Wednesday, April 14, 2021

There Is No Plausible Argument for Maintaining Any More Restrictions on Normal Life

By Laurence M. Vance

A prominent libertarian with a conservative bent (he did, after all, once work for the
Heritage Foundation), one whom I read on a regular basis and appreciate his work, but
evidently doesn’t respond to e-mails, has written “ a limited defense of vaccine

He reasons, correctly in my view that“from a libertarian perspective, guided by core
principles such as property rights and freedom of association, that should be totally
acceptable.” And adds: “And that’s true even if we think the owners of the businesses are
making silly choices. After all, it’s their property.” I have written much the same in some
of my articles about the coronavirus insanity and my articles on discrimination. If a
business wants to require all patrons to wear a red shirt to enter, then that is their right.
Just like if a bakery wants to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, then that is
their right.

This libertarian is “glad that there’s lots of resistance to the idea of vaccine passports”
“because if businesses impose such rules and there’s no pushback, that probably
increases the likelihood that politicians will try something similar.”

He concludes with this statement: “For what it’s worth, I hope this becomes a moot point.
After all, once everybody who wants to get vaccinated has been vaccinated, there’s no
plausible argument for maintaining any more restrictions on normal life.”

I have three concerns.

Business that require masks, promote social distancing, limit capacity, and install plastic
shields at registers are generally only doing so because of state and local government
mandates. In areas with no such mandates, businesses that still do these things are
following CDC guidelines and propaganda about “the virus.” And businesses wouldn’t
even be thinking about vaccine passports were it not for the government’s draconian
restrictions. When it comes to “silly choices” that businesses make, it is generally not just
a matter of property rights and freedom of association.

I wish he had also said that he was glad about resistance to vaccine passports because the
“vaccine” is forced on people by the government, paid for by the government, is
dangerous, is of very dubious value, and is an injection, not a vaccine. And of course, as
above, businesses wouldn’t even be thinking about the idea were it not for the
government’s draconian response to the “pandemic.”

His concluding statement is very problematic, and I have asked him to rethink it. There is
no plausible argument now for maintaining any more restrictions on normal life, nor has
there ever been. The whole Covid-19 “pandemic” is a giant government scam. And the
CDC even says that after you are vaccinated you should still wear a mask, social
distance, and not gather in large groups. So, it is incorrect to think that once enough
people get vaccinated that the government will let everyone resume a normal life.

Laurence Vance is a columnist and policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at His published books and pamphlets include "Social Insecurity," "The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom," "War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism," "War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy" and "Gun Control and the Second Amendment."


  1. "There is no plausible argument now for maintaining any more restrictions on normal life, nor has there ever been. The whole Covid-19 “pandemic” is a giant government scam."

    Thank you Mr. Vance for saying what needs to be said. Next step is to begin the tribunals and sentencing the perps to prison.

  2. People who thought this would be over when Trump left office didn't have a clue how government operates. Or how mass hysteria operates either.

    We are in this for at 4-5 more years and how it all shakes out in the aftermath is anyone's guess.

  3. The anti-civilizationists have adopted the "it's their property" position, because they understand, unlike the strain of atomist, culture-less libertarians that Mr. Mitchell represents, that just because actions are voluntary, they are not bereft of consequence. Moreover, that consequence has implications for the broader society and overall human flourishing.

    Ultimately, "libertarian" should be an adjective, as Jeff Deist has commented. The non-aggression principle is insufficient to provide for and maintain liberty, peace, and human flourishing, the highest goals. There is, objectively, a right culture and a wrong culture. We have to be on the side of the right one, the one Mr. Vance is arguing in favor of. There has to be a reason, other than property, for us to refrain from engaging in aggressive violence against other people.

    This is Hoppe's position in his numerous writings. While it is eminently permissible to permit the development of all manner of societal organizations, only a few, if that many, will lead to the growth and sustaining of the human family. It is not those who simply say, "but it's their property," and leave it at that.

  4. As always, Mr. Vance makes excellent observations. The coercion that violates property rights can be applied in many, sometimes subtle ways. A single fearmongering nudge and the crowd becomes a mob. A self-righteous mob without reason and full of fear. Ready to destroy person, property and soul. A rational individualism can resist this madness but as long as the savior mentality persists, individualism cannot flourish.

  5. Meh. Typical libertarian whining. Of course when it's something he doesn't like such as wearing the muzzle or having to get a vaccine to shop at a store, he invokes the boogeyman of the state as the reason property owners require these mandates. For some reason he doesn't think general stupidity is a factor in these decisions, even though I'm sure we have all seen these same retards driving alone in their own car who wear a mask. When it's censorship of speech, he's fully in support of property rights (

    For thinking so highly of themselves as intellectuals, libertarians are astoundingly naive when it comes to recognizing slippery slopes. You thought it was going to end at censorship? Have fun starving to death because you can't buy food without a vaccine.