"Computer errors" in these situations usually mean a human entered data incorrectly or someone pushed the wrong button; not that a software bug turned 600 rejections into acceptance.
As HAL said: It can only be attributable to human error.
What you view as "horrendous", many of those who grew in the culture view as "great" and what you view as "great" many view as "horrendous".
I grew up in Europe. What you write about the rest of Europe is factually wrong. Most of Europe doesn't work like you imagine based on your apparently limited experience in Finland.
Because in US the social norm is that open profiteering from suffering of those poorer is completely acceptable and even encouraged
The US spends more on welfare per capita than your country, and Americans make far more voluntary charitable donations than Europeans. America's tax revenue as percentage of GDP is comparable to Switzerland, Australia, and Japan (and in absolute numbers is larger than most European countries). Your idea of the US as a low-tax system without a social safety net has no basis in reality.
Germany sharply limited welfare and unemployment benefits in the early 2000's because the generous benefits were creating a permanent unemployed underclass and in addition weren't fiscally sustainable; the low unemployment in Germany is in part a result of those reforms. Americans are contemplating similar reforms for similar reasons, not out of greed and selfishness, as you allege.
ranging from Nordic countries (which view consensus and cooperation as primary tools of both political and economic systems)
What Nordic countries did was to create highly homogeneous societies through war, secession, and political pressures. The end result was countries like Finland: five million white Lutherans and very few immigrants living under a system of stifling conformity and mediocrity. Even if other nations wanted to live like that, it simply isn't a realistic choice in the 21st century. Give it another decade or two and the Finnish welfare state will disappear because it's not sustainable.
In Nazi Germany, most Germans were actually opposed to Hitler; before and after he became dictator. A little thing called vote fraud lead to him becoming "elected,"... Your examples are largely composed of military force keeping the population under control.
That's a self-serving fiction. In fact, the Nazi party was one of the largest political parties in German in the early 1930's, receiving around 1/3 of the vote. The Nazis formed a coalition with conservatives and Hitler later received nearly unlimited powers as head of state in a vote of parliament in which all major parties other than the socialists and communists supported him. Hitler was enormously popular until the 1940's, when the war effort started failing. Hitler and the Nazis were also widely supported by the German Catholic church, the German protestant churches, academics, and industrialists.
The idea that Germans were "kept down" by a military dictatorship led by Hitler is inconsistent with historical fact.
However, the president says the public itself is driving concern for leaving law enforcement a way in:
So, Obama doesn't really want strong encryption, he just wants to sound like he does. He's given use the same double-speak on extrajudicial killings, NSA spying, and handouts to banks, Wall Street, and big corporations. Obama is just a windbag.
And to a lesser extent in Germany and Scotland. All of these are functional states (with exception of Scotland) where people routinely vote for and say in polls that they are willing to pay more taxes so that those who are not viable humans can live a decent life.
You know how much the average jobless family on welfare gets in Germany? About EU 830; that's less than $1000/month. If you are really lucky and max out everything, you might get maybe $1800/month for a family of four. And that has to pay for rent, heating, insurance, and food (no food stamps). People who are "not viable" don't live decent lives in Germany, all they do is barely scrape by. And for these unemployment programs, people pay insurance contributions while they work on top of already high taxes, so they aren't even generally financed by taxes.
If welfare benefits are so poor, why do Germans pay such high taxes? It's mostly crony capitalism: that money gets funneled to big German corporations, in various deals involving the government, unions, and corporate management. And that's pretty much the same pattern we see with "social programs" and "welfare" in the US: very little of it benefits the intended recipients, almost all of it is funneled to special interests.
There are several concrete counter-examples that prove it false, ranging from Nordic countries (which view consensus and cooperation as primary tools of both political and economic systems)
The Nordic countries are small, and they aren't actually the utopias you imagine them to be. Read "The Almost Nearly Perfect People".
as well as much bigger Japan which has more of a top down system but where bosses initially even committed honourable suicide when they had to let workers go because it was considered such a significant loss of face
And you think that workers are doing any better under the Japanese system? Have you been to the tiny Japanese homes? Do you understand what horrendous social, cultural, and economic strictures Japanese live under?
You let your mask slip: you want to turn the US in Germany, the Nordic countries, and/or Japan. And the proper response to uninformed people like you is simply: hell no! Why would we want to impoverish ourselves like that? Go learn something about the world before you spout any more such nonsense.
There are a number of other 'gift economies' among isolated, pre-industrial cultures.... Participation is managed by social expectation and taboo
That's the way the West used to work as well, pre-Enlightenment. These kinds of societies are ruthless, intolerant, oppressive, and, most importantly, poor.
Nor is 'free market' an especially good way to deal with scarcity. If it were, then you wouldn't need social support programs.
What kind of "scarcity" do you believe "social support programs" are needed to deal with?
The Kula Ring [wikipedia.org] in the Trobriand Islands, where the residents of different islands developed a tradition of exchange of 'gifts,' distinct from barter-like trade.
And so do we: there are Amish, Kibbutzim, communes, and other communities. You can choose to be part of them if that's the kind of society you want to live in. In fact, those communities are larger, freer, and wealthier than any of the pre-industrial societies you mention. And as an added bonus, when you piss off your fellow zealots, you still have the option of returning to mainstream society.
Explicitly, it requires the organism to have enough intelligence to remember what happened in previous games, so a bacteria without memory is not covered under this model.
But many bacteria do have memory. And under the definitions of "theory of mind" and "sentience" used in this paper, some of them may well be sentient as well.
Also worth mentioning that 'good for the individual' is not the same as 'good for the species,' and nature selects the latter
To the contrary, there is little evidence for the existence of group selection in nature.
The paper seems to be showing that if you assume that your opponent's strategy is fixed, you are subject to extortion. The authors then say that not assuming that your opponent's strategy is fixed means having a theory of mind, and that requires sentience. The argument doesn't work because you don't need a "theory of mind" or "sentience" in order to model strategy switching. A pretty poor paper.
First, I own some land. I can reasonably control what's going on within a few meters of the surface. I can't possibly control 500m up. The only way I can do that is to have something like the government do the enforcement for me.
There is a big difference between "something like the government" and "the government": the former is voluntary, the latter is not.
Second, you said "The existence of the FAA and their regulations is precisely what is preventing things from working that way.", despite the fact that it worked that way here. We are in the FAA's jurisdiction here, and that didn't prevent homeowners from getting free or subsidized soundproofing and other compensation when the flight routes got busier.
So, airlines and airports make tons of money by imposing extra noise levels on homeowners. And then they "compensate" homeowners by destroying enjoyment of their yards, forcing them to go through the hassle of installing soundproofing, and don't even cover the whole cost of that? Resale values of their homes will, of course, plummet. Sorry, but that isn't "compensation", that is crony capitalism and FAA-mandated theft.
Just compensation for a new flightpath over existing homes would easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per home when trying to build a new airport in an urban area, and the proper way to price that would be for airlines to buy easements. The way it works now is that government sets some arbitrary compensation, usually far below the market value of easements, and usually makes the tax payer pay for it.
The paper you show points to the elimination of metallic mercury. Metallic mercury is indeed not very bio-available. But there are many other inorganic forms of mercury.
I'm sorry, but from what you write, it sounds like you are simply not qualified to make any statements about mercury toxicity or to judge whether the papers you point to are relevant or accurate.
I'm going to keep doing so because this is only ONE of my beliefs. I get going on a rant about the drug war, prostitution, property rights, and such and you'll see that I'm much closer to libertarian than progressive/liberal.
You seem to view political orientation as a set of policy preferences: if you like a lot of libertarian policies that makes you a libertarian, if you like a lot of liberal policies, that makes you a liberal. It doesn't work that way.
You're a libertarian if you place the highest value in all political choices on individual liberty. You obviously don't do that, because you reason about policy from a point of utility and positive rights. The style of your reasoning makes you a progressive, even if you arrive at conclusions similar to libertarians in many cases.
Now, in many cases, utilitarian arguments will lead you to the same conclusions as libertarian arguments because individual liberties and responsibility tend to bring about positive outcomes, so there are many "libertarian leaning progressives", but ultimately, they (and you) are progressives.
Another reason why policy preferences don't tell you much about political ideology is because the policies we are discussing don't occur in a free environment. In a libertarian society, government-mandated vaccinations just wouldn't be an issue: people would get vaccinated (probably at a higher rate) as part of voluntary interactions. The question of whether a government-run school system should mandate this or that vaccination is not a libertarian question, it's a question of balancing various injustices against each other, and libertarians can disagree on that.
I suggest reading "For a New Liberty" if you want to figure out whether you are a progressive or a libertarian.
This seems like a general problem, too many people who would rip others off take it for granted everyone is the same.
That's how real-world science works: scientists look mainly at proving theories that are appealing to the community and will preferentially publish when they find results that agree with what the community already assumes is true. Publication bias and other such errors are widespread in science and well-known and serious problems. I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with scientific research that you don't know about this.
Of course, it's wrong and unethical. And that's why people are upset about it when the results from such efforts are used to justify policy.
What's the real difference between government regulation that restricts aerial activity by regulating such activity, and government regulation that says that you have a right to interfere with anything over your property, no matter how high up?
You have property rights "ad caelum et ad inferos"; it isn't granted by regulation, so the second part of regulation simply doesn't exist.
Hence, court action is expensive and cumbersome, and therefore the amounts of money involved have to be substantial
Yes, and that's generally a good thing: by leaving this up to courts, people only will try to enforce cases against serious violations.
As far as FAA regs not protecting against noise, that's because it's impossible. Aircraft are noisy. If we are to operate aircraft in a populated area (and there's no point in having a major airport in an unpopulated area), people are going to get jet noise.
Yes, and companies can and should pay for the nuisance they impose on others, just like polluters should pay for the harm they do to others through their pollution. See, what you still don't get is that the FAA and the EPA aren't there to protect you from evil corporations, they exist to shield evil corporations from the consequences of their actions.
If they bought their house where there was lots of jet noise, well, that's the decision they made. If noise increased in a way they couldn't reasonably predict after they bought it, they deserve compensation.
Yes, I agree completely: that's how it should work. The existence of the FAA and their regulations is precisely what is preventing things from working that way.
Because children too young to be vaccinated are some sort of selfish interest group out to steal your liberties...
There are no "children too young to be vaccinated". We don't vaccinate young children for the simple reason that they are already protected by their mothers' antibodies.
But, hey, don't let scientific facts get in the way of your uninformed fear mongering. Idiots like you are the perfect counterpart for the anti-vaxxers.
It's the difference between killing somebody in a car accident and killing somebody in a DUI car accident.
Even if that analogy worked, so what? I'm objecting to you calling yourself a "moderate libertarian"; you're not a libertarian, you're a progressive. Maybe you're a moderate progressive, but a progressive nonetheless.
I'll restate my belief: Do as you will, so long as it doesn't harm none consenting parties.
How nice, but that's not a libertarian principle given the expansive and vague notions of "harm" and "consent" you are using.
thus the more protected EVERYONE is the more people have been vaccinated.
And that's a typical progressive argument: it is OK for the state to force a minority to do things against their will because government experts believe it improves things for society as a whole. That view is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.
And of course, your justification is bullshit: herd immunity is certainly nice to have, but it isn't essential to any public health goal or the protection of vulnerable individuals. But the major issue isn't about whether everybody should get vaccinated (that's a desirable goal), but the means by which that is accomplished, and while the draconian approach you propose may be effective, it is not libertarian, and it is not compatible with a free society. A libertarian approach to vaccination would likely achieve higher vaccination rates without government compulsion.
Please stop calling yourself a libertarian, because you are not.
and breaks down into safe inorganic mercury a lot quicker
You know, I think thimerosal at low doses is generally pretty safe, but that doesn't give you a license to spew such bullshit: there is no such thing as "safe inorganic mercury".
Your doggy day care is a private business, so it can impose whatever rules it likes.
If schools were private as well, these issues would go away, as would the endless debates about whether teachers are paid enough or whether evolution should be taught.
Because your kid or mine possibly isn't immune - vaccines don't result in immunity for all takers.
So what? You get a weak case of the measles.
The odds of bad reactions to a vaccine are far, far lower than the odds of getting the disease from those who didn't get the vaccine or those who can't take the vaccine.
Most people who get vaccinated will feel mildly ill and tired. Many people get specific symptoms, like headaches, sore throat, or fever.
Someone's right to not get a vaccine should not trump my sister's right to live (she has a compromised immune system)
I disagree. I don't have to jump in the water to save you from drowning. I don't have to resuscitate you if you stop breathing. I don't have to donate blood or bone marrow in order to save you, even if I'm the only viable donor. People have a right not to act even if acting could save someone's life. The choice to act in order to save someone is a moral choice, but imposing a requirement to act is immoral.
But that's a false choice anyway, because if your sister is sick enough to be at mortal risk from measles, she is at mortal risk from many other diseases as well, and whether I or anybody else gets vaccinated makes no real difference to her.
If you decide, as foolish as it may be, that vaccines are bad, and you refuse to have your children vaccinated, and there are enough of you that it compromises herd immunity, what is the recourse for those whose children are too young or for other legitimate medical reasons could not have the vaccine?
Children can be vaccinated at birth, we just don't do it because it makes more sense to do it later. And if you have a condition that prevents you from being vaccinated against measles, you are at risk for hundreds of common diseases that we can't vaccinate against, and you need to take other precautions anyway. So your choice is hypothetical.
But let's say we did face that choice. If forcing group A to undergo a medical procedure in order to save the lives of group B, is that a moral thing to do? I don't believe it is. Can you name any other case where we adopt that principle? If that were the principle, why not make blood, bone marrow, or even kidney donations mandatory too?
No, they go to jail for harming others. They only go to jail if:
How exactly is that supposed to work? For example, there's a good chance that you are a carrier of CMV or EBV. Both of those can kill others. What steps are you taking to prevent transmitting them? At some point, you will probably get infected with the flu virus. The flu virus can and will kill others. If you get the first symptoms of the flu, do you isolate yourself to prevent its transmission to others until you're sure it's not the flu?
Your right to throw your fist stops at my nose. Personally, I include easily preventable diseases in that.
That's not analogous. If you are a healthy human being, you can protect yourself from measles by getting vaccinated. If you're not, you are essentially saying that you want to force the rest of society to undergo medical procedures so that you can live as if you were healthy. That's asserting a "positive right", and it's incompatible with libertarianism. It's also morally wrong.
Require vaccinations for state-funded education and the anti-vaxxers will be all over your ass for discriminating against their children
And for good reason: they are forced to pay for schools. If we had portable school funding or vouchers, this issue would go away, like most of the other issues over the failures of the education system. Anti-vaxxers could not exert political pressures to force private schools to accept their children.
Failure to vaccinate, like most other failures of our schools, is a result of them being public schools, subject to lobbying by teachers and parents.
Slashdot Mirror
"Computer errors" in these situations usually mean a human entered data incorrectly or someone pushed the wrong button; not that a software bug turned 600 rejections into acceptance.
As HAL said: It can only be attributable to human error.
I grew up in Europe. What you write about the rest of Europe is factually wrong. Most of Europe doesn't work like you imagine based on your apparently limited experience in Finland.
The US spends more on welfare per capita than your country, and Americans make far more voluntary charitable donations than Europeans. America's tax revenue as percentage of GDP is comparable to Switzerland, Australia, and Japan (and in absolute numbers is larger than most European countries). Your idea of the US as a low-tax system without a social safety net has no basis in reality.
Germany sharply limited welfare and unemployment benefits in the early 2000's because the generous benefits were creating a permanent unemployed underclass and in addition weren't fiscally sustainable; the low unemployment in Germany is in part a result of those reforms. Americans are contemplating similar reforms for similar reasons, not out of greed and selfishness, as you allege.
What Nordic countries did was to create highly homogeneous societies through war, secession, and political pressures. The end result was countries like Finland: five million white Lutherans and very few immigrants living under a system of stifling conformity and mediocrity. Even if other nations wanted to live like that, it simply isn't a realistic choice in the 21st century. Give it another decade or two and the Finnish welfare state will disappear because it's not sustainable.
That's a self-serving fiction. In fact, the Nazi party was one of the largest political parties in German in the early 1930's, receiving around 1/3 of the vote. The Nazis formed a coalition with conservatives and Hitler later received nearly unlimited powers as head of state in a vote of parliament in which all major parties other than the socialists and communists supported him. Hitler was enormously popular until the 1940's, when the war effort started failing. Hitler and the Nazis were also widely supported by the German Catholic church, the German protestant churches, academics, and industrialists.
The idea that Germans were "kept down" by a military dictatorship led by Hitler is inconsistent with historical fact.
So, Obama doesn't really want strong encryption, he just wants to sound like he does. He's given use the same double-speak on extrajudicial killings, NSA spying, and handouts to banks, Wall Street, and big corporations. Obama is just a windbag.
You know how much the average jobless family on welfare gets in Germany? About EU 830; that's less than $1000/month. If you are really lucky and max out everything, you might get maybe $1800/month for a family of four. And that has to pay for rent, heating, insurance, and food (no food stamps). People who are "not viable" don't live decent lives in Germany, all they do is barely scrape by. And for these unemployment programs, people pay insurance contributions while they work on top of already high taxes, so they aren't even generally financed by taxes.
If welfare benefits are so poor, why do Germans pay such high taxes? It's mostly crony capitalism: that money gets funneled to big German corporations, in various deals involving the government, unions, and corporate management. And that's pretty much the same pattern we see with "social programs" and "welfare" in the US: very little of it benefits the intended recipients, almost all of it is funneled to special interests.
The Nordic countries are small, and they aren't actually the utopias you imagine them to be. Read "The Almost Nearly Perfect People".
And you think that workers are doing any better under the Japanese system? Have you been to the tiny Japanese homes? Do you understand what horrendous social, cultural, and economic strictures Japanese live under?
You let your mask slip: you want to turn the US in Germany, the Nordic countries, and/or Japan. And the proper response to uninformed people like you is simply: hell no! Why would we want to impoverish ourselves like that? Go learn something about the world before you spout any more such nonsense.
That's the way the West used to work as well, pre-Enlightenment. These kinds of societies are ruthless, intolerant, oppressive, and, most importantly, poor.
What kind of "scarcity" do you believe "social support programs" are needed to deal with?
And so do we: there are Amish, Kibbutzim, communes, and other communities. You can choose to be part of them if that's the kind of society you want to live in. In fact, those communities are larger, freer, and wealthier than any of the pre-industrial societies you mention. And as an added bonus, when you piss off your fellow zealots, you still have the option of returning to mainstream society.
But many bacteria do have memory. And under the definitions of "theory of mind" and "sentience" used in this paper, some of them may well be sentient as well.
To the contrary, there is little evidence for the existence of group selection in nature.
The paper seems to be showing that if you assume that your opponent's strategy is fixed, you are subject to extortion. The authors then say that not assuming that your opponent's strategy is fixed means having a theory of mind, and that requires sentience. The argument doesn't work because you don't need a "theory of mind" or "sentience" in order to model strategy switching. A pretty poor paper.
There is a big difference between "something like the government" and "the government": the former is voluntary, the latter is not.
So, airlines and airports make tons of money by imposing extra noise levels on homeowners. And then they "compensate" homeowners by destroying enjoyment of their yards, forcing them to go through the hassle of installing soundproofing, and don't even cover the whole cost of that? Resale values of their homes will, of course, plummet. Sorry, but that isn't "compensation", that is crony capitalism and FAA-mandated theft.
Just compensation for a new flightpath over existing homes would easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per home when trying to build a new airport in an urban area, and the proper way to price that would be for airlines to buy easements. The way it works now is that government sets some arbitrary compensation, usually far below the market value of easements, and usually makes the tax payer pay for it.
The paper you show points to the elimination of metallic mercury. Metallic mercury is indeed not very bio-available. But there are many other inorganic forms of mercury.
I'm sorry, but from what you write, it sounds like you are simply not qualified to make any statements about mercury toxicity or to judge whether the papers you point to are relevant or accurate.
You seem to view political orientation as a set of policy preferences: if you like a lot of libertarian policies that makes you a libertarian, if you like a lot of liberal policies, that makes you a liberal. It doesn't work that way.
You're a libertarian if you place the highest value in all political choices on individual liberty. You obviously don't do that, because you reason about policy from a point of utility and positive rights. The style of your reasoning makes you a progressive, even if you arrive at conclusions similar to libertarians in many cases.
Now, in many cases, utilitarian arguments will lead you to the same conclusions as libertarian arguments because individual liberties and responsibility tend to bring about positive outcomes, so there are many "libertarian leaning progressives", but ultimately, they (and you) are progressives.
Another reason why policy preferences don't tell you much about political ideology is because the policies we are discussing don't occur in a free environment. In a libertarian society, government-mandated vaccinations just wouldn't be an issue: people would get vaccinated (probably at a higher rate) as part of voluntary interactions. The question of whether a government-run school system should mandate this or that vaccination is not a libertarian question, it's a question of balancing various injustices against each other, and libertarians can disagree on that.
I suggest reading "For a New Liberty" if you want to figure out whether you are a progressive or a libertarian.
That's how real-world science works: scientists look mainly at proving theories that are appealing to the community and will preferentially publish when they find results that agree with what the community already assumes is true. Publication bias and other such errors are widespread in science and well-known and serious problems. I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with scientific research that you don't know about this.
Of course, it's wrong and unethical. And that's why people are upset about it when the results from such efforts are used to justify policy.
The way this works is as follows:
1. think up horrible scenario vaguely related to high temperatures
2. run climate models with many different parameters
3. if some parameters produce the desired scenario, publish a scientific paper on the horrors of climate change
4. if no parameters produce the desired scenario, start over at (1)
I mean, seriously, how is such pseudo-science possibly falsifiable?
You have property rights "ad caelum et ad inferos"; it isn't granted by regulation, so the second part of regulation simply doesn't exist.
Yes, and that's generally a good thing: by leaving this up to courts, people only will try to enforce cases against serious violations.
Yes, and companies can and should pay for the nuisance they impose on others, just like polluters should pay for the harm they do to others through their pollution. See, what you still don't get is that the FAA and the EPA aren't there to protect you from evil corporations, they exist to shield evil corporations from the consequences of their actions.
Yes, I agree completely: that's how it should work. The existence of the FAA and their regulations is precisely what is preventing things from working that way.
There are no "children too young to be vaccinated". We don't vaccinate young children for the simple reason that they are already protected by their mothers' antibodies.
But, hey, don't let scientific facts get in the way of your uninformed fear mongering. Idiots like you are the perfect counterpart for the anti-vaxxers.
Even if that analogy worked, so what? I'm objecting to you calling yourself a "moderate libertarian"; you're not a libertarian, you're a progressive. Maybe you're a moderate progressive, but a progressive nonetheless.
How nice, but that's not a libertarian principle given the expansive and vague notions of "harm" and "consent" you are using.
And that's a typical progressive argument: it is OK for the state to force a minority to do things against their will because government experts believe it improves things for society as a whole. That view is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.
And of course, your justification is bullshit: herd immunity is certainly nice to have, but it isn't essential to any public health goal or the protection of vulnerable individuals. But the major issue isn't about whether everybody should get vaccinated (that's a desirable goal), but the means by which that is accomplished, and while the draconian approach you propose may be effective, it is not libertarian, and it is not compatible with a free society. A libertarian approach to vaccination would likely achieve higher vaccination rates without government compulsion.
Please stop calling yourself a libertarian, because you are not.
You know, I think thimerosal at low doses is generally pretty safe, but that doesn't give you a license to spew such bullshit: there is no such thing as "safe inorganic mercury".
Your doggy day care is a private business, so it can impose whatever rules it likes.
If schools were private as well, these issues would go away, as would the endless debates about whether teachers are paid enough or whether evolution should be taught.
So what? You get a weak case of the measles.
Most people who get vaccinated will feel mildly ill and tired. Many people get specific symptoms, like headaches, sore throat, or fever.
I disagree. I don't have to jump in the water to save you from drowning. I don't have to resuscitate you if you stop breathing. I don't have to donate blood or bone marrow in order to save you, even if I'm the only viable donor. People have a right not to act even if acting could save someone's life. The choice to act in order to save someone is a moral choice, but imposing a requirement to act is immoral.
But that's a false choice anyway, because if your sister is sick enough to be at mortal risk from measles, she is at mortal risk from many other diseases as well, and whether I or anybody else gets vaccinated makes no real difference to her.
Babies can be vaccinated against measles.
Children can be vaccinated at birth, we just don't do it because it makes more sense to do it later. And if you have a condition that prevents you from being vaccinated against measles, you are at risk for hundreds of common diseases that we can't vaccinate against, and you need to take other precautions anyway. So your choice is hypothetical.
But let's say we did face that choice. If forcing group A to undergo a medical procedure in order to save the lives of group B, is that a moral thing to do? I don't believe it is. Can you name any other case where we adopt that principle? If that were the principle, why not make blood, bone marrow, or even kidney donations mandatory too?
Science as applied to policy and the law is, however, determined in court.
In that case, though, the kids should get a school voucher so that they can go to private school without paying twice.
How exactly is that supposed to work? For example, there's a good chance that you are a carrier of CMV or EBV. Both of those can kill others. What steps are you taking to prevent transmitting them? At some point, you will probably get infected with the flu virus. The flu virus can and will kill others. If you get the first symptoms of the flu, do you isolate yourself to prevent its transmission to others until you're sure it's not the flu?
That's not analogous. If you are a healthy human being, you can protect yourself from measles by getting vaccinated. If you're not, you are essentially saying that you want to force the rest of society to undergo medical procedures so that you can live as if you were healthy. That's asserting a "positive right", and it's incompatible with libertarianism. It's also morally wrong.
And for good reason: they are forced to pay for schools. If we had portable school funding or vouchers, this issue would go away, like most of the other issues over the failures of the education system. Anti-vaxxers could not exert political pressures to force private schools to accept their children.
Failure to vaccinate, like most other failures of our schools, is a result of them being public schools, subject to lobbying by teachers and parents.