The case against libertarian arguments for compulsory vaccination

Area of Science:

• Political Philosophy
• Bioethics
• Public Health Policy

Background:

• Libertarianism traditionally emphasizes individual liberty and limited state intervention, primarily focused on protecting negative rights.
• Compulsory vaccination policies, often justified by public welfare, present a philosophical challenge for libertarian frameworks.
• Existing libertarian arguments for compulsory vaccination have been noted as insufficient or problematic.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate existing libertarian justifications for compulsory vaccination policies.
• To analyze the philosophical coherence of libertarian arguments in the context of public health mandates.
• To explore the implications of compulsory vaccination for libertarian principles and institutional arrangements.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of libertarian ethical and political theories.
• Critique of specific libertarian arguments, including those proposed by Jason Brennan.
• Examination of the concepts of rights, welfare, and risk within libertarianism.

Main Results:

• Representative libertarian attempts to justify compulsory vaccination were found to be unsuccessful.
• These arguments either fail to demonstrate state justification for such policies or overgeneralize.
• Brennan's argument, while addressing some shortcomings, relies on principles that blur the line between libertarianism and classical liberalism.

Conclusions:

• Libertarianism faces significant hurdles in reconciling compulsory vaccination with its core tenets.
• Existing justifications may inadvertently rely on welfare promotion, a principle libertarians typically reject for state action.
• Libertarians must either develop novel arguments or accept that their philosophy may preclude support for compulsory vaccination.