Ferghane Azihari, liberal essayist, will publish an essay on the ecological question on October 21 at Presses de la Cité. Pierre Bentata is an economist and essayist. He recently published
From the Spirit of Servitude to the 21st Century
by Éditions de l'Observatoire.
They are both members of the Société d'économie politique (SEP), founded in 1842.
To discover
Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"
“
Freedom is to do anything that does not harm others
”.
The adage is known to all, but has continued to be misguided since the start of the epidemic.
So much so that this maxim once conceived to limit the abusive interference of the magistrate in the lives of citizens turns into an alibi to justify them.
While Western political tradition exclusively assigns armed force to the fight against criminals, its role is evolving in a disturbing direction.
Yesterday, we mandated the police, not to track down the said criminals, but to assign a whole people to residence during successive confinements that had not even been imposed, in the past, during the Spanish flu. It is now proposed that these police officers impose fines and prison terms on those in charge of establishments and gatherings that do not discriminate against their public on a health basis.
Although necessary, do the collective fight against the epidemic and the promotion of vaccination against Covid-19 justify these extreme measures?
"
In exceptional circumstances, exceptional measures
", argues the security party.
To which François-Xavier Bellamy and Loïc Hervé respond in Le Figaro that freedoms are not a privilege for quiet times.
In fact, they were proclaimed in more difficult times.
Théodore Tronchin suggests in
the Encyclopédie
de Diderot et d'Alembert that forced inoculation corresponds more to the mores of a totalitarian city like Sparta than to those of modern nations.
Ferghane Azihari and Pierre Bentata
The 18th century inoculation controversy: example and persuasion
Life expectancy is around 35 years and epidemics are the norm when the doctor Antoine Petit, defender of the ancestor of the vaccination which is inoculation, judges in 1764 that health is one of the things "
that" a wise government gives up at the discretion of individuals
”. Two years later, another supporter of inoculation, Théodore Tronchin, suggests in
the Encyclopédie
de Diderot et d'Alembert that forced inoculation corresponds more to the mores of a totalitarian city like Sparta than to those of nations. modern, while relying on the fact that encouragement, example and education will ultimately be sufficient to disseminate this useful health practice.
In 1808, Joseph Fouché, however reputed to be a very authoritarian Minister of the Interior under Napoleon, refused to impose the new vaccine technique developed by the Englishman Edward Jenner on the whole population: "
gentleness and persuasion are the most effective means to make the success of the new inoculation,
”he argues. These testimonies confirm the observation of the historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz on the conflictuality that the ideal of self-determination carried by the Enlightenment maintains with forced inoculation: “
until the end of the 18th century, it seemed impossible politically and morally to impose it on individuals
”(
L'apocalypse joyeuse. A history of technological risk
, Seuil, 2012).
The aim of a civilized society is to make coordination rhyme with cooperation rather than coercion.
Ferghane Azihari and Pierre Bentata
It was not until 1902 to observe the establishment of a general vaccination constraint in France against smallpox.
The status of the French was then aligned with that of the colonized who were already subject to rigorous paternalism, as Françoise Salvadori and Laurent-Henri Vignaud recall: “
the colonized populations are immediately considered as second-class citizens who must be educated. and protect, including against themselves
”(Antivax.
Resistance to vaccines from the 18th century to the present day, Vendémiaire,
2019.).
This says a lot about the mentality behind the use of force in public health.
The voluntary health pass against the permit to contaminate
Let us concede a point to the apostles of strength.
The fight against an epidemic is a social project which requires a high level of coordination within a community.
But the aim of a civilized society is to make coordination rhyme with cooperation rather than coercion.
After all, the pandemic we are experiencing is global.
But, fortunately, no one makes a pretext for this fact to demand that a planetary Leviathan impose a vaccine policy on all of humanity, even if the scenario of a fully vaccinated planet is desirable.
There are many non-negotiable principles that govern collective action.
If the self-determination of peoples is one of these principles, so too is individual consent.
But, one will say, does not this consent amount in this case to conferring on the non-vaccinated a permit to infect his neighbor?
There has been a scientific literature for 60 years that explains how to regulate these risks without resorting to police measures, in a consensual manner, through contractual negotiation whenever possible.
Ferghane Azihari and Pierre Bentata
It is true that the unvaccinated can inflict an unwanted nuisance on his fellows by increasing the risk of contamination. In the jargon of the human sciences, it is said that it imposes a "
negative externality
" on them. However, for 60 years there has been a scientific literature, notably embodied by the Nobel laureate in economics Ronald Coase, which explains how to regulate these risks without resorting to police measures, in a consensual manner, by contractual negotiation whenever it is necessary. possible.
Concretely, rather than putting a police officer behind each restaurant owner or counter clerk, a peaceful solution would consist in recognizing in establishments a freedom of which they were deprived until now: that of conditioning their access to the possession of a health pass by their customers and their employees. It is up to them to frequent or boycott establishments according to the level of precaution they display. The vaccinated would have the leisure to form clubs reserved for the inoculated. While the irrationals who prefer the viral risk to the vaccine solution will no longer be able to impose an unwanted risk on others.
Critics of the imperative health pass would also be more credible if they campaigned for the right of their fellow citizens to demand this document at the gates of their business and their homes.
Otherwise the freedom they claim is only a license to contaminate as unjustified as the imperative measures they denounce and which neglect the cost they inflict on the community.
According to Ostrom, the first criterion that conditions effective governance of the commons is a clear delineation between those authorized to exploit the commons and those outside it.
Ferghane Azihari and Pierre Bentata
The issue of hospital congestion: a tragedy of the commons
The freedom of establishments to select their audience based on the health passport eliminates the risk that the vaccinated will be unintentionally infected by the unvaccinated. There remains the question of the congestion of hospitals, which is a case of "tragedy of the commons": a limited resource - such as a hospital bed - subject to unconditional access is exposed to congestion. that harms the community.
The work of Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize winner in economics, on “the governance of the commons” gives us the tools to overcome this tragedy without resorting to police measures. According to Ostrom, the first criterion that conditions effective governance of the commons is a clear delineation between those authorized to exploit the commons and those outside it. The second criterion refers to the application of rules and an access price that are strong enough to avoid congestion.
In the present case, and while waiting for us to examine the question of political obstacles to abundant health benefits and free provident insurance, social insurance and hospitals would be entitled to condition the reimbursement of hospital costs or related support. to Covid to vaccination.
The unvaccinated could not pass the cost of their attitude on to the community.
Since the latter like to underestimate the dangerousness of the virus, they will see no harm in giving up unnecessary care in their eyes.
Our societies must learn to solve their security and health challenges without piling up police measures.
Ferghane Azihari and Pierre Bentata
The stick or the carrot?
Finally, it should be remembered that negative incentives are not the only way to fight the epidemic without violating the principle of consent. In the past, it was not uncommon to see French communities paying those who vaccinated against smallpox. Today, the press lists the cases of companies in the United States which compensate their employees who are vaccinated. Some states organize lotteries reserved for inoculated people. So many peaceful practices from which we would benefit from being inspired.
Montesquieu stated in his time that the safety of citizens depended mainly on the "goodness of criminal laws". This is why our societies must learn to solve their security and health challenges without piling up police measures, otherwise they expose themselves to greater evils than those they claim to be fighting.
