link to original reddit post by /u/OffsidesLikeWorf

Since we're engaging in gatekeeping now, let me go ahead and remind everyone that the state enforcing rules at the point of a gun on private actors, even major corporations, is wrong and a violation of the NAP. Period.

If you support the state banning businesses from requiring "vaccine passports" or ID or anything else to come on their premises or engage in exchange, but you oppose the state compelling businesses to have at least one woman or POC on their boards of directors, you need to take a long look at your belief system. Anyone can make moral arguments and justify why the state should enforce his particular view of morality. Libertarians believe that morality should not be legislated or enforced at the point of a gun.

It is discouraging to see the number of people willing to abrogate this core libertarian principle because they believe (rightly) that so-called "vaccine passports" are immoral. They are immoral. But that does not imply that the state ought to ban them, anymore than it ought to ban narcotic use or pornography or prostitution, or any number of other things various groups might find immoral.

Remember: you can always choose not to patronize a business that requires vaccine passports. And, vice versa, people should be able to choose only to patronize those that DO require them. That is the apposite issue here, personal choice, not whether or not "the state can revoke corporate charters at will." That is irrelevant to the point. If the state begins compelling private businesses to require vaccine passports, then, of course that is coercive and wrong and we should oppose it. The same thing is true if the state forces private businesses NOT to require these things. This should not be hard to understand: it is the coercion itself that matters, not the subjective morality of the thing being coerced.

I've seen some pretty mealy-mouthed defenses of coercion in this context, mostly in the current top post on the sub:

  1. "the government shut down nearly all small bussiness competitors by force, they will coerce businesses into doing it!" Completely irrelevant to whether or not businesses that voluntarily choose to require passports should be compelled not to require them. As I said above, this is a non sequitur: if the government compels businesses, either explicitly or by effect, to require vaccine passports, that is a NAP violation, wrong and we should oppose it. We, I think, all agree on that point; so we should all agree on the reverse of it: if the government compels businesses NOT to require a vaccine passport, that is also a NAP violation and wrong and we should oppose it. Further, how would one even determine if a business were choosing to require the passports voluntarily, by implicit coercion, or by some combination? It's not possible to do this.
  2. "Second, even if it were a totally "private decision" the right to do something doesn't mean it should be encouraged or apologized for" - Again, completely irrelevant to the question of coercion. "Encouraging" something is not the same thing as sticking a gun in someone's face and forcing him to do it. If you can't understand the difference there, you need to do some serious soul searching.
  3. "private property whilst worthy to protect in most cases (99.9%), should have exceptions when it comes to clear violations of people's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" This is slippery slope land: who determines what that 0.1% case is? What if it's not 0.1%, but 1% or 5% of the time? Who determines what is a violation of "pursuit of happiness?" Who determines what "liberty" means? Freedom from coercion by the state means freedom from coercion by the state, no exceptions.

I know this sub is now big tent and we embrace a lot of non ancaps here, but it is important not to allow statism to infiltrate libertarian ideology cloaked in moral superiority. State coercion is wrong, it violates life, liberty, and property. No exceptions.