is being forced on someone’s body. If any
of the vaccines available in the market now are really effective and safe, in time, as the
results appear and concrete proof emerges, most people will willingly take them. And if
they don’t, people should have the right to choose with whom they relate. After all, if
you’ve read properly, you should be aware that forcing people to act against their will is
an affront to the axiom of self-ownership.