On September 21, 2021, Winnipeg Free Press editor Paul Samyn wrote, in an email I received:
Carville made those comments in a piece for The Hill in 2014, but that same vexing question resonates today as we look at some of the success Bernier’s anti-vaxx stance as leader of the People’s Party of Canada had at the ballot box Monday night.
Bernier didn’t win his seat. His party didn’t elect a single MP. But there was enough in that platform built upon anger over COVID restrictions and mandatory vaccinations to capture 5.1 per cent of all ballots cast. In case you are wondering, that’s more than twice the share of votes the Green Party attracted.
The Carville comments that Samyn referred to were:
A chief complaint of many Republicans is that Asian-Americans and Jews strongly support and vote for Democrats despite the affluent economic standing many have achieved. Similarly, Democratic strategists struggle to understand why 77 out the 100 poorest and most government-dependent counties in the United States voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Samyn argues that people who voted for the People’s Party of Canada didn’t understand their true interest and “were willing to shoot themselves in the foot in many ways Carville never imagined.”
It’s possible he’s right, but he doesn’t make the case. The reason? Bernier opposed vaccine mandates. Nothing that Samyn quoted has Bernier opposing vaccines. Samyn fails to make a basic distinction between being against mandatory vaccine and being against vaccines. When you fail to make such distinctions, you are going to be mystified a lot of the time.
That distinction is not difficult. Let’s try a few others.
I think it’s a good idea for over 90% of people to get married. Therefore everyone should be required to marry.
I think that eating food every day is a good idea. Therefore everyone should be required to eat food daily.
I think that exercising at least 6 times a week is a good idea. Therefore everyone should be required to exercise at least 6 times a week.
Do you agree with me on each of the first sentences in the 3 paragraphs above? If so, then surely you must agree with each conclusion.
Or is there another possibility?
READER COMMENTS
john hare
Sep 30 2021 at 4:05am
The first sentence is one that cannot be rationally disputed absent telepathy. That is what you think. Mandating any of it on others is foolish at best and can easily trend evil. Plenty of bad marriages. Some choose to fast for religious or health reasons. I don’t exercise at all as I think my physical work takes care of that. So no I don’t agree with the conclusions.
The bigger picture you bring up is the difference between deciding for yourself as opposed to mandating it on others. Huge difference. Many people love fishing and I despise it.
Christophe Biocca
Sep 30 2021 at 6:49am
Plus, the vaccine mandates are in practice vaccine paperwork mandates, requiring you not just to get the shots but also carry around proof of vaccination (and photo ID). It’s mental overhead I don’t particularly want to deal with, and so I’m treating gated activities as if they were closed instead.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Sep 30 2021 at 10:26am
There is a distinction that it seems to me they Henderson (and hare and Biocca, so far as I can tell) misses. Getting married and eating food every day, while probably good ideas in general, do not cause harm to other people if one foregoes them. That fact does not settle the issue of vaccine mandating, of course. There might be costs to some people of getting vaccinated that are greater than the harm they would do by remaining unvaccinated, but it raises to possibility that a vaccine mandate could be a good policy. I have not, however, seen an argument against mandates made on these cost-benefit grounds.
David Henderson
Sep 30 2021 at 11:30pm
I didn’t miss the distinction. The distinction you make doesn’t matter for my point.
To repeat, my point is that one can favor something and not favor mandating it.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 1 2021 at 7:25am
But the issue of mandates arise only in the case of externalities. Do you mean that the harm the non-vaccinated person des to others does not matter? At all?
David Henderson
Oct 1 2021 at 10:42am
You ask:
No.
John hare
Oct 1 2021 at 10:45am
The problem is the use of force on people that don’t share your opinion
Christophe Biocca
Oct 1 2021 at 8:00am
Given that pretty much all the gated activities are indoor, private venues, the externality argument doesn’t work. I could make the choice to go there or not, based on my understanding of the risk, same as going to a smoking-allowed restaurant or bar (back before those got banned), or playing amateur football, or many other activities where the assumed risk comes in part or in whole from other participants.
But whatever externalities you want to claim as support for getting everyone vaccinated, the extra work on top is just to help make enforcement effective. No one claims that the vaccine paperwork is what makes me less likely to spread COVID.
Philo
Sep 30 2021 at 11:37am
Also, Samyn and Carville assume that voters should, and should be expected to, vote in line with their self-interest. That is already enough to guarantee their mystification.
Comments are closed.