Undercutting the Libertarian Case Against Lockdowns
I was disappointed to see this AIER post from Robert Wright, which pointed out numerous reasons that a private business forcing customers to wear a mask could be illegal and immoral. It starts with an allusion to the Galveston bank (remember that all of the state-required mask mandates have been lifted) that apparently called the cops on an older woman who refused to wear a mask. An excerpt:
Yes, the bank is a private entity but that doesn’t mean that it can lawfully or morally treat its employees or customers however it wishes, even in some hypothetical Libertarian Land. No lover of liberty would think it acceptable for the bank to enslave anyone.
‘Tis true that mandating a mask is a far cry short of slavery but it’s also the case that forcing someone to wear a mask with (alleged) medical qualities (“staying safe”) without a government mandate to do so is a far cry beyond “No shirt, no shoes, no service” (NSx3).
Most importantly, any private entity that enforces a medical-grade mask mandate may be practicing medicine without a license, a serious offense in all 50 U.S. states. …Private entities enforcing medicinal masking may also run afoul of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act if they do not provide reasonable alternative accommodations, like separate hours or rooms for those whose real doctors have advised them not to mask.
Trying to enforce a more lenient “face covering” rule under NSx3 precedent is also fraught. NSx3 rules were created ostensibly to keep “hippies” out of stores circa 1970 but they have also been handy for excluding other “undesirables,” including a much younger and poorer version of myself and sundry other hyphenated Americans. I do not claim that NSx3 rules are inherently racist, only that they have been used by racists, which makes them suspect given that they serve no clear purpose.
NSx3 rules falter legally at the retail level when inconsistently applied, as they often are. Visit any store on the Jersey Shore in high season and you’re bound to see topless young men and young ladies wearing nothing more than a thong and a waterproof brassiere happily shopping away. But then I saunter in with just a European-style speedo and carnage ensues because I am creating a negative externality (allegedly) while the younger folks are creating positive ones (indubitably).
Inconsistency also stems from context. Imagine the silly Catch-22 of a shoe or clothing store with a rigidly applied NSx3 rule. “I’m sorry but I’ll have to call the cops and have you tasered if you try to come into my shoe (shirt) store without shoes (a shirt)!” I see shirtless women in stores all the time … because they are wearing one-piece dresses…
…
Outside of healthcare and food prep requirements pre-dating Covid, forcing employees to wear masks without a government mandate to do so also must run afoul of numerous labor laws and OSHA regulations. It is true that employees who don’t like to mask can quit but the same could be said for employees being sexually harassed. Should they have to quit too? The law says no! And forcing someone, especially someone who has survived Covid or had a “vaccine,” to wear a mask 8 hours a day is a form of harassment, even if all employees are instructed to wear masks. A boss who propositions all employees regardless of age, gender, and so forth isn’t guilty of discrimination but s/he has harassed employees because the behavior is legally and morally unacceptable. Depriving employees of oxygen and normal human interaction without clear cause is also unacceptable. If you don’t believe me, just ask 2019. Or 1900. Or 1800.
Now the absolutely strangest aspect of the above article is that, after analyzing private mask mandates with the same lens as we would apply to slavery, torture, and sexual harassment, the author then in the 2nd last paragraph says:
In practical terms, businesses may fear that if they do not keep up pandemic LARPing frightened members of the public may take their business elsewhere. Any decent business, though, knows how to handle heterogeneous customer preferences. Transition back to normal by initiating masked and maskless hours or locations and allow customers and employees to opt into either based on their preferences.
So apparently you can enslave your customers but only from 9am – noon?
Actually, my own guess is that the author wasn’t this inconsistent, and turned in his original draft without that 2nd last paragraph. But then somebody at AIER had a vague recollection that libertarians typically say, “Hey, businesses can set whatever rules they want,” and so suggested the author add that to his piece before running it.
In any event, besides this piece being wrong (in my opinion), it also completely undercuts everything I’ve been trying to do since the lockdowns began. The general public thinks, “If we think the virus is serious and we think people ought to adjust their behavior in response to a global pandemic, then we need government coercion.” In response, a bunch of us have been arguing, “No, let individuals adjust their behavior and private businesses can set whatever rules they want. They will ‘follow the science’ and in certain regions, some stores will cater to those who want masks, social distancing, etc.”
But now, the skeptics can say, “Oh really? Have you seen what the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration have to say about your purported ‘free market voluntary’ solutions?”
BMS ep. 189: Josiah Neeley Gives the Other Side of What Happened in the Texas Freeze
Audio here, video below. And there’s a surprise at the end.
Getting Caught Up on Bob Murphy Show Episodes
Here they are:
Ep 183 features Ben Powell talking about his new book on the (alleged) loss of political liberty from excessive immigration. Audio here, video below:
Episode 184 is me solo, talking about the work of Gene Sharp on nonviolent solutions to social problems.
Episode 185 is my interview with Dr. Keith Smith, on the scam in medical pricing and how to fix it. Audio here, video below:
Episode 186 is my solo discussion of what happened with the Texas power grid in February.
Episode 187 is my interview with Gary Wolfram, who was my professor and then colleague during my two stints at Hillsdale College. Audio here, video below:
Introducing the Best New Rapper, Tom MacDonald
This guy is amazing. Here is the song that made him break out; it’s the California Roll of his oeuvre:
So if you like that, check out his YouTube channel; he’s dropping songs monthly, lately.
OK but what I want to draw your attention to is the amazing rap battle he had with Mac Lethal. (I have been out of the game for too long, but my wife tells me Mac Lethal is pretty big and for example has a famous video where he raps in 27 different styles; it currently has almost 32 million views.)
Apparently, on Twitter Mac Lethal picked a fight out of nowhere, complaining about entertainers who whine about being cancelled when nobody cares about them. He was clearly referring to T-Mac even though he later tried to backpedal when it was clear that even his own fans (i.e. Mac Lethal’s) weren’t with him.
So Tom MacDonald dropped a diss track:
Then Mac Lethal hit back, and it took a while (not sure how long) for him to put this up–and just a hint, “Tammy” is Tom MacDonald, Mac Lethal is saying he’s a little girl:
OK not bad, not bad. The Candace Owens line was laugh-out-loud funny.
THEN, with reportedly a one-day turnaround, Tom MacDonald put out the following. After this atomic bomb, Mac Lethal wisely surrendered,
The above is arguably the greatest diss track recorded in the English language (I cannot speak outside that). One hint: Around 2:05 he says Dave (i.e. Mac Lethal) will need to “Chris Benoit them.” Follow the link if you don’t get what he’s saying. Damn Tom.
Murphy Twin Spin
BMS ep 182 is my idea for children’s rights in a free society.
I have a new article at mises.org on short selling.
BMS ep 181: Could Gold Discoveries Cause the Austrian Boom-Bust Cycle?
Re: this post, here is the audio and below is the video of my discussion with Walter Block and Bill Barnett:
Block & Barnett vs. Murphy & Mises
I don’t like their chances…
Walter recently sent me his 2020 critique in the Review of Economic Perspectives (co-authored with Bill Barnett) of my 2019 QJAE article in which I weighed in on the fractional reserve banking debate.
Episode 181 of the Bob Murphy Show (which hasn’t dropped as of this writing, so that link might be broken depending on when you read this) features Walter and Bill debating/discussing me on the substantive point, namely, can newly discovered gold–even in a free society with no central bank, commodity money, and 100% reserve banking–cause the Austrian boom-bust cycle?
In my 2019 paper, in order to show that Mises himself thought fractional reserve banking per se caused the business cycle, I quoted his view that newly discovered gold could cause it too, if it hit the loan market before the rest of the market had a chance to fully adjust to the new influx of commodity money. My rhetorical point was that, if you understood Mises’ position vis-a-vis gold, then it would obviously follow that FRB per se caused the business cycle, not just “too much” FRB as Selgin & White would have it.
Anyway, Block & Barnett hit back on this point, arguing in their 2020 paper that in a free society, newly discovered gold couldn’t cause a business cycle, even in principle. However, they seem to have misunderstood the layout of my own argument.
It’s not worth spelling out the details, I’m just warning readers that they should not trust Block & Barnett (2020)’s summary of what “Murphy argues in his 2019 paper.” They at times put words in my mouth that I do not in fact endorse.
To succinctly demonstrate that they are confused about what my actual argument is, I’ll offer just one example. In their conclusion, B&B write the following, and note that the initial quotation (which I put in italics to clarify) is from my own paper (i.e. they are quoting me in the beginning of the block quote below). Note that the “[of FRFBs]” is added by Block & Barnett, NOT by me. This is part of the confusion–Block and Barnett are wrong to add “[of FRFBs]” there; that’s not the camp to which I was referring.
“The claim [of FRFBs] — from Mises and Hayek through Rothbard up to writers such as Salerno in the present day — has always been that credit expansion sets in motion an unsustainable boom.” That is, according to those thinkers and Murphy, commodity credit in the form of new commodity money, both in principle and under typical conditions, has the same distortionary effects as new circulating credit; to wit: such additions to the stock of commodity money and credit cause business cycles, and thus such additions constitute market failure.
So let me now explain why the above block quotation from Block & Barnett is confused, and shows that they got mixed up with what I was doing in my paper.
First and most obvious, FRFB stands for Fractional Reserve Free Bankers. It is guys like Selgin and White. My paper was written against them. So to reiterate, when B&B inserted “[of FRFBs]” into that words quoted from me, they mixed up me with the target of my attack.
Second and less obvious, but still important: The claim I made in that quote is something Block & Barnett agree with too! To wit, credit expansion sets in motion an unsustainable boom. (Credit expansion is the issuance of new fiduciary media, in Mises’ terminology.) So Walter Block and Bill Barnett can be added to the list of thinkers, along with Murphy, Mises, Hayek, and Salerno, who would agree with that claim.
And yet, B&B quoted that and held it up as the thing they were knocking down in their 2020 paper.
Recent Comments