The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Vaccine Mandates

In the book “The Case for Vaccine Mandates”, by Alan Dershowitz, he explains why he believes that Vaccine Mandates are a legitimate government action in certain cases. He does this by starting out his argument from a libertarian basis. In his ‘Introduction: A Libertarian Case for Vaccine Mandates’, section A: ‘A libertarian Case Derived from John Stuart Mill’, he utilizes the following quote:

“[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the past which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
 - John Stuart Mill

A folksier way of putting Mill’s doctrine is to say that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

In Section B. ‘Analysis of Hypotheticals’, Professor Dershowitz utilizes a “Socratic Methodology” that gives two hypothetical situations that he then utilizes to make his case:

“So, here are the two polar extreme Hypotheticals. The first posits a vaccine that cure cancer with a 100 percent certainty and with no risks or side effects. I would urge everybody to take it. I would want the government to make it available free. I would support incentives to encourage such medical treatment. I might even limit insurance and other benefits to those who refuse to take it. But I would not allow the government to compel any competent adult to take a vaccine that prevents a non-contagious disease from killing only individuals who decline to take it. They have the right to make decisions – even foolish ones – regarding their own bodies, lives, and health. As I put it in the context of smoking cigarettes: everyone has the right to inhale into their own lungs, but not to exhale into mine.

The second hypothetical is imagining a risk-free vaccine that in addition to helping the individual who received it, was also 100 percent effective in preventing the spread of a highly contagious and deadly disease to others (even those who were vaccinated and took additional precautions). I would support a governmental decision, arrived at democratically, that required everyone (with limited medical exceptions) to be vaccinated.”

These hypotheticals are important to discover some truths and to give direction to our decision-making on how to combat this disease. However, the reality of our current situation is between these two polar extremes. A reality that he does not discuss, as the facts of the reality are dynamic and fast-changing. A reality that has changed since he wrote this book. This reality is:

“Vaccines that were developed to prevent the contraction of this disease and lessen the spread of this highly contagious and deadly disease to others. Vaccine development which was done outside of the normal testing and verification procedures for medications. Vaccines in which the effectuality on the individual, the effectivity in combating the pandemic, and the risks of side effects are uncertain or unknown. These vaccines were then provided for free voluntary inoculations but are rapidly becoming mandated inoculations. Mandates for the purpose of blunting this pandemic which were instituted outside of normal democratic procedures, and which are being enforced in an invidious manner. Mandates that are being enforced by despotic government actions.”

Would Professor Dershowitz be supportive of these mandates if this situation was the actuality? I would suggest that under the John Stuart Mill Libertarian Doctrine that these mandates would be unacceptable.

We currently know that these vaccines do not fully prevent the transmission and contraction of this disease. However, for many persons, these vaccines reduce the severity of the impact of contracting this disease. We also now have therapeutics that assist in the treatment and recovery of this disease, but that government has not stressed nor provided therapeutics, nor have they considered herd immunity in their efforts to combat this disease. We also know that the risks of this disease seem to be mostly limited to persons that have comorbid factors in their medical history, and the contraction of this disease by persons without comorbid factors is small, and the impacts to them of this disease are less severe. We know that healthy adults under sixty-five years of age are less likely to have severe reactions to this disease when they contact this disease. We also know that children very rarely contract this disease and have much less severe reactions to this disease if they contract this disease. We also know that there can be complications when taking these vaccines by persons of all ages, although we do not know the full extent of these complications. We also have no information on what, if any, are the long-term impacts of taking these vaccines.

We do know that the impacts on our society and our economy to combat this disease have been severe and may be longstanding. Unemployment, business foreclosures, and government deficit spending to combat this disease and bolster the economy will be felt for at least the next decade. The social development abilities of our children, along with their educational skills, may be felt for generations. The divisiveness between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that has been sown by excessive rhetoric that promotes fear and loathing against the unvaccinated, for the purposes of intimidating the unvaccinated to become vaccinated, will linger. The distrust and suspicions of our government and its institutions due to confusing and contradictory information they provided about this disease, and the invidious enforcement of the mandates, may permeate our society for decades to come.

I, therefore, believe that the current science and the current events of the COVID-19 Pandemic are this reality. As such, no governmental nor employer mandates to impose this vaccination on an individual is acceptable. The decision to take this vaccination must reside with the individual and based on their circumstances and their risk and reward evaluation on taking the vaccination.

A recent Rasmussen poll on government actions to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic revealed that:

– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”

– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

The survey consisted of both telephone and online polling of 1,016 likely voters and was conducted on January 5, 2022, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

These percentages of Democratic voters are not only shocking as to their size but also to the disregard Democratic voters have for our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also reveal that Democratic voters have no qualms about imposing despotism, and indeed tyranny, upon America. As such, these Democratic voters are not committed to our "American Ideals and Ideas" but are un-American in their disposition. God help us all if they manage to elect "Democrat Party Leaders" who will implement their policy predilections.