Thread by @soncharm

The current bubbling-up vaccine-mandate issue is one of those moments that brings a permanent social fact to the forefront, which is there is some everpresent, solid core of people that Just Like The Concept Of Mandating Things (in principle).

It isn’t actually that they are so much in favor of *this mandate*, of *this vaccine*, by the institutions doing the mandating, per se. I mean, most of them are lukewarm, at best.

It’s that - in their minds - mandating things has just GOT to be ok, sometimes.

That’s the primary motivation that I can detect, anyway: *establishing the general principle* (that Mandating Is Okay, Sometimes). Because what frightens them more than anything - even more than some particular mandate being wrong - is if Mandating (As A Thing) is discredited.

This motivation explains why, when I try to engage & deal with the mandate argument in earnest, in response I so often get a gigantic runaround, a fragile Escherian maze of interconnected mottes and baileys.

-why mandate?
-public good, externalities, to Keep People Safe
-but it doesn’t really block transmission (much)
-well it also keeps you out of hospitals
-so? that’s a private benefit
-companies have an interest in that
-uh where does that end?

etc

The unstable dodginess of these endlessly-shifting rationales reflects the fact that no ‘argument’ as such motivating the pro-mandaters. You could knock each one down. They wouldn’t care.

What they care about is Mandating, As Such.

In unguarded moments they might concede on each of the individual points, in isolation. But they can NOT give ultimate ground on the bigger-picture issue of the mandates. Because that would be a tally in the loss-column for Mandating, As Such. Which would SUCK! It’s TERRIFYING!

We see similar dynamics elsewhere, of course. Consider the whirligig of ‘masks = seatbelts = wearing pants’ style arguments we see for mask mandates. Do people saying this REALLY believe it? Nah.

They care about defending the *concept*. (of Mandating).

Why, then? Why are some so devoted to the concept of Mandating that they’ll (sort of - with sophistry) defend even the ones that can’t be?

It probably has to do with where one sees oneself tribally. Are you likely to be a Mandater or a Mandatee?

Some see themselves as being on, & have most sympathy for, the team that Decides The Mandates. So of course their primary motivation, most of the time, is to stake out maximal scope for Mandating. Are some mandates bad? Sure, but can’t make an omelette w/o breaking eggs right?

Then of course there’s the other team, the team that Gets Told What’s Been Made Mandatory. But you’re not some loser on *that* team, are you? Or even if you are, you’re not gonna go around admitting it.

This pattern also extended to, & explains the social coalescing around, Lockdowns. Lockdowns, as implemented, were a completely unprecedented gov’t act. AFAIK no such policy had been (seriously) contemplated prior to 2019.

But Team Mandater instantly liked & defended them. Why?

Because it was a Mandate. And Team-Mandater cares about that being possible, in principle. Even if when pressed they’d concede that this or that Lockdown was an overreach, misguided, wrong. ‘But surely *sometimes* a Lockdown is needed’, they’d say - voicing their primary concern.

Needless to say, Preserving The Mandate Optionality (In Principle) is not my primary concern. So I can’t quite sympathize with those of you for whom it is. But I do understand you. I sure do!