Government cannot protect you in prisons which are hell holes of gang violence and drugs. Government cannot protect you from getting shot in half the blocks in major cities. As Hannah Arendt said the origin of totalitarianism is not dictatorships or oligarchies but democracies which make control and servitude legal. Good comment!
PS don't forget we are in a interglacial warming period and have many hundreds of years before the next glaciation epoch.

No, I think the law should be correctly applied to protect Natural Rights

Sorry but you have presented no facts. You have only made unsupported statements. I have read several of your posts over the years that I have been here and you are better than this.

There are some bad actors who will lie to win in any type of court case, but do you believe that vaccine manufacturers are uniquely affected, and/or uniquely deserving of protection? No other industry enjoys this protection from product liability -- from responsibility for their inevitable errors or malfeasance -- that I know of.

That is the problem when courts and the law do not apply scientific evidence. Plenty of people got rich because of nonscientific claims..

This article advocates an inherently contradictory approach to vaccines and to economics. The authors favor the free market in releasing vaccine manufacturers from regulations such as safety standards, yet support government interference in shielding manufacturers from tort liability when their products harm consumers, among other things.

We shall see the effects this unprincipled, pro-pharmaceutical company type of government policy has on vaccines from this point on. Vaccine makers still have their immunity from being sued for making harmful products, and with the December 2016 passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, they also get the freedom from supposedly onerous safety regulation that they wanted. I tend to agree with the people who are concerned that this imbalanced approach (tampering in the free market only to benefit drug manufacturers and not consumers) is not going to have good results for the consumers. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...

I completely agree with Abaco that "no new vaccines" is not an accurate statement of facts, unless what is meant is "no new vaccines this month." Compare the vaccine schedule from the late 1960s to the one administered to children today; there are dozens of new vaccines since the 60s. The HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix brand names) is only a few years old. The chicken pox and rotavirus vaccines are other fairly recent additions. And Congress appropriated a billion dollars of taxpayer money last session to fund development of a Zika vaccine.

interesting

good point

hear hhear

Facts are facts

db; Good Post, and timely in my view. Existence exists and life comes with Rights, but only to those that choose to reason and use their rational minds. Giving up one's Rights in the face of fear is not rational or reasoned, particularly when it also includes becoming a slave, either to those that promise you something that's impossible to give you, or to irrational fear.

Keeping yourself safe is a personal responsibility, involving an awareness of one's surroundings, knowledge regarding how to successfully interact with those surroundings, (in whatever form) and a philosophical premise that the use of force is only justified in self defense. All other relationships require persuasion and voluntary consent.
Those who do not, or are unable, (or unwilling) to understand this concept often confuse it with security (as provided by others, typically government) and seem to lack the desire for, or understanding of, personal freedom.
Security, (feeling safe) is more often than not related to how well one has adapted to, (and has knowledge of) his environment and his personal coping skill set

I'm not missing the point at all, just disagreeing with the premise of the "right to travel" and pointing out where that right stops. As said before here, the right to travel ends the first time someone puts up a fence. Dale and I have had words about this for a while now. We agree to disagree.

Sorry but I cannot agree. The Constitution of the United States applies to The United States alone and not the rest of the world. Yes we often impose our will outside of our boarders but honestly we shouldn't.

As to whether or not the Government has the authority to search, question, or detain people at the border. I agree that it is not explicitly detailed within the Constitution but I would argue that it can be implied via The Preamble by, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Searching incoming people at the boarders especially non-citizens would work towards these promises within The Preamble.

OA, I agree with your suggestion and also feel that interstate travel should not be impeded any more than the airline itself decides is necessary. As they own the planes in question it should be up to them, and then the customer can vote with their wallets.

Nope. I have both and so do you.

"Brutal people keeping us safe."
Anyone else see the irony?

Hello puzzlelady,
Quite right. Good to hear from you. :)
Regards,
O.A.

One of the long term plans of the corporate gov. we have now has been to offer security in exchange for our freedoms. And it is working very well. In time past you would know everyone who lived on the same block as you. If someone had a problem you would help them out even if you didn't like them very much. You would help them because you knew when the time came and you need help they would come to your aid. The gov. has been inserting itself between us. "You can depend on the gov. to care for you." Implying you don't need your neighbors help. Isolating us from each other and making it easier to control us. So how many of us know who our neighbors are? And would you help them?

Hello Eyecu2,
On international flights, Customs could provide a list, pictures and biometrics to whatever agency is providing the security and Customs agents could be on site to take custody after security has identified someone on the list. I am most offended by the excessive scrutiny of citizens flying interstate. I can drive between states without impediment or violation of my rights by the government, but not so if I fly.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Nope. If you really want security then it is best to put you in a prison.