According to NPR, Quebec is about to impose a financial penalty against adult residents who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Why?
Premier Francois Legault said not getting vaccinated leads to consequences for the health care system and not all Quebecers should pay for that.
How much will the unvaccinated be expected to pay?
Legault said the amount of the penalty hasn’t been decided, but will be ‘significant’.
Presumably, that means something like ‘high enough to make people reconsider their selfish, anti-social behavior, but not so high that they can’t afford to pay it’. We can look to other countries, though, to get some idea of what ‘significant’ means.
In Greece, those over 60 have until Jan. 16 to get their first jabs or be fined 100 euros ($113) for every month they remain unvaccinated. Austria’s health minister announced last month the government plans to impose fines of up to 3,600 euros (around $4,000) on people who flout a coronavirus vaccine mandate it aims to introduce in February for all residents age 14 and over.
Meanwhile, out in California, Governor Newsom has indicated that he would like to see the legal framework that Texas has constructed to prevent abortions to be adapted by his state to prevent the manufacture of certain kinds of firearms.
Put these ideas together, and you get an idea whose time has come, an idea that gives New Hampshire yet another opportunity to set a good example for the rest of the nation — by becoming the first state to impose a financial penalty on residents who insist on going around unarmed.
After all, not carrying a gun leads to consequences for the criminal justice system, and not all Granite Staters should pay for that.
What kinds of consequences?
Well, a large number of crimes would simply never be committed if everyone knew that the intended victims were armed and ready to defend themselves instead of relying on society to pick up the slack.
Also, crimes attempted in spite of this — which we might call ‘breakthrough crimes’ — could be ‘prejudicated’ on the spot, instead of requiring investigation, arrests, adjudication, and incarceration — all of which are very expensive.
Perhaps most importantly, the very existence of unarmed people moving about freely in the population is the condition that allows lawlessness to spread, not unlike a virus. In short, to echo President* Biden, the responsibility for crime falls squarely on the shoulders of the unarmed. And we need to do something about that.
The reasoning in both cases is the same: If you create a problem for everyone else, they shouldn’t have to pay to clean up after you. Whether that’s about medical care or criminal justice is irrelevant.
So, how about a penalty of $100 (applied at most once per month) for being caught in any public space without a gun? No QR codes required.
Just as any vaccine is apparently as good as any other, you don’t have to carry a gun of any particular caliber or capacity. A North American Arms .22 revolver, a Sig P365, a Beretta M9, a 10mm Glock, an AR-15, your great grandfather’s musket — it’s your call. And just as vaccines don’t actually need to be effective to be mandated, you don’t even have to load your gun. Like a vaccine passport, you just have to have it with you when you want to leave your house.
And the best part? Once lawlessness has been brought under control, carrying a gun — unlike having been subjected to an experimental vaccine — is a condition that can be easily reversed without permanent consequences.