Against the Green Pass, a libertarian perspective
We gladly receive and publish this speech by Giacomo Messina and Fabrizio Ferrari, of Students for Liberty Italy
Since the Green Pass began to be seriously discussed, the liberal world seems to have divided into two factions: on the one hand, the majority, which considers the Green Pass as a tool not only compatible with, but even essential for the preservation of fundamental freedoms. in time of Covid-19 ; on the other hand, the minority of libertarians, the two of us included, who consider the Green Pass (as long as it is imposed by the state) as an instrument incompatible with liberalism.
There are many concerns about how the liberal world has decided to approach the Green Pass issue (and vaccination obligation). However, here we want to focus on two main criticisms. The first: as we understand liberalism, it is not possible to separate the concept of "freedom" from that of "property"; in fact, we believe that any violation (or invasion) of the (natural) right to property is a form of aggression, and we argue that the Green Pass – constituting a violation, by the community, of the property rights of certain individuals – is a aggressive, invasive, and illiberal. The second: we do not believe that infecting one's neighbor, casually and unknowingly, whenever this occurs as a result of the legitimate (that is, non-invasive) enjoyment of property which one is legitimately in possession of, can be classified as a form of aggression.
First of all, however, a brief premise: our side against the compulsory Green Pass (and the compulsory vaccination) must be read on the philosophical-political level, not on the philosophical-moral one. In other words, we try to answer the question "does the community have the right to impose on the individual the use of the Green Pass and / or the obligation to vaccinate?", Not the question "you two, personally, will download the Green Pass and / or will you get vaccinated? ". Just as one can be in favor of the legalization of drug use while deeming them harmful to health (and not wanting to use them), so one can be against the mandatory Green Pass (and / or the vaccination obligation) while deciding, in their own private life. , to attend only places that require the Green Pass (and / or to get vaccinated).
In our opinion, "freedom" and "liberalism" are concepts that make sense only when associated with the idea of "property". In other words, we do not believe that there are rights other than property rights, and we believe that every "natural right" of human beings can be traced back to the property right of each individual: 1) over one's own body; and 2) on material goods which he has produced, or which he has obtained as a result of a free trade or a donation.
This "freedom" in the use and enjoyment of property must be "absolute": therefore, no human being – and not even a group of human beings, or the collectivity, or the majority – has the right to limit (or hinder) the legitimate owner of a resource (be it his body or a material good) in its enjoyment and use of the same. Whenever a person – or a group of people, or even the majority – introduces limitations to the use and enjoyment of private property, an aggression (or an invasion) is configured: therefore, as we understand it, liberalism – or rather, libertarianism – is the political philosophy that defends the right to property against the invasion (or aggression) of others.
Therefore, the first point that we would like to underline is the following: the Green Pass , limiting the right of some people to enjoy and use as they see fit their legitimately acquired private property – think, for example, of the restaurateur and the customer who, if they do not have a Green Pass, they will not be able to exchange a dinner for money – it is an instrument incompatible with libertarianism. To the extent that the Green Pass prevents private individuals from associating and disposing of their properties as they see fit, it must be rejected from a libertarian perspective.
Therefore, given that 1) libertarianism has as its object the definition of a system of rules that allows the absolute enjoyment and absolute enjoyment of what an individual legitimately owns, and that 2) any limitation or restriction of the right to property is to be considered an aggression (and therefore illegitimate), a question remains to be resolved: when Tizio infects Caio, can we say that the former attacked the latter? To this question, many (pseudo) liberals respond – in a much too hasty and superficial way – with a decided "yes". In our opinion, however, the correct answer is “it depends”.
Depends on what? Very simple: to settle the question, it is necessary to understand whether or not there has been an invasion of a property right – that is, an aggression. The best way to clarify this point is to use an example. Let us ask ourselves: is a punch an aggression? The answer, as you may have guessed, is "it depends". It depends, in fact, on the context and on how the owners of the objects involved (in this case, the owners of human bodies and the space these bodies occupy when the fist is thrown) have decided to enjoy and dispose of their properties.
In fact, if Tom walks in his own courtyard and Gaius decides to punch him for no reason, it is clear that Gaius is invading the right of ownership that Dude has over his body and his courtyard: he is preventing him from enjoying these two legitimate properties. as you see fit. On the contrary, if Tizio and Gaius decide to challenge each other in a boxing match in that same courtyard, the aggression would not be represented by the punches they would exchange, but by someone else's attempt – Sempronio, or the community, or the State. – to interrupt the meeting: in fact, Tizio and Caio would be freely disposing and enjoying their bodies and their material properties, while Sempronio (or the community, or the State), preventing them from enjoying and disposing of their legitimate properties, would be committing an invasion.
If the example of punching and boxing is clear to you and makes sense, then you will understand our libertarian skepticism towards the Green Pass: just as we do not believe that a third party – or the community – has the right to prevent (not even to for the sake of good) to Tizio and Caio to entertain themselves in a boxing match organized in the courtyard of one of the two (or on a space rented for the occasion), similarly we do not believe that the State has the right to prevent two citizens (for example, a restaurateur and a customer) without a Green Pass to exchange goods and services in exchange for money.
If a patron decides to have lunch at a restaurant whose owner does not require the Green Pass , both the patron and the caterer are simply exercising their ownership rights over their own bodies, their own money (the patron), and on the restaurant (the restaurateur). If, on the other hand, a customer agrees to have lunch in a restaurant whose owner has undertaken to accept only customers with a Green Pass , but the latter fails to fulfill his or her commitment (that is, it allows entry even to customers without a green pass ), then the customer – not only if he were infected, but for the simple fact of having been defrauded (that is, for having paid for a service that was not paid to him) – would have suffered an attack by the restaurateur. In any case, the question cannot be decided by the state for everyone: the only logical and consistent libertarian perspective is that of guaranteeing maximum freedom – barring fraud and deceit – of association between individuals.
To argue that the Green Pass serves to guarantee the right not to be attacked, as many (pseudo) liberals do, is as absurd as arguing that boxing (or any other contact sport) should be outlawed to prevent injuries to athletes. involved. Infecting, or beating, may or may not be a form of aggression depending on the context.
In conclusion: we have no problem with the fact that a large slice – probably the majority – of public opinion is in favor of the Green Pass imposed by the state: we do not live in a country with a strong liberal tradition – we are aware of it. What is more problematic for us to accept, however, is the position of the “Liberals for the Green Pass” . As we have argued, this position seems to us unsustainable and based on a very superficial and not very rigorous liberalism.
The post Against the Green Pass, a libertarian perspective appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/contro-il-green-pass-una-prospettiva-libertaria/ on Wed, 04 Aug 2021 03:44:00 +0000.