There’s a growing controversy about whether the various coronavirus-lockdown rules should be relaxed for people who have been vaccinated (as opposed to being relaxed for hypocritical politicians).
And if those restrictions are relaxed, vaccinated people presumably will need some sort of proof, like a “vaccine passport.”
Many people understandably are hesitant about this concept, particularly if government is involved. After all, we have many examples of seemingly innocuous ideas becoming nightmarish mistakes (such as adopting the income tax).
And the last thing any of us would want (I hope!) is something that could devolve into an authoritarian, Chinese-style system for monitoring and controlling private life.
But what if government isn’t involved? What if private businesses decide that customers are only allowed if they prove they’ve been vaccinated?
From a libertarian perspective, guided by core principles such as property rights and freedom of association, that should be totally acceptable.
And that’s true even if we think the owners of the businesses are making silly choices. After all, it’s their property.
Some conservatives, however, either don’t understand libertarian principles or they’re willing to abandon those principles for political convenience.
For instance, Will Wilkinson observes that many Republicans are forgetting the libertarian principle of freedom of association.
Conservatives have been freaking out about the mere possibility of vaccine passports… The idea is that the ability to credibly prove vaccination status will speed the restoration of normal social and economic life. This works by allowing businesses, schools, sports leagues, etc. to discriminate against those who haven’t been vaccinated.
…one of the bright lines dividing American liberals and conservatives concerns the limits of freedom of association. Conservatives, and especially those with a libertarian streak, are far more likely to be absolutists about the right to exclude anyone from your property, business, or private club or association for any reason. …If the Civil Rights Act is problematic because it infringes on freedom of association, the permissibility of discriminating against customers who might carry a fatal infection is a total no-brainer. Right? Ha! …there is no actual principle at work here. Conservatives are consistent only in their opportunistic incoherence.
Moreover, in his column for the Atlantic, David Frum notes that the GOP is hypocritically abandoning its support for property rights.
Whether vaccine passports ever will exist remains highly uncertain. A lot of questions remain about the technology required—and about whether the concept makes any business sense. …For now, then, the discussion about vaccine passports remains theoretical—which makes the discussion all the more impassioned and embittered.
DeSantis and others are loudly advertising that with COVID-19, …their version of freedom puts greater priority on right-wing cultural folkways than on rights of property and ownership. …To appease those cultural blocs, Republican politicians must be willing to sacrifice everything, including what used to be the party’s foundational principles. …to avoid contradicting the delusions of anti-vaccine paranoiacs, property rights must give way, freedom to operate a business must yield. …with COVID-19, …the new post-Trump message from the post-Trump GOP is: Private property is socialism; state expropriation is freedom. It’s a strange doctrine for a party supposedly committed to liberty and the Constitution, but here we are.
I think it’s fair to say that neither Wilkinson nor Frum are libertarians, or even conservatives, but I also think they are correct in pointing out that there is a lot of hypocrisy and incoherence.
That being said, I am glad that there’s lots of resistance to the idea of vaccine passports. Why? Because if businesses impose such rules and there’s no pushback, that probably increases the likelihood that politicians will try something similar.
And that’s where libertarians should be drawing the line, as Professor Don Boudreaux has noted.
After all, if a business does something we don’t like, we are free to patronize competitors. But if government does something we don’t like, there’s the horrible choice of obey or go to jail (or get a fake passport on the black market).
For what it’s worth, I hope this becomes a moot point. After all, once everybody who wants to get vaccinated has been vaccinated, there’s no plausible argument for maintaining any more restrictions on normal life.
P.S. But if it does become a real issue, it will probably generate new jokes, cartoons, and memes, all of which will require me to expand my collection of coronavirus-themed humor.
[…] some of what I wrote about this topic back in […]
[…] some of what I wrote about this topic back in […]
[…] I mention that private companies should be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the role […]
[…] I mention that private companies should be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the role […]
[…] I mention that private companies should be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the […]
[…] bottom line is that there should be no philosophical objection to “vaccine passports” in the private […]
[…] coluna – na qual, a propósito, expressarei a esperança de que tal adoção nunca ocorra e meu acordo com Dan Mitchell de que o estado nunca deve impedir que partes privadas usem tais […]
[…] Here’s GMU Econ alum Dan Mitchell on vaccine passports. […]
[…] Here’s GMU Econ alum Dan Mitchell on vaccine passports. […]
By mid-summer, all indications are that we’ll be to the point where everyone who wants the vaccine will have gotten it and will presumably be immune to the effects of the Rona.
If I’ve been vaccinated, why would I be concerned as to whether or not there are some anti-vaxxers in my presence who have not taken the shot? They’ve made their choice.
So what purpose would these ‘passports’ serve? Only reason I can think of is to single out and shame those who’ve chosen not to get vaccinated.
[…] column – in which, by the way, I’ll express both a hope that such adoption never occurs, and my agreement with Dan Mitchell that the state should never prevent private parties from using such […]
I’m afraid you’re missing quite a part of the picture. VP’s a Trojan horse for serial mass vaxxing which has been an ongoing operation of medical tyranny since Flexner n now opening a new chapter called Transhumanism starting w DNS altering shots (Harvard/MIT study on mRNA reverse transcription). All this as part of the GreatReset, ZeroCarbon etc. agenda. Property rights? OK. if there were free markets not oligopolistic ones where a few control the supply chains n can force VPs upon the population especially after the lockdowns destroyed many SMEs. So your theory is fine, but you made strong assumptions which probably aren’t met in the real world. Then, there’re technicalities clearly debunking the vaxx fraud like it’s near impossible to compare different types of vaxxes (mRNA, vector, inactivated from different vendors) the test fallacy not to mention (the most important, Tcell immunity test not done at all for reasons). As one of the commenters pointed it out, yes, C19 can be perfectly prevented n cured (Marik, Zelenko, HDIV-C protocols). Common Good as such coming in, too. In the end, the Property argument is weak b/c it does not look at the full picture n the business/social context does not support it in the particular setup we got now. VP’s just another tool for population control. A tricky one, true. https://youtu.be/VT4lY6HWdfA
[…] column – in which, by the way, I’ll express both a hope that such adoption never occurs, and my agreement with Dan Mitchell that the state should never prevent private parties from using such […]
[…] – in which, by the way, I’ll express both a hope that such adoption never occurs, and my agreement with Dan Mitchell that the state should never prevent private parties from using such […]
[…] – in which, by the way, I’ll express both a hope that such adoption never occurs, and my agreement with Dan Mitchell that the state should never prevent private parties from using such […]
[…] – in which, by the way, I’ll express both a hope that such adoption never occurs, and my agreement with Dan Mitchell that the state should never prevent private parties from using such […]
I can agree that someone should have a legal right to do something, but at the same time say that it would be a foolish or dangerous thing to do.
Right now we’re in a position where the government is talking about creating vaccine passports and imposing legal sanctions on people who don’t get one. For a private business to voluntarily participate in excluding people who don’t have government-issued “passports” would be assisting in and enabling government overreach.
Just like, IN GENERAL, if a business said that they won’t accept cash but only accept credit cards, I’d say they should have every right to do that. But if the government declared that they are moving to abolish cash and require everyone to use credit cards because that will make it easier to track people, I’d say any business owner who then voluntarily declares that he won’t accept cash is aiding the government in overreach.
Since the early days of COVID-19 most practicing Doc’s and emergency room specialists have been successful with available medications to control COVID-19 for most all patients. Thus, these large vessels which have all types of emergency room type of physicions on board now available can medically treat all prospective travellers with no more danger to the potential traveller danger than if he or she were to continue to hide in the corner of their home, ever afraid of the world’s ever on going, since the beginning of time, fight with the danger of being on earth. Get a life! Get on board the vessel and have some fun, it is later than you think. I believe that statement was from some 1940’s or 1950’s popular song? -David Johnson
Why can’t we just take everyone’s word for it? You know, like they do with voting.
@Carl-Edward and arbitrary restriction for a business are allowed. You aren’t entitled to a business anymore than the Christian bakers should be forced to “bake the cake”.
There is no such thing as Covid-19. A mild strain of:’flu’ has served a lying government well (and all governments are illegitimate and criminal) in their plan to make this country a fascist slave state. Yet ignorance and gullibility are no justification for any business to require potential customers to prove that they have been vaccinated (against what?): that is as arbitrary as saying that every woman entering a shop, must wear a pink dress – or every man a football helmet.
Mr. Mitchell,
Agreed.
However, the current crop of Marxist governors will be extraordinarily reluctant to let go of the present restrictions on their peasants, as we have already witnessed the moving of the goalposts several times.
Kevin
Susquehanna County, PA
Sent from my Behemoth Dell 690
@Thomas: Where does it say that? You would only need to prove you are immune. There would be a process to check and whether it’s from vaccination or going through infection wouldn’t matter.
@Hans: What are you referring to? The passport (or whatever) wouldn’t have to be worn visibly and you wouldn’t be ostracized because it would enable you to do more instead of less.
My issue with a passport or loosened rules for vaccinated people is that (at least here) it’s controlled by the state who is eligible to get vaccinated.
So the state would control who has access.
The other issue is that while you might be immune to Covid you can still transmit, so the loosened rules could cause people to become careless, contract it and spread it to their friend and family.
“What if private businesses decide that customers are only allowed if they prove they’ve been vaccinated?:
So natural immunity is now to be discarded as valid? What kind of bizarre theory of medicine is that?
Dan, and why is covid so different that now it’s acceptable to “sew a Star of David” on the American people? Based on the principles you mention?