Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Niles on Masks and Vaccine Passports

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Back in April, Raymond Niles of the American Institute for Economic Research wrote about the aforementioned policy "debates" among Americans during the height of the pandemic. Most disturbingly, he noted:

what_about_question_authority.jpg
The all-but-forgotten woman of the pandemic, obscured behind a mask and authoritarian marching orders. (Image by Jon Tyson, via Unsplash, license.)
On one side, a government official says that -- by law -- we must use masks or vaccine passports. But on the other side, a government official is saying that -- by law -- we cannot require masks or vaccine passports on our own private property in our voluntary interactions with others.

Both sides in this debate violate our individual rights by taking away our ability to make these decisions for ourselves. A rights-respecting approach to Covid recognizes our fundamental ownership over our own bodies and property. This includes freedom of association, where each of us can set the terms upon which others may use one's property. Just as you can say "no smoking allowed" -- or "smoking is permitted" -- for guests in your own home, a business owner should be able to establish their own policy for patrons regarding mask-wearing, Covid passports, and other Covid issues.

Instead of protecting and upholding this individual right, the quest to use government power to back one's position on these issues has created a knock-down, drag-out political brawl where each side is fighting for the ability to use the policing power of the government to enforce their will on everyone. [italics in original, bold added]
This is the best, shortest summary of what the pandemic has revealed to be wrong about American political discourse for quite some time, but as exemplified by this particular situation. (The piece also, incidentally, contains one of the best, shortest argument to the effect that Ron DeSantis is no more a friend of liberty than Andrew Cuomo.)

Niles correctly states that, "Government should confine its role to respecting and enforcing" the right of individuals to make their own choices. He then goes on briefly to outline how this might play out, say, for the owner of a venue deciding whether to require masks on the premises.

I think the piece is worth a full read, and complements another that I have frequently recommended here, the longer white paper from the Ayn Rand Institute titled, "A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease."

-- CAV

Link to Original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On one side, a government official says that -- by law -- we must use masks or vaccine passports. But on the other side, a government official is saying that -- by law -- we cannot require masks or vaccine passports on our own private property in our voluntary interactions with others.

Both sides in this debate violate our individual rights by taking away our ability to make these decisions for ourselves. A rights-respecting approach to Covid recognizes our fundamental ownership over our own bodies and property. This includes freedom of association, where each of us can set the terms upon which others may use one's property". Niles

---

Both wrong, both anti-individual rights, of course.

As often seen, the conservatives are 'wrong for the right reason', the Left are wrong for the wrong reason. The first would oppose these mandates, insisting on freedom of action and choice - excepting the freedoms of private property owners; the left would regulate and control - everybody - all the time.

So is this really morally equivalent? It's not much, but also, the conservatives at least seem open to reasoned persuasion of the error of their ways. Good luck with convincing the Leftists...

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, then you think a glass half full and an empty glass are the same...? It's all good, the proper individual rights standards, but keep sight of the reality;  you/we have to build upon what individual freedom there still exists and encourage and persuade those for whom it still matters, and show them how self-contradictory they are being, or risk losing all. Easy, to turn our moral noses up at both 'sides' and stay out of the fray.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to blanket mandates clearly lies with individual choice. A business, an airline and whatever can make their own policy decision: vaccine passports, a must - or not required. There are big business opportunities and a ready clientele right now for those who ¬don't¬ demand vaccination proof on entry.

Who do you think will take advantage of the situation, once convinced of the merits? The conservative businessmen.

Who do you think will do the damnedest to stop them and their customers? The Leftist bureaucrats.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...