Economist Bob Murphy writes:
Dear David,
I hope you’re doing well. I was puzzled by your “Angry Bears” post. (If you find your answer might interest EconLog readers, feel free to reprint my email.)
I totally understand why certain libertarians would be upset at a busybody telling them to wear a mask on the plane, but it seemed odd to me when–if I recall correctly–you insisted that people attending your lockdown protest put on a mask. Were you the angry bear that day?
(I hope you are not reading hostility or smugness in my tone; I am genuinely asking.)
Bob
I did not read hostility into his question; I know Bob well enough to know his good will. The protest he was referring to is the one that I helped organize in May 2020 in Monterey.
And here’s my answer:
We didn’t insist. We asked.
But you missed the bigger point. We didn’t threaten any one with prison. By contrast, there was no doubt in my mind that if I hadn’t complied, she [the fellow passenger on the airplane] would have called the flight attendant. And twice in the previous 40 minutes the flight attendant had threatened passengers with prison.
There’s a huge difference between asking someone to do something when there’s no implicit threat of force behind it [our request that people wear masks to the anti-lockdown demonstration] and asking someone to do something when underling the request is a threat to call in someone [the flight attendant] who has already threatened the use of force.
So no, I was not an angry bear that day.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Sep 27 2021 at 8:43am
But if your wearing a mask reduces the chance that you will infect your fellow passenger with a disease are that not right to wish to enlist the aid of others — the flight attendant, the airline, the state or federal government — to prevent you from causing them harm?
David Henderson
Sep 27 2021 at 9:44am
You ask:
No. The airplane is private property. The airline can make the optimal decision ab0ut masks. But President Biden is not letting them do so: he has his thumb on the scale.
She would be right to enlist the aid of the flight attendant and the airline. If the airline decided on its own, without the government threatening force against it for not having the rule, then yes, she would be right to enlist their help. That’s not what happened here.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Sep 27 2021 at 10:25pm
Why is a government rule to reduce the risk of passengers infecting one another with a virus less legitimate that any other safety rule governing airlines. The stakes are lower, but what about enforcing no-smoking?
David Henderson
Sep 28 2021 at 10:17am
You ask:
It’s not.
Christophe Biocca
Sep 27 2021 at 9:52am
Even if you grant they’re right, it is still an imposition. Presumably David doesn’t expect everyone else except him to mask up, and he’s OK with the (very mild) risk of him catching something from the other passengers in exchange for increased comfort, and I don’t see why that’s any less legitimate than minimizing risk at the cost of comfort. Ideally if both niches are viable, we’d get differing mask rules on different flights/airlines. Enlisting the feds elevates one group’s preferences over the other’s.
Secondly, what’s the limiting principle to your approach? Perpetual 18:00-06:00 curfews reduce the murder rate, does that justify enlisting the aid of others into locking people into their homes 12 hours out of the day, to prevent you from causing them harm?
Ryan M
Sep 29 2021 at 6:44pm
What is your limiting principle with respect to the imposition of rules designed to reduce or eliminate risks to others?
While I agree in part with David’s assertion that there is a big difference between private agencies mandating things (through threat of removal or elimination of services) and governments mandating those same things (through threat of physical force), I disagree with the seeming conclusion that private mandates are somehow therefore “ok,” or not something to strongly object to. We should vocally and forcefully oppose private mandates for much the same reasons that we oppose federal mandates.
I have often made this same argument with respect to local vs. state vs. federal mandates. If we have a problem with federal mandates, we should have the same problem with local ones. The exercise of coercion to force me to take a particular action is not somehow cured by it’s being imposed on me by someone closer to home. While that may cure the constitutional objection, it hardly cures the moral one.
Keep in mind the glaring elephant in the room – the author of this comment says:
“…if your wearing a mask reduces the chance that you will infect your fellow passenger with a disease…”
That’s a pretty darned big IF right there. While I don’t think coercion would be justified even if the reduction of risk was proven, it remains the case that any benefit to the action is most assuredly not proven. The powers that be not only exercise a type of force that should never be tolerated in this country, they do so in a way that stifles debate, research, and actual discussion that would be necessary for the advancement of actual meaningful science, through their imposition of this particular intervention.
Legitimate question for Mr. Hutcheson, here: Would your opinion change if it were to be shown that the “if” in your if/then statement is false, and that the intervention is ineffective?
What if, say, our legislature were to float legislation that requires meal tracking apps on everyone’s phones, and requires restaurants and grocery stores to refuse service to anyone who has exceeded a specific daily carbohydrate intake? What if we were to ban any foods that do not meet government criteria for appropriate balancing of nutrients? Such action would assuredly have a positive impact on obesity and heart disease, and it would undoubtedly save lives. Is coercion, therefore, appropriate?
Alexandre Padilla
Sep 27 2021 at 3:09pm
David,
This is obviously a minor comment, but Biden didn’t mandate masks in airplanes. It’s the CDC, TSA, DoT, and FAA that made that mandate before Biden was even elected; at least that what airlines tell you. Indeed airlines should be allowed to develop their private rules. The mask mandate in airplanes is like the non-smoking in airplanes, it’s the FAA that mandate and to be honest I find it surprising. If you are so concerned about spreading infection, why not have rapid test at the gate or do what the US/CDC requires get a proof of negative test 24-48 hours before departure (technically it’s no more than 72 hours but it only applies to international air travel; if you come via boat or the road, there is not such requirements and there are exceptions to that air travel requirements, military and government personnel are excluded from such requirements because you know …the virus only infects civilians …🤦🏻♂️)?
There is a lot of circus theater around security at airports whether it’s masks or those asinine requirements about what cannot be in your carry-on luggage. My personnel opinion is that cost-benefit analysis would show many of the regulations around traveling, particularly, via airplane don’t pass the test; it is not even close. Many people would find themselves out of work if we applied a cost-benefit analysis to the TSA.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Sep 27 2021 at 10:36pm
The problem with the TSA is not just that it’s rules do not derive from cost benefit analysis, but that there is no national level externality (unlike the spread of the virus). Airlines owners do not want them to be blown up in midair and airports do not want to be the place of departure for such flights. Airlines and airports could work out what levels of risk they want to bear (have passengers to bear) and the most cost effective way to achieve that level of risk. There could be a role for the federal government in gathering information of risky passengers and sharing it with airports.
robc
Sep 28 2021 at 4:01pm
When the TSA was created, I said the much more cost effective method to achieve the same thing was to put up a “LETS ROLL” poster next to the entrance to each jet bridge.
Also, hardening the cockpit doors; that was a good change.
Ryan M
Sep 29 2021 at 6:53pm
My primary objection to your asking people to mask up at an anti-lockdown demonstration is that the science with respect to masks is pretty clearly on the side of masks not being an effective or desirable intervention. Imposition of masks, and even encouragement of masks, by the powers that be (and by media and “scientific” outlets) is perhaps even a more glaring – if only because it is slightly more subtle – example of the exact same tendency that makes lockdowns so harmful and morally objectionable.
I would recommend the following, as just one collection regarding the evidence on masks. I would happily provide a great many more links, but my email address has already been flagged by the EconLog commenting algorithm and I’m afraid the inclusion of links will further damage my ability to comment on this website.
Bob Murphy
Oct 5 2021 at 10:39pm
Sorry for the late reply, David, I was driving from hotel to hotel when you posted this.
In your response, you are making a fundamental distinction between asking someone to do something versus relying on an implicit threat of government force to cajole someone into doing something.
I appreciate this distinction and agree it’s crucial for parsing today’s political debates. And indeed, if you had written a post titled, “Coercion Is Bad” or “Don’t Convince Me With Uncle Sam’s Guns,” then I would have had no problems.
But your post was titled “Angry Bears” and you explained the metaphor like this: “I find that going along with other things that don’t make sense is often a good idea when others can impose substantial costs.”
So, with that framework, I thought the emphasis was going to be on the not-making-sense part of the situation, rather than the when-others-can-impose-substantial-costs part.
As I said in my email to you, I understand why *some* libertarians today think masks are goofy and therefore wouldn’t need to justify to their readers why it would be anger-inducing for someone to merely ask you to put on a mask (let alone implicitly rely on government force).
However, since you had asked people to wear masks at your event (which was outside), and since you also asked the guy next to you on the plane if he minded, it seemed like you specifically wouldn’t be a person to think the very notion of mask-wearing on a plane was patently absurd. (Another related question: Suppose the guy next to you HAD objected when you asked. Would you have been mad at him too? I don’t see why you seemed to treat the guy to your right differently from the lady to your left.)
Last thing I’ll mention: When masks first become a hot-button issue, my quick review of the literature (relying on Scott Alexander’s summary, primarily) was that there *were* some decent studies showing that people who wore masks on a plane were less likely to catch the flu (I’m forgetting the precise details) than the people who didn’t wear masks. Although I hadn’t read his paper, it’s interesting that none other than Lex Fridman is a co-author on a literature review that found masking was useful.
Comments are closed.