Oddbean

We agree on both the premise and the fact that vaccine mandates are unethical. But I will not argue that State intervention in company policy is a liberterian position. I know this is an whataboutism, but most people are not applying the same principle with regards to Christian-owned companies refusing service/employment to homosexuals. You could argue the scale and scope is different, sure, but the same principle is at stake.

I'm not saying that the state must mandate or not anything. I'm saying it must enforce contracts, which is its function currently, since we do not have a free society in which other non-State forms of enforcement would be available to those victimized.

To concede your point to a significant extent: It's true that one of the non-State options in a free society was available in the real scenario, as you said, namely not accepting the change of conditions, quitting (or accepting being fired, or not getting the job), and then taking to the public square to try to inflict a reputational punishment to the violators. It's just that the effect of the State as the default enforcer over the real scenario is so large, that the result of the non-State option would be negligible compared to what it would be in a free society attuned to such mechanisms.

I think a scenario of non-mandates in either direction (pro- or anti-vaccines), with the state "just" as enforcer of contracts (verbal or written, doesn't matter) would be a huge improvement. I'm more of an anarchist myself, but many libertarians (minarchists, etc) would be happy with such status quo.