4 ms·

We are not talking about forced vaccination. I'm referring to the workplace mandates where people are still free to not vaccinate if they wish, just as their em

We are not talking about forced vaccination. I'm referring to the workplace mandates where people are still free to not vaccinate if they wish, just as their employer is free under at-will employment to kick them out. But even if we consider literal forced vaccinations, I still don't see that as necessarily inconsistent with libertarianism, due to the reasons I outlined, specifically the non aggression principle. Suppose that a new disease emerged that had a mortality rate of Ebola and a transmissibility of COVID. Suppose we had a vaccine that was capable of stopping transmission. In such a rare and extreme set of circumstances, forced vaccination (not even mere mandates in workplaces) would be a must under the NAP. The right to choose not to vaccinate is effectively the same as the right to kill people with a disease that you may carry. Luckily COVID isn't as deadly as that, and the vaccines aren't as effective at preventing transmission, so we don't need to consider such measures. But in the right context, I very much see forced vaccinations as following from libertarian axioms. Just like you would see jailing a serial murderer and depriving them of their liberty to be justified under those same axioms. For the record, I'm one of the most anti-collectivist people you'll meet. I just pay significant credence to the reality of negative externalities. You can swing your fist all you want, but you can't punch my nose with that fist. In the same vein, you can't cough your deadly virus into my face and not expect to justly have force applied to you.

kcplate 5y ago
I think your NAP argument doesn’t really work for a very specific reason. Every punch in the face results in a punch to the face. Every homicide results in a death. Those actions always have an aggressive consequence, so most libertarians can justify prevention and incarceration and removal of liberties as a consequence of the aggression. However, every cough, even from a Covid-19 positive person, does not result in a death…or even an illness. Further, even a vaccinated person could cough and infect someone if they had COVID-19, including another vaccinated person. So is it truly aggression if there is a possibility of no negative consequence and a possibility of a negative consequence no matter which direction was chosen? I think you could maybe make a NAP case if the vaccines were a 100% effective and the unvaccinated ALWAYS caught and passed on Covid-19 causing severe illness. We aren’t at that stage, so this fails the NAP test in my opinion.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  No, because I am also rightly not allowed to throw a brick out of my apartment window without looking below, because that might plausibly hit someone in the head. Most bricks that I could throw out my window won't hit someone in the head, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal for me to do it, because it is recklessly endangering people. Same situation if I put a single bullet into a revolver, spun it, and pulled the trigger while aiming at someone's head. There's only a one in six chance that I'd murder that person, but that action should definitely be illegal and force should be applied to anyone who would pull that trigger. This is why we have drunk driving laws. Some non-drunk drivers do kill people, and most drunk drivers don't kill people, but the probability is highly elevated for drunk drivers, and it is therefore illegal to do it. Drunk driving laws aren't authoritarian, they aren't a result of a nanny state. This is the state fulfilling its duty of protecting person B from aggression by person A, whether that aggression happens with absolute certainty (punching me in the face) or with an elevated probability (drunk driving) Now, I don't think vaccines should be forced on people for COVID. I just think that it's a valid thing to do in the right circumstances (e.g Ebola with an R0 of 3).
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.

kcplate 5y ago

I think your NAP argument doesn’t really work for a very specific reason. Every punch in the face results in a punch to the face. Every homicide results in a death. Those actions always have an aggressive consequence, so most libertarians can justify prevention and incarceration and removal of liberties as a consequence of the aggression. However, every cough, even from a Covid-19 positive person, does not result in a death…or even an illness. Further, even a vaccinated person could cough and infect someone if they had COVID-19, including another vaccinated person. So is it truly aggression if there is a possibility of no negative consequence and a possibility of a negative consequence no matter which direction was chosen? I think you could maybe make a NAP case if the vaccines were a 100% effective and the unvaccinated ALWAYS caught and passed on Covid-19 causing severe illness. We aren’t at that stage, so this fails the NAP test in my opinion.

fighterpilot 5y ago
No, because I am also rightly not allowed to throw a brick out of my apartment window without looking below, because that might plausibly hit someone in the head. Most bricks that I could throw out my window won't hit someone in the head, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal for me to do it, because it is recklessly endangering people. Same situation if I put a single bullet into a revolver, spun it, and pulled the trigger while aiming at someone's head. There's only a one in six chance that I'd murder that person, but that action should definitely be illegal and force should be applied to anyone who would pull that trigger. This is why we have drunk driving laws. Some non-drunk drivers do kill people, and most drunk drivers don't kill people, but the probability is highly elevated for drunk drivers, and it is therefore illegal to do it. Drunk driving laws aren't authoritarian, they aren't a result of a nanny state. This is the state fulfilling its duty of protecting person B from aggression by person A, whether that aggression happens with absolute certainty (punching me in the face) or with an elevated probability (drunk driving) Now, I don't think vaccines should be forced on people for COVID. I just think that it's a valid thing to do in the right circumstances (e.g Ebola with an R0 of 3).
- kcplate 5y ago
  Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.