At The Hill, I’ve written an op-ed that explores, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, what a libertarian position on vaccine mandates ought to be. Of course, there are many questions one needs to answer to draw a philosophically consistent conclusion.


As I explain:

Here’s the controversy: If the vaccine causes no appreciable injury, can you still refuse to be injected, notwithstanding that you might be visiting significant risks on others?

It’s a close call. Even those who resist government intervention in private matters will endorse rules that bar some persons from violating the rights of others.


Ordinarily, those rules ban or limit harm-inducing activities. Occasionally, however, advocates of limited government will condone directives to engage in benign activities (even when not cost-free) if failure to do so might cause injury to innocent bystanders.

And some pertinent questions:

How much increased risk do I have to endure before your potentially malign failure to act can be redressed? When rights theory doesn’t provide adequate guidance, defenders of liberty often look to utilitarian, cost-benefit tradeoffs. In the context of the vaccine, here are a few relevant factors …


… First, how safe is the mandated act? … Second, what’s the magnitude and frequency of an injury that could occur without a mandate? … Third, can we be sure that a vaccine mandate will remedy the problem? … Fourth, are there remedies available that are less intrusive than a vaccine mandate? … Finally, what peripheral concerns need to be addressed before implementing compulsory injections?

I address these questions in detail, ultimately concluding that:

“Those are crucial questions, which should be examined before embarking on a program that encroaches on personal autonomy. And yet, we are in the midst of a health emergency, which means that suitably modified, narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified.”

You can read the full piece over at The Hill here.