Private individuals may use their freedom of association to not associate with anyone for any reason, of course.
But this is not our concern with the mandate. In a free market, those of us who oppose mandates on moral or personal grounds don’t have to deal with private individuals.
Alas, we do not live in a free market. The state regulates even the most basic economic activity.
We do not need to go into the reasons for the mandate. If a mandate guaranteed safety from certain death, it would still be immoral. That it may profit a company more than the individual governed by the mandate is immaterial.
Given the present context, of course, it is reasonable to assume that I am writing about the Pfizer and Moderna mandates, which have recently faced scrutiny from the Supreme Court. They appear to be delayed, but I am not optimistic about the permanence of the ruling.
The immorality of the mandate isn’t about whether the mandate is a “good” or a “bad” for those affected. We know from a priori reasoning that people act to reduce discomfort. If people were anxious about COVID, they would get the vaccine unless they had a greater interest in avoiding it.
However, I have never been against a polemic. If we presume that the vaccine is wonderful and will make unicorns walk the earth and we should maximize adoption of it, a view that I do not take, the mandate fails on its face.
Given that we’ve seen massive campaigns (using money stolen from the taxpayer) to push the adoption and availability of the vaccine (paid for using the same stolen money), it’s reasonable to assume that a lack of opportunity isn’t at question here, and opportunity doesn’t increase with a mandate.
Rather, the mandate targets three camps of people.
The first camp is the apathetic. These people probably already got the vaccine when Krispy Kreme started offering free donuts, though if they didn’t the mandate will probably be effective for them.
The second camp is those who are afraid of the potential health consequences of the vaccines.