This article shows a strategy to argue against mandatory vaccination. This is not intended for use with people who are actually trying to make up their mind, it is intended for use against those who try to bully others and use aggressive tactics instead of arguments.
Around the world today there are voices calling for mandatory vaccination. And once again it seems like sometimes those in favor of this authoritarian approach also happen to take on critics in a rather aggressive way.
As someone who argues for fun, I could not help but experience that in this particular argument the likelihood of being called a monster, a selfish animal, a barbarian, anti-science, conspiracy theorist and so forth, is very very high. In short: If you don't want to get in trouble, you better not argue against forced vaccination. It gets personal very quickly.
But if you are not afraid to stand your ground against people who see you as the potential and likely future murderer of their children, here are some things to consider.
First of all: In this debate you are the underdog. The other side feels like they got science on their side, authority on their side, humanity on their side. And this is part of why 'pro-vaxxers' tend to get so aggressive. From the get go they are on the side of power and therefore the urge to just destroy the opponent instead of arguing a point is very strong.
The other reason they usually get very exited is that the mainstream media has embarked on a concerted effort to paint 'anti-vaxxers' as uneducated extremists or fundamentalists, in short: you have been portrayed as a biological terrorist before the debate even starts.
Arguing against people who are extremely emotional and have power on their side is always difficult and needs a strategy that reframes the debate in a way that takes away the perceived moral high ground from the other side. Here are some points to help do that. Remember that if there is nobody listening, it is probably not worth arguing at all. The bigger the audience, the better! There is no good reason to argue against someone who is for the initiation of force if there is nobody present who is actually trying to understand both sides.
1. Ask questions.
In order to reframe the debate it is important to ask questions. For example:
'Are you in favor of the government controlling whether you have children?'
'Are you in favor of the government controlling what you eat?'
'Are you in favor of the government deciding how long you live?'
Of course, hardly anybody is in favor of any of these things and therefore now you can go on asking why they are not in favor of these 'solutions', when in fact, they could save millions of lives. Just giving up the consumption of meat would save millions, according to scientists. So why should we not force vegetarianism on everybody? Overpopulation is a big problem, say scientists. So why not control who can have children and how long we can live, when in fact this could save the world?
Now, the only good argument they can possibly come up with is that of individual freedom, which, coincidentally, is also the main argument against forced vaccination.
2. Demand consistency.
So now you enter the debate on the same moral level. While the other side is only for the restriction of individual freedom in some cases, without being able to give any good reason as to why, you can show your consistency in being against all forms of force against another (human) being. The opponent will kick and scream, but without the moral high-ground it is just that, kicking and screaming.
3. No reason arguing safety or effectiveness of vaccines.
Arguing safety and effectiveness just ends in an endless cycle of citing studies.
It is not necessary at all to argue about the safety of vaccines. They do not care and they think your studies are manipulated, while theirs are accepted and true. But even if vaccines were proven to be save and effective without the shadow of a doubt, it would still be morally wrong to take away the individual freedom of another human being in order to forcefully inject vaccines.
When I argue against forced injections I give the opponent the whole safety and effectiveness point and just say this: It does not matter. Even if you forcefully injected me with my favorite medicine, you would still be initiating force against me!
4. Show the real moral argument vs. the imagined
Now that the moral high-ground of the opponent has been taken away and his favorite point about how wonderful vaccines are, is powerless, and he found no way to be consistent, it is time to show who is in the morally questionable position. Forcing someone to eat ice-cream is just as morally wrong as forcing someone to get vaccinated. Water-boarding does not get any better if the water used is from a tasty clean spring now, does it? The initiation of force is the real problem here, what flavor that force comes in is of no importance whatsoever. This is very important.
The real moral question is whether it is voluntary or forced. Those who believe in the initiation of force are on morally very shaky ground. My favorite way to illustrate the difference between voluntary action and forced action is sex: If it is voluntary, it's called making love, if it is forced it's called rape.
At this point the 'pro-vaxxer' will argue that your selfish rebellion against all that secures the survival of our species is the real initiation of force and they only need to force you because you are a threat.
This, of course, is absurd. And actually it would be enough to go back to point number one in order to address it. It is life itself that forces risks upon the living and finally it will force death upon us. This is no reason to give up freedom, though.
Not accepting this and trying to control the behavior of others in order to change this fact, is outrageous and futile. Take responsibility for your health and the health of your children, instead of trying to force your will upon others, how about that?
Not the unvaccinated force risks on others, life forces risks on all of us and nobody can change that. Someone who is not vaccinated is, if any, a potential risk, not a real one. The initiation of force on the other hand is a real threat, not just for the individual, but for society as a whole.
If a potential threat were enough to justify the initiation of force, I could use force against 'pro-vaxxers' right now just because they are seriously arguing about initiating force against me. But it is not. Once they do try and inject me forcefully, I have the right to fight back, before I do not. That is the difference.
If I come running after you with a syringe full of pathogens trying to inject you, that is the moment I become a real threat and you have the right to take measures against this threat. Otherwise you don't. Just because I may get an illness at some point in the future, does not mean you can rightfully use force against me.
5. Show the implications of abolishing individual freedom
Now it is time to go for the oscar. As a closing statement it is nice to show the beauty of freedom and the horror of force and coercion. Just point out how important individual freedom is, if we have any desire to live in a free and open society.
The recognition of Individual freedom is one of the greatest achievements of humanity. By abolishing individual freedom we take a giant step back in human history and progress and once again we would face the tyrants of the world. Without any rights we would face those who dream of absolute control without the individual freedom of the subjects being in their way.
There is a name for those who had their individual freedom taken away from them. There is a name for those who are helpless subjects to the whims of the powerful. There is a name for those who do not own and control their bodies: They are called slaves.
6. Extend your hand to the opponent
Finally, it is a nice touch to give the opponent a way out. I like to ensure them that I understand their concerns and worries, but that force is just not a good way to win the hearts and minds of the skeptics. If indeed the 'pro-vaxxers' are just concerned for the health of everybody, they may want to put their energy into demanding/making a better vaccine, a product so good, there will be no need to force it upon people. In order to get more people vaccinated, why not make it more attractive? Making it mandatory is not making vaccination look more attractive by any means. It makes it look more dangerous, more dubious and more people will oppose it as a result.
