"There are undoubtedly both risks and benefits associated with vaccinations, the argument over whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits is what separates the pro-vaxxers from the anti-vaxxers. If immunity from diseases really is valuable enough for the government to need to enforce mandatory vaccines, then it would have some form of a value in the free market. When both the risks and benefits of vaccines are numerous enough to spark these disagreements and debates between anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers, the only way to create a better product is to lower the risk of it. But enforcing mandatory vaccinations will create an artificial disincentive for vaccine producers to innovate on safer vaccines. China has a very big problem with vaccines, especially fake and tainted ones, and many children lost their lives in the last decade because of it, thanks to mandatory vaccines. These risks are undoubtedly associated with vaccinations. So you could argue that not using vaccinations may cause some harm, but when their benefits do not outweigh that harm, it becomes unfavourable to expose yourself to that harm. But the argument over whether or not the benefits outweigh the harm is irrelevant. The only argument that matters is whether or not you support individual liberties. Opposing mandatory vaccinations is supporting freedom. Supporting mandatory vaccinations is supporting totalitarianism. Which side do you want to be on?"
I´d rather get vaccinated rather than dying, sometimes liberty is not a healthy choice, and sometime liberty kills. Not all people should be free to do anything. So excessive freedom lead to caos, excessive totalitarism would lead to a dictatorship, moderation is needed, vaccination is important.
