Polio Making a Comeback?

Almost all children are vaccinated, and once anyone gets polio in a community, all the unvaccinated get vaccinated. Vaccines work for life, and the effects of having polio are very visible and obvious. It won’t become a major problem.

There is a problem since some of the mistruths or half-truths the government public health officials spread during Covid (e.g. that Covid was a major threat to children so that schools needed to close, and those who got the Covid vaccine would have no side effects and wouldn’t have to worry about testing positive for Covid ever again) made people question the well established (and safe) vaccines such as the polio one which has been around for 70 years. I would suggest the blame falls more on the civil service (“deep state”) people in the health departments rather than President Biden, since no one ever took Biden seriously to begin with.

Yechiell: Why do you care? If you got the vaccine, you’re fine (unless you’re the one making an anti-vaxxer statement).

If other people want to take risks with their own lives, it shouldn’t bother you.

Trump is belatedly learning about a lot of RFK Jr.’s political baggage on public health issues and trying to “walk back” a lot of his positions. In some cases, its gaslighting to tell the tzibur he “never said” what we have heard RFK Jr. say on multiple occasions. In other cases, they are spinning his misstatements to say that “what he really meant was that government should “STUDY” a vaccine or medication even though it has been studied over decades and the vast majority of public health and medical studies support efficacy and safety.

RFK Jr. has a unique opportunity to go after the real issues in public health and is squandering both his own (and indirectly Trump’s) credibility even with the Republican constituencies.

yechiyell,

Google your straw-man phrase, “polio making a comeback” and the first page of hits is from medical sites published over the past two years. In case you’ve forgotten, Brandon, Kamalek and their woke, demented lackeys have been incompetently running the country during that time. FEH!

Newsflash: you may have missed it but thankfully your corrupt, clueless party lost the election, so get over it or get help!

Trump made Europeans to contribute to NATO by threatening them to withdraw – and just in time for Russian aggression…

Similarly, if Trump reduces federal powers, the states, and the charities, will need to come up with solutions. Yes, like Europeans, States are addicted to just sending money to Feds and getting regulations back. Thus, we might be electing complete hacks for state government as nobody really cares. So, we will see ridiculous state responses in the first year. Hopefully, things will start moving after that. If T over-reaches, then Congress or the next President can always rebalance back. So, don’t worry Democracy did not Die in Darkness, despite a conspiracy of Biden’s team to cover up that the President had mental difficulties (as thoroughly documented in today’s WSJ article quoted on YWN front page, go read it).

NC

“If other people want to take risks with their own lives, it shouldn’t bother you.”

This is silly.

1) No vaccine is 100% effective
2) your health does affect me, putting aside the both as a frum person I am required to care about you, but even as a felow human, there is an element of communal responsibility. You probably disagree with htis, so I’lll include a bottom line approach as well if someone gets sick from Polio we all pay for it both in the literal sense whether through insurance/govt if Medicare and by taking up medical time
3) some cant get a vaccine for one reason or other..

you can certainly argue on all these points iff cant get vaccine well thats not your problem, and can have a system where hose who chose not to get a vaccine and then get Polio are left to die in the street though this too comes with its drawbacks

which brings me to this
“If the government stays out of people’s business, we don’t have problems.”
this is demonstrably false

the eradication of smallpox is a huge accomplishment its an odd take to say ” I don’t public health should exist as a concept. I have my approach to my health and you have your’s” Polio was almost eradicated

There are other vital areas of Public health
Poison control is an invaluable resource
Clean water
sewage management
these are all included in Public health
Are you really arguing that you should deal with your waste, and I am free dto do with my waste as I please?

Not to mention Environmental issues, sure you probably believe they go to far. Are you saying everybody should be free to discharge whatever the ywant into the air?

strangest of all RFK doesn’t want to get rid of the FDA in fact he wants to greatly expand it by limiting more chemicals in foods.
Are you arguing that there should be no regulation of food/medicines Let the free market decide..
Try my medicine, if it works then more people wil buy it, if you get sicker or die, well then I guess demand for it will drop]Is that your approach?

In short are you saying there should be
vaccine program?
Food regulations?
environmental regulations ?
drug safety?
govt funded health resources (eg Poison control)

If you answered yes to ANY of these ie some of these should exist to some extent then you do in fact believe in public health
If no you believe these shouldn’t exist thank you for taking the time to read this

Unfortunately blame for the growth of the anti vaxer movement is the Govt under Fauci during covid.
Mandated Vaccine requirements push masses to distrust the govt. Especially when the vaccines aren’t needed for those who had covid. Nor do the vaccines protect from getting sick. It only protects against dying. I recall Dr Brix saying its your choice and we won’t force it and then she forced it.
Govt Shutdowns: Sure it helps but to close things for 6 -12 months is insane. Humans are functions of social interactions. Shutdowns are draconian measures. It should only be used to get grip on things like for a month.
And of course masks.
All this caused a major erosion of mistrust. Then you want to know why people aren’t taking Vaxines? Next time when you think about health policies, think about the effects it can have physcologiiclly .

“Are you really arguing that you should deal with your waste, and I am free dto do with my waste as I please?”
A geographical majority of the country already deals with their own waste. It really isn’t that big of a deal. You pay a private company to deal with it as opposed to paying for it in your taxes.

“Are you arguing that there should be no regulation of food/medicines Let the free market decide..”
Yes. You know that things are kosher without the American government having to certify them. If a market exists for private certification programs, then they will come to be. They would likely do a better job than the government anyway.

“Are you saying everybody should be free to discharge whatever the ywant into the air?”
If I understand your question correctly, then yes.

“strangest of all RFK doesn’t want to get rid of the FDA in fact he wants to greatly expand it by limiting more chemicals in foods.”
I’m not sure if that’s strange or not. The whole political conversation is just about which shittos should be forced on everyone, not whether or not it should be done. There is no constituency among politicians that supports limited government anymore. I think Trump and his guys ruined any chances of this ever being a position of the Republican party again, so I’m certainly not defending him or RFK.

“vaccine program?
Food regulations?
environmental regulations ?
drug safety?”
No to all of them being done by the government. Everything would be done better privately. By the way, I’m not saying people should be absolved of civil responsibility.

Any other questions?

NC
“Any other questions?”
Yes please

How would some of these be done privately
Lets start with one Specifically environmental regulations . I have a factory that produces hazardous waste fumes, heavy metals all of that stuff
how should tI “privalty:” be prevented from pumping my toxic fumes into the air and radioactive waste into the local drinking supply ?

ubi > Lets start with one Specifically environmental regulations . I have a factory that produces hazardous waste fumes

this is all discussed in Nezikin. In US, you will be simply sued, poss class action. and lose your factory. I am not saying it is ideal way to deal with environmental regulation, but this should work.

AAQ & NC

There are several problems with relying on lawsuits It is often impossible to prove any specific cause and effect. There is no way to prove that Joe’s cancer resulted from my dumping chromimum 6 into his drinking supply. and more often it is years down the line my factory may have moved or disbanded before he is diagnosed .
not to mention suing takes some know how, need someone to figure out this town seems to have a high prevelance of cancer lets try to see if there is a local cause. who is doing this investigation? sure they could hire a lawfirm but why people’s safety be limited to those with money/sophistication to go down that road?

“Yeah fumes was not the best case he could have chosen since it’s not like the government can really do anything about those either (i.e. they can’t suck them back out of the air once they’re there).”

thats why its a GOOD example. Suing isnt enough. The damage has been done already. What comfort is that to a town Ive poisoned? “Ok so good news and bad news you all have cancer BUT youre getting a huge settlement”

I dont know seems like regulations up front BEFORE there is a problem is a better approach . PErfect? no but better than letting people do what they want and if things go wrong youll get sued

“thats why its a GOOD example. Suing isnt enough. The damage has been done already. What comfort is that to a town Ive poisoned?”

What more do you think the government would do about it? From the company’s point of view, it’s a monetary fine either way. Obviously, it makes more sense for the money to go to the victims, not to some government bureaucracy. They need to pay for medical bills, relocation, etc. I’m not sure why your acting like the victims don’t need the money but Uncle Sam does.

“I dont know seems like regulations up front BEFORE there is a problem is a better approach”

Why would they regulate something that doesn’t cause problems? Either they put the regulation in place after the problem has occurred–something lawsuits would also accomplish–or they’re randomly guessing what things will cause future problems. The latter approach gives them the absolute power to just ban stuff on a whim as long as they can get some socialist in a white lab coat to say that it’s for the greater good. Laws should never be justified on the basis of predictions.

“and more often it is years down the line my factory may have moved or disbanded before he is diagnosed .”

I get that sometimes the liable party in a lawsuit can’t pay, but since when does that mean taxpayers collectively have to foot the bill? If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY and now owes 200 million that they cannot pay, why is it more “fair” that random people living on the other side of the country should have to cover it for the big company? If you (or anyone else) feel sympathy for the people–rightfully so–you would be free to donate, but if someone else living in Colorado or wherever can’t afford or simply doesn’t want to pay, the government should have no right to force him; he wasn’t the one found liable. Other than being raised in a system that arbitrarily condones it, how can you justify forcing an innocent party to pay the bill for the guilty party in a lawsuit?

NC

The Government can (and does) set regulations BEFORE they occur. These regulations can be enforced BEFORE they cause damage.

Yes if there are victims they need money but the point of regulations is to prevent victims

I don’t understand your next paragraph.
Under your proposal I can dump toxic substances into local drinking supply. Until someone is harmed (and knows they are) cand can prove that my substance caused their harm i’m good. It might ne worth taking that risk.
Even if you know I’m polluting your water supply. The only way to stop me is to get haarmed.

That doesn’t seem like a good approach.

Yo usay “If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY…” The idea of regulation is to stop them before the people are harmed.

Maybe I’m not being clear,
Drunk driving probably doesn’t fall under “public health” (or does it?)
Should there be a law banning drunk driving?
I say yes. The idea is to stop the drunk driver BEFORE he hurts someone. Sure he can be sued if/when he hurts someone. but a. That is still tru with government regulation, and 2) that is too little too late once the damage has been done.
Same thing here it wouldn’t suffice to let the private sector sue companies AFTER thyeve committed damage ( and is known and can be proven) the idea is to stop it before

AAQ
“I am not saying I am against all regulation,”
Then we agree!

“This may be a silly argument when you are suggesting full gov regulation v. full lack of it”
I agree completly
Though at no point did I say “full gov regulation”
NC did say full lack of it whci hsurprised me “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.”

“I don’t believe poisoning people’s water supply falls under public health either; ”

It sure does
ensuring clean water supply is squarely (and waste management) is absolutely part of public health
Probably one of the greatest government achievements
Thats why I focused so much on it . I have heard all sort of libertarians arguments before
being anti (government involvement in) clean water isnt one Ive heard before – hence my fascination with this

I agree regulations should not be based on haphazard decisions nor quack science

AAQ
Great point there you have a specific exception for a specific reason
Its Nedarim 80b as “Rashi” explains because cheyecha kodmin there isnt enough water for everyone so chayecha kodmin presumably based on B”M 62a (theres a machlokes whether water for washing clothes comes before drinking water for downstream people)

Again I am not suggesting EVERY thing should be regulated, so even if this is an example of deregulation, and it very well might be, it doesnt undermine my point.

chazal have many many regulations on what you can do in your property. In the 2nd Perek of Bava Basra you’ll find restrictions on what you can do with waste, noise pollution (for example 20b) , environmental pollution (25a) .

At first I thought these weren’t good examples, since I was under the impression that from a halachic standpoint there is no distinction between criminal and civil. as opposed to lehavdil the US.

Meaning in America as I understand it even if I am allowed to do something if someone gets harmed they can sue me. So NC’s argument (as I understand it) is there should be no regulation on where I discharge my waste and if someone gets harmed (and realizes i t and can afford a lawyer and can prove causation) he’ll sue (of course with the hope being that my fear of a lawsuit will prevent me from misbehaving in the first place).

At first glance I thought the B”B examples were not relvent since there is no “suing” in halacha if I acted properly .Generally speaking If I have a right to do something and someone gets damaged thats on them. Therefore we need halacha to say I am not allowed to do something.

However when flipping through the relevant blat this is clearly not correct. Mishna B”B 20b gives oven safety regulations how far oven has to be from floor/ceiling. Thers a machlokes in Mishna if damage happens even if I followed the regulations am I liable?. Rambam Shecheinim 9:11 and MEchaber CM 155:1 both pasken are chayav. Clearly the regulation is NOT just to allow the damaged to sue for damages .

> Meaning in America as I understand it even if I am allowed to do something if someone gets harmed they can sue me

Israeli Supreme Court Judge Menachem Elon worked hard on how to weave Israeli/Turkish law with halakha. He explains the difference between Roman/Brit/American and Jewish approaches – in Roman law, it is caveat emptor, the buyer/victim needs to protect himself and sue if necessary; in halakha, the seller/perpetrator has an obligation not to hurt others. Examples: one with the higher roof needs to build a fence not to look down (BB). Thus, halakha needs to be simple enough for the person to ensure unbiased decisions: a pigeon within 50 amot belongs to the house, outside – does not. R Yirmiahu raises an issue of a pigeon standing on the line and he is expelled because he questions this whole idea of a farmer making decisions for himself.

Safety of the oven that you are quoting is similar: if you are following regulations, you are not liable, right? You can choose not to follow them, but then you’ll be liable for damages (aka sued).

Another interesting example: Yaakov feels something is unusual in Mitzraim where a prime minister suddenly has humane regulations, establishing limits and selling to foreigners during a famine, this is not a usual goyishe law.

A big question here is – when do we support goyishe law in their form and when we push it towards higher Jewish norms. The answer is probably realpolitik – if society might be ready, we can suggest higher ethics; if not, work within the goyishe mishpat.

“Why didn’t you say then you didn’t include it in public health”

I don’t know. I was just answering your questions at that point; you gave me a whole list of things some of which were public health, some of which I would not call public health.

“Except of course in these cases they literally do.”

There are plenty of people that die as a result of government as well (demonstrably more, I would say). I’m not sure why deaths caused by lack of government would be considered somehow worse. People are going to die either way; nobody has an all-encompassing solution. It’s the profound lack of self-awareness on the pro-government side that fascinates me as it seems to result from people just never considering that there could be other ways.

“I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.”

Agreed in theory, but with all due respect, I don’t think you really mean this. I think you treat government as the fallback solution when nothing else is obvious. I don’t say this to insult you. This is the shittah you share with pretty much the entire world. I’m not looking for a fallback solution. My shittah is that if there are problems that aren’t financially advantageous enough to be naturally dealt with within a free capitalistic system, then they aren’t truly worth dealing with at all no matter how cold that may sound.

“(*however we define it)”

This renders all of those statements meaningless. If they’re all allowed to be subjective, then I will just declare that I personally think the government solution is subjectively worse. That’s just my opinion, but you left it up to my opinion with this clause.

“Your position is a bit odd to me though overall consistent.”

I appreciate your restraint. My position could be called a lot worse than odd. Genuinely, I really do appreciate how interested you seem to be in something that 99% of people would just swear off as “crazy” almost right away.

“There are areas where unquestionably need govt involvement. For example where your decidions impact other people . Suing you after the fact is too little too late.”

I do not agree. At the very least, it is not “unquestionable.”

“Someone who hadn’t paid had a fire they let it burn. Tgis would never work in a dense place like NY.”

On the contrary, it would work better in a place like NYC since it’s unlikely an entire building would not pay for protection. Moreover, most buildings would have an HOA or some such thing that would pay for it then pass on the bill to the tenants. Really small areas have volunteer fire departments, so it’s the in-betweens where this would be an issue. To be fair, I used to use this exact story as an argument against privatization before I went off the political derech, so it’s also not a bad case. If fire departments were always private, I don’t think this ever would have been an issue. What I think you’re touching on is our societal addiction to public services and the need to feel like everything is “free” because we ignore the fact that we pay for it with taxes.

Well all of you are showing why both Communism and Libertarianism never worked out on a large scale. The people cannot regulate themselves, also the people cannot be expected to work together for the good of everyone. Because at some point there will be some people in positions of power that will have the ability to skirt those regulations to the detriment of everyone else. So you need a society where people are rewarded for hard work that helps others, but regulated so that they can’t have too much power.

I brought several times a gemora in Bava Basra about creating a school system during BM2 era. It clearly went through several stages, taking many years of trial-and-error. First attempt (preferred) is provate – fathers need to teach; then fathers need to take teens to Yerushalaim, where public will teach them, ending with local public/private system where teachers are local, and it seems that they might be paid privately, but community is responsible if that fails.

“Well all of you are showing why both Communism and Libertarianism never worked out on a large scale.”
Libertarianism has no concrete definition. There’s no way of pointing to a time where Libertarianism was implemented as a type of government and failed. In that sense Communist organizations are more respectable since they have a cohesive ideology whereas the Libertarian party or any such organization doesn’t seem to have any idea what it believes.

“Not just cold it sounds evil”
Whatever wording you prefer. To see the government as not evil requires a lot of sticking your head in the sand. I don’t have a good answer to the child services kasheh, but it’s hard for me to believe that the best answer is to implement a system responsible for The Holocaust and every war throughout mankind’s history.

“not unlikely it is a certainty some people wouldn’t pay.”
Correct. You misunderstood. I was saying it’s unlikely that everyone wouldn’t pay. As long as some people in the building are paying or the building’s management, then the fire department would put it out. They wouldn’t let the entire building burn just because the fire started in a unit owned by someone who did not pay. By the way, a large potion of the country exists on volunteer fire departments. Hatzolah has been more effective at reaching emergencies quickly than government-funded EMTs. How can that be so? It’s almost like the government isn’t better at everything.

“Closer to an Anarchist.”
Correct, but I have my priorities. Some parts of government more urgently need to be dissolved than others.

“Im not big on arguments of authority”
I appreciate that, and I appreciate you not bringing down that pro-government mishnah in Pirkei Avos as an argument of authority as tempting as I’m sure that might be.

“To see the government as not evil requires a lot of sticking your head in the sand.”

You misunderstood
Your system sounds evil. sure government has its problems but these are bugs not features. Your approach is designed this way

Your holocaust part is a bit silly. I’m not advocating for a totalitarian system. And I’m confused as to how Anarchy would prevent wars

” As long as some people in the building are paying or the building’s management, then the fire department would put it out.”
I dont t understand this. some buildings (my neighbor) are single family homes. I don’t understand who will pay if he doesn’t and who will protect my home 10 feet away if r”l he has a fire .

And They wouldn’t let the entire building burn just because the fire started in a unit owned by someone who did not pay.”
Says who? who would force them?
And My guess is an apartment building would have a hiugher fee. one that would be payed by the landlord so its on him/her to pay not each individual.

and furthermore. Say my neighbor DID pay but they were too lazy/cheap to come

How does he sue them? Is there a court system ? how are its rulings enforced?

” By the way, a large potion of the country exists on volunteer fire departments. Hatzolah has been more effective at reaching emergencies quickly than government-funded EMTs. How can that be so? It’s almost like the government isn’t better at everything.”

The government is certainly NOT better at everything not even sure where you got that from, I said the opposite a few times
However Volunteers are the OPPOSITE of your approach. Hatzalah is not looking to maximize profits. I dont understand how this shows a for profit system would work. IT would be a disaster if their goal was profit
ditto for volunteer fire departments. how does thsi show private for profit would work
and even those, I’m fairly certain their equipment is usually government funded . Sure The people volunteer their time (again often gaining some government perk like reduced property taxes ) Running a fire department seems expensive I doubt there are any fully privately funded certainly not many

“However Volunteers are the OPPOSITE of your approach.”
Not sure where you get this. Forcing people to give money they don’t want to give or volunteer in ways they don’t want is the opposite of my approach. That’s not what volunteer EMT services do.

“Your holocaust part is a bit silly. I’m not advocating for a totalitarian system.”
And I’m not advocating for people to abuse their children. You implied that with my ideology one thing would lead to another, and I did the same with your’s. The difference is that with your’s we’ve already observed it happen so it isn’t just conjecture.

In any case, we’ve drifted from the original topic. We live in a reality where there is always going to be a lot of government, in my opinion too much. I get that you’re trying to invalidate my opposition to specific government functions by pointing out that I’m ideologically against all government, but that’s not a good counterpoint (albeit, that wasn’t your original angle). Anarchism is purely idealistic and hypothetical, whereas wanting to cut the CDC and NIH (which the country did fine without for most of its existence) is a perfectly legitimate, concrete position. We’ve blurred the lines of what I’m advocating for in reality vs. what I would want in my hypothetical, ideal universe.

To be fair, your original goal was to catch me in an inconsistency by finding a government function I actually DO support. When you dug deeper, you discovered that I’m too “evil” to have one of these. So, those of us who support deregulation get to chose between being hypocrites or being evil apparently. I’m not saying you’re overtly supporting it, but I can’t see how this rhetoric that you and everyone else is accustomed to using doesn’t always end up rewarding authoritarianism. Case and point, I could just pick apart the areas where you want less government–which allegedly exist despite not being presented here–and do the same thing to you, forcing you to either double-down or accept being inconsistent.

“Eh, you’re just using the same argument greasy US college “communists” have been saying for years, “It’s never been tried for real”. ”
OK, so here are some examples of Communism being tried “for real”: USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. Can you give me a list of examples in which Libertarianism has been adopted as the official form of government anywhere? My angle is not to defend Libertarians, by the way. I’m arguing with you because your point happens to be factually wrong, but if somehow you can find examples of “Libertarian Governments” failing, then it’s not really going to affect me because I’m not a Libertarian.

“allowing “the people” or “the economy” full power to decide certain major life altering complex decisions is never a good idea.”
I agree that “the people” should not have power to decide on major life altering decisions; I’m not advocating for populism where the majority always decide on everyone’s behalf. That would be collectivism, which is the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.