Is there any sense of irony left?
The Canadian truckers who engaged in an heroic long march (drive?) from Vancouver to Ottawa made reasonably clear at the start that they were protesting, as they should have, vaccine mandates, especially mandates that required truckers to be vaccinated in order to return to Canada from the United States.
They were, in short, opposing government restrictions on freedom of movement.
And so what have they done? Imposed their own restrictions on freedom of movement. They have effectively blocked the Ambassador Bridge that goes south from Detroit to Windsor.
The truckers have a worthy cause, which is why I was so in favor more than a week ago when they were en route.
But not all actions taken to achieve worthy causes are legitimate. It should be obvious to anyone that actions that violate the very cause they champion are illegitimate.
Traditionally it has been protesters on the left who block streets and freeways and take over campus buildings so that people can’t have classes. Sometimes their causes are worthy. Their methods are not. Now this tactic has spread beyond the left.
I hate it when people who protest make other people around them simply means to their ends. They are like Adam Smith’s infamous man of system.
The man of system, wrote Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess–board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess–board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess–board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it.
Smith was talking about the legislature. But his point applies to many of the protestors also.
They should just stop.
Update: I deleted a sentence above in which I said that the blockers of the Ambassador Bridge were restricting movement more than Trudeau is. My reason is not that it’s only one bridge. It’s the most important bridge and they, unlike Trudeau, are not letting anyone through. My reason is that even if in a given day, they are restricting movement more than Trudeau is, he has been doing so for almost 2 years. They’re unlikely to do so for more than a few weeks. I thank Ross Levatter for pointing this out.
READER COMMENTS
AMT
Feb 10 2022 at 9:28pm
I’d say it should be obvious to anyone that this statement is an oversimplification. You aren’t going to win many wars against violent oppressors through pacifism. Sometimes self-defense or defense of third parties is not hypocrisy so much as requisite to champion your ultimate ideals.
(In general, not commenting on application of this idea to this case though)
MarkW
Feb 11 2022 at 6:39am
I disagree. First of all, I thought this was pacifism (e.g. peaceful protest). And the alternative of truckers striking and rallying but not blocking roads and bridges was certainly available. Simply withholding their services (leading to empty shelves), would have made their point without and put pressure on the government. I don’t support the truckers blocking free movement any more than I do Extinction Rebellion doing so.
Jon Murphy
Feb 11 2022 at 6:48am
It’s not self-defense or defense of third parties. It’s imposing a cost ok third parties by dragging them into a conflict they don’t want to be part of
KevinDC
Feb 11 2022 at 12:32pm
I don’t understand the point you’re making. You say:
I’m assuming you mean pacifism in the strict sense as a total prohibition on the use of violence. And as an empirical fact, I agree with the above statement. This is one reason why I’m not a pacifist. But this empirical fact doesn’t contradict what David was saying. If a system calling for the elimination of all use of violence is itself incapable of being supported, maintained, or defended without the use of violence, that is discrediting to that system. The fact that pacifism can’t withstand violence without resorting to violence in response just shows pacifism isn’t workable – it doesn’t show the use of violence to support pacifism isn’t somehow discrediting to pacifism as an ideal.
It would only be hypocrisy when the “ultimate ideals” in question prohibit engaging in self-defense or defense of third parties. Everyone outside of strict pacifists acknowledges that there is such a thing as legitimate use of force or violence in particular circumstances, and therefore they wouldn’t be hypocritical for using force in those circumstances. But if someone says “Use of violence is unacceptable in all circumstances, and I will violently enforce this ideal,” that is certainly hypocritical.
AMT
Feb 11 2022 at 8:24pm
Kevin,
We don’t really disagree on much here, except I slightly disagree with your definition of “discredit,” and analysis of the means and ends.
Yes, pure pacifism isn’t workable. However, I don’t think the need for exceptions in order to try to achieve (or get as close as possible to achieving) a goal necessarily means it is “discredited.” In my example, the point is that if your goal is to minimize the amount of violence in the world and get as close as possible to the pacifist ideal, you must be willing to engage in some violence. Some will say it is hypocritical to engage in any violence when your stated goal is the opposite, and hypocrisy discredits your cause. As David is highly critical of here:
But as you correctly understand, it depends on what the “ultimate ideal” is. There is an excellent Milton Friedman quote from Capitalism and Freedom,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8144628-a-common-objection-to-totalitarian-societies-is-that-they-regard
Applying it to this case: if your goal is to maximize the long run total freedom of movement of society, it does not necessarily mean that using apparently hypocritical means to achieve that end is illegitimate. You could easily conclude that a small, temporary restriction of movement leads to net benefits and actually takes you closer to your ultimate goal by eliminating more widespread, longer lasting restrictions of movement.
The caveat is that generally we should be extremely suspicious of hypocrites, because they very likely don’t actually care that much about their alleged cause. E.g. here, could they not think of any better means to achieve their end? Did they think symbolically it is more persuasive to “give them a taste of their own medicine?”
Nonetheless, it is certainly possible for the optimal means of achieving a goal to appear to conflict with the ultimate ends, such as with pacifism (or if it assuages your concerns, just replace pacifism with minimizing violence). So, I am critiquing David for failing to understand that.
You said
I am not so sure. If your ultimate ideal is “minimize violence,” I think any violence you engage in will still be labeled as hypocrisy. So, I would say it might more accurately be hypocrisy, but not illegitimate. Otherwise, we are just back to debating whether the ultimate ideal is about the means or the ends, but in your version the ends includes prescriptions about what means are acceptable. Perhaps you can argue for that, but then you’re just blending the ideas of ends and means together.
For another thought experiment, suppose part of your nation practices slavery, and your ideal is “no slavery.” Further suppose that in order to eliminate slavery, which would otherwise continue for centuries and cause untold suffering, you need to conscript (or enslave) a single, extremely talented general to lead your forces for a year during a civil war (and suppose also there is no other way to eliminate slavery, and the suffering from the war would be far smaller than centuries of slavery). Would that mean the ideal of “no slavery” is necessarily “discredited” or “illegitimate?” Essentially, we have a trolley problem. I don’t think we should say that choosing a strategy that minimizes harm and takes you as close to your ideal as possible, even if ostensibly hypocritical, is necessarily discredited or illegitimate. Sometimes it may simply be optimal to do what you detest. Your mode of analysis would just turn the ideal into “no slavery except some slavery that passes the cost-benefit analysis as a means of achieving no slavery.” It makes more sense to me to say the means in that thought experiment are justifiable hypocrisy, and keep the concepts of means and ends separate, because they are different things.
Mark Z
Feb 11 2022 at 4:20pm
That’s true in war, but in the context of peacetime politics there’s probably close concordance between the pacifist approach and the most effective approach, since political action that violates people’s rights or inconveniences them typically elicits more opposition than support.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 11 2022 at 12:17am
You’re right. But this is not the first instance we have seen of a popular-populist movement turning into a mob intent on imposing its own restrictions. There must be some lesson there.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 11 2022 at 7:32am
France in 1789?
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 11 2022 at 3:20pm
Alan: Yes, that’s the mother of all examples. But the election of Donald Trump (in the wake of the Tea Party movement) also, I believe, provides a good example. You can find the same in Hungary and Poland now.
Mactoul
Feb 11 2022 at 10:15pm
Are Hungarian and Polish governments equivalent to a mob?
What precisely do you impute here, by clubbing these countries to mob.
robc
Feb 11 2022 at 8:28am
I agree with your general point, but not this. They are blocking 1 of 119 crossing points. The degree of blockage is far less than that of the PM.
David Henderson
Feb 11 2022 at 9:16am
I disagree. They’ve prevented everyone from crossing into Canada on that bridge. By contrast, Trudeau blocks each entry point but permits many people to enter.
robc
Feb 11 2022 at 10:24am
What does it take to still cross?
A few hours of inconvenience crossing somewhere else vs getting vaccinated. The latter is far more hostile.
The truckers are blocking less than 1% of the crossings. Trudeau has blocked greater than 1%.
It is a matter or degree.
robc
Feb 11 2022 at 10:28am
Looking at a map, I see two bridges in Windsor. Are they blocking both? If only one, then change my few hours to “few minutes”. I guess traffic backup at the other may increase it some more, but still shouldnt be horrible.
Andre
Feb 11 2022 at 9:07am
“They [the truckers who engaged in a March to Ottawa] have effectively blocked the Ambassador Bridge”
Are the truckers on the bridge the same truckers who are in Ottawa?
What is the relationship between the Ottawa convoy organizers and the bridge folks?
David Henderson
Feb 11 2022 at 9:18am
You asked:
Of course not. How could they be?
You asked:
I don’t know.
Monte
Feb 11 2022 at 10:17am
You’re right on every count, of course. They’ve imposed their own restrictions on freedom. Their actions are illegitimate. Their methods are not worthy and they should stop. And I know it’s wrong to feel this way, but it’s just so damned satisfying to see how this is affecting Trudeau!
Lalo
Feb 11 2022 at 12:51pm
It’s not very satisfying to see how it’s negatively impacting the movement of goods.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 11 2022 at 10:37am
What in principle is wrong with with imposing a vaccine mandate on people crossing the border from a more highly infected place (US) to a less highly infected place (Canada)? Granted that there can be a reasonable difference of opinion on the costs and benefits of vaccination and truckers like anyone else should be free to express an opinion, but not to impose their opinion on others.
robc
Feb 11 2022 at 11:45am
Right there, period. In principle, it is wrong to impose a vaccine mandate.
David Henderson
Feb 11 2022 at 2:05pm
Moreover, a vaccine mandate is the ultimate in imposing one’s opinion on others.
Vivian Darkbloom
Feb 11 2022 at 3:20pm
I can’t help but think of all the times my freedom of movement has been restricted by rail employees striking in France and elsewhere in Europe in order to force higher wages and benefits—benefits that accrue only to themselves. Of course, those strikes that severely restrict the freedom of movement of huge numbers of the general public are not only legal but legally protected! The restriction of movement from these strikes far exceeded the limited restrictions caused by those truckers in Ottawa whose motivations are very arguably more noble.
Those truckers likely won’t get any concessions from the Canadian government as a result of their “illegitimate” actions and so they should “take the high road” and voluntarily end their blockades now.
Nevertheless, those Ottawa blockades are not just seen “a mare usque a mari”–the entire world has been watching Ottawa. The more significant effect will be concessions from political leaders outside Canada who can tone down their overly authoritarian measures (and refrain from them in the future) without appearing to lose face. We are already seeing this happen. The rest of the world has benefited more than a little bit without having to pay the same cost Canadians have. Thank you Canada!
Andre
Feb 11 2022 at 5:12pm
“Thank you Canada!”
Uh, no. Rather, thank you to the Canadian truckers who participated and those who supported them.
Canada the state has been quite atrocious through this whole thing.
Vivian Darkbloom
Feb 12 2022 at 4:07am
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that “Canada” is synonymous with the Canadian government. And, I intended to include those Canadians who don’t necessarily support this movement but who are inconvenienced by it.
Thomas Strenge
Feb 11 2022 at 4:31pm
Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force. I’m sure the truckers called their representatives before being told to bow down. And I am aware of the irony of disliking BLM road closures and having a lesser dislike for the trucker protests. Personally, I prefer a government that keeps the roads open and leaves me alone. But that’s not the world we live in. So what does a reasonable man do in an unreasonable world?
Matthias
Feb 12 2022 at 7:23am
Move to a more reasonable place?
Thomas Strenge
Feb 13 2022 at 11:34am
Cato just reported that 83% of the world’s population has suffered a decline of freedom over the last decade. There are fewer and fewer reasonable countries around.
Jon Murphy
Feb 12 2022 at 9:08am
That “A” is unreasonable does not mean that “B” must then also be unreasonable. A reasonable man must be reasonable. Call out the unreasonable people, even if you support what they are doing.
Thomas Strenge
Feb 13 2022 at 11:31am
I realize that comparisons to Nazi Germany are declasse, but as a native East German I will go down this road regardless. There were reasonable people back then, as there were later in the GDR. What happened? Those who could, left. Those who spoke up too loudly, often wound up dead, in prison, or ruined. So, I think your recommendation is a little facile. Many turned inward and focused on their families, even went along with the prevailing power structures to some extent. In a sense that’s how West Germany’s libertarian moment happened. To some extent, Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard were all that was left of Germany’s political class after everyone else went Nazi, Commie, or dead.
Jon Murphy
Feb 13 2022 at 3:10pm
The current situation is hardly comparable. We don’t need to be jumping at shadows
Johnson85
Feb 15 2022 at 12:50pm
“And I am aware of the irony of disliking BLM road closures and having a lesser dislike for the trucker protests.”
I don’t think there is any irony. The truckers are protesting a very distinct and easily addressable bad action by government. All the Canadian government has to do is stop being abusive with a very specific government policy. There’s no arson. There’s no violence.
There was nothing the US gov’t or any relevant local or state government could have done to stop the BLM protests. They didn’t have discrete, achievable policy goals. They just wanted to impose costs on people that were powerless to do anything about what they felt aggrieved by.
It’s a legitimate opinion to think that the vaccine mandate isn’t such an abuse that excuses imposing costs on third parties that have no ability to stop it other than to put political pressure on politicians. But it’s also legitimate to think that non-violent (if not costless) protest is a legitimate response to stop abuse by government.
There’s no irony in thinking the truckers actions are accepetable and BLM’s were not.
Colin
Feb 11 2022 at 7:18pm
It’s just tit-for-tat, is it not? Based on my limited understanding, that seems to be the recommended strategy for this sort of thing among most game theorists. Roughly: if your opponent escalates, you match. If your opponent de-escalates, you do likewise. So long as they never escalate beyond what Trudeau does, these truckers have a decent claim that they’re acting fairly. And if they establish a reputation for reciprocity then Trudeau can safely de-escalate without losing ground. Moreover, it’s in each party’s mutual interest that the other de-escalates, and they’ve handed all that decision power to Trudeau. IF the truckers do this right, accountability over the outcome of this falls squarely onto just one of the parties.
David Henderson
Feb 13 2022 at 11:05am
I’m not arguing against tit for tat. I’m arguing against hurting innocent people. If the truckers and other protestors could figure out a way of concentrating the costs on the villains–Trudeau, his enforcers, etc.–I would favor that.
My problem, as I said in the post, is with hurting people who have nothing to do with the oppressive regulations.
Mark Brady
Feb 14 2022 at 2:41pm
Senator Rand Paul calls for civil disobedience.
“I’m all for it,” Paul said. “Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in our country, from slavery to civil rights, you name it. Peaceful protest, clog things up, make people think about the mandates.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/02/10/exclusive-rand-paul-encourages-truckers-to-come-to-america-and-clog-cities-up/
Comments are closed.