https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Already resolved in America, at least, with good arguments
>> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.
Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly externality.
since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really most natural framework to sort all this out.
as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about trollies and track switches anymore.
You say that choices whose primary consequences are to be born by the family ought to stay with the family.
With that logic established, do you believe violence against family members is permitted? How about psychological harm or abuse?
Your logic doesn't hold up because we've established that certain things are Bad regardless if it's self-contained within a family unit. Ergo, vaccinations should be included as something that should be included. Avoiding vaccinations I argue is tantamount to child abuse.