How to Be Libertarian on the Vaccine Issue without Placing the World in Danger

This is a difficult question.  One that even top Libertarians like Julie Borowski and Leif Bieberson are grappling with.  As Libertarians, we generally teach that government force and regulation should not force any particular behavior on the individual and that government force should only be used to prohibit activities in which one person harms another without his permission.  That becomes a sticky point even for some Libertarians, because the act of not vaccinating is seen by some to cause harm to others.  But government should only be able to prevent harmful action, not harmful inaction and at its core, Libertarianism MUST reject any policy that allows the government to forcibly insert something in an unwilling person's body.  So, back to the title, how can a person be Libertarian on the vaccine issue without being partially responsible for a world wide measles outbreak?

The best answer to that question is complicated in that it forces us to reexamine some of our assumptions and things that we take for granted.  For example, the question of whether public school children should be forced to be vaccinated begs the question, should we have public schools?  While not necessarily directly opposing freedom in general, the existence of public schools is antithetical to Libertarian ideals because once a society becomes dependent on government schools, they owe the government for that service.  The government acquires the right to require vaccinations, uniforms, drug tests, locker searches, etc. in payment for the education we depend on.  Before we can insist that the government shouldn't force certain behaviors on us, we have to stop accepting their handouts.

Once we give up on things like the public schools, we place ourselves in a position to be able to choose schools based, in part, on the vaccinations rules set by the private school owners, or just teach our children at home.  But what then about areas that are privately owned, but frequented by large portions of the public?  Should the government force vaccination in those cases?  No, we never allow the government to force things into an unwilling person's body.  However, in situations like this, when disease rates are rising as a result of people who choose not to vaccinate, what if there were a private solution?  Businesses, like Disney, to use the example that has been in the news, that have become incubation sites for formerly nearly eradicated diseases could start to require vaccination records for their patrons.  People could choose to attend the park (or other business) or not based on its vaccination policies.  Vaccination policies would change as markets dictated and government force would not have to be used.  Parks and other large businesses could decide for themselves whether they wanted to make exceptions based on a child having medical reasons for not being vaccinated.  People who thought a particular business's policies were wrong or unfair could boycott the business.  The market would be the force rather than government force.

This is my current thought, but it is open to growth as people share more ideas that I may have missed.  Let me know what you think!!