Well maybe we should just give permits to people that the government deem responsible enough to have children. The requirements could be so high that only the wealthy could afford the requirements. That way all children could have the safest cars when they get old enough to drive and go to the safest private schools and have the best health care. As long as we are shooting for this utopia, where no one experiences life.
I think letting people believe that the government is there to protect its citizens from their own stupid decisions leads to a bunch of brain dead citizens - just look at our society. It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing. If government quit nannying citizens, people would be more responsible and independent. But you hear and see the attitude: Oh, it's FDA approved that means its fine. Oh it's on tv the FCC will protect my children. Oh the Department of Education wouldn't advocate propaganda or a biased curriculum. Oh the Highway Department would let this bridge rot. Etc.
Yeah, you should be able to build a sub par home, if your not in noncompliance with an existing covenant but when you try to get insurance for your home the insurance agent should be able to tell you "I'm not insuring that" and the government should not force him to cover structures he doesn't want to and the government shouldn't pick up the tab when your house gets destroyed.
I like the hunting anaology that will give me something to think about but felons first need to be redefined as people that infringe other peoples freedoms and after they rot in prison they should be able to have their guns back and their right to vote - they've done their time but that's why they should rot first.
So what your implying is government knows what is best for our children? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi type phuckers know what's best for our kids? Load up an kid with 48 (might be 49 or 50 by now) different inoculations before the age of six just because legislators have said we have to and we all know their intelligence far exceeds that of the average citizen.
If you research the hep b vaccination and hep b disease statistics you will learn that very few people when contracting the disease have to go to the hospital (5-10%) and of the ones that go to the hospital most come home. If I remember correctly those who die from hep b is less than 1%, those who don't die, have an immunity against it for the rest of their life. Then compare that to the damages reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Plus take into consideration that many doctors will claim that the cases reported to VAERS are probably not all the adverse cases because most are probably classified as SIDS or believed to be coincidental.
Also take the fact that there has not been a study on the effects of any vaccine on kids under the age of 5, that along with the fact that Hep b is typically an adult disease, I don't see the justification of how the benefits outweigh the risk of giving this vaccine to an infant. So why do they push the Hep b vaccination within the first weeks of an infants life and most the time before he/she even leaves the hospital for the first time - that makes no phucking sense what so ever.