By Don White

The occupation of Ottawa and blockades at Canadian-US border crossings are not just citizens exercising their right to demonstrate. They are a minority making assertions of their right to freely commit “economic vandalism and intimidation” and a “right to destroy” writes economist-columnist Paul Krugman, in a recent column in the New York Times.

Krugman may well be correct. Unfortunately, at a deeper level, the “freedom” called for by the convoys’ may be even more destructive than he has suggested. It may weaken the very glue that holds our communities together. The principle of reciprocity is an inextricable part of human history and of explanations of why we live together in communities.

“Reciprocal altruism” is not a practice of only human cultures. It is a tenet of natural selection theory, and it shows up regularly in explanations of the behaviour of both human and non-human species. Selfish individuals tend to do better than altruistic individuals when it is only one-to-one. But groups comprised of individuals who share costs as well as benefits do better than groups of only selfish members. Groups that practice such reciprocity can often succeed and grow where groups of selfish individuals cannot.

So what does this have to do with “freedom” convoys? Just this. Acceptance of COVID masks and vaccine mandates represent “costs” imposed by public health to produce a benefit for all. I accept the “costs” of wearing a mask and of having a vaccination not only to reduce the chance I contract COVID but also to reduce the possibility that I spread it to you. In turn, you wear a mask and have the vax in order to also protect me.

Our personal belief in the efficacy of masks and vaccines means less than our mutual participation. That applies also to the converse. If I refuse my share of the costs that must be covered for a shared benefit, the bonds between us begin breaking.

And if I go even further and engage in activities that impede communities – whether persisting in blockading legislature buildings, border crossings or hospital entrances – I not only fail to carry my own share of mutual costs, I further increase the burden that other more cooperative, altruistic members of my community are made to carry.

The freedom from bearing a share of such “costs” is what the “freedom” convoys and these blockades represent. The “right” being demanded is a one-sided cost reduction. Yet the benefits produced by others’ efforts to constrain the spread of COVID are still expected to be received by participants in the blockades and the convoys despite the added costs they demand that others shoulder. Added costs that take on many forms.

Just ask the Ottawa residents who have lived and worked with blaring horns 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Who had to breathe continuing waves of diesel exhaust and feel unsafe when only going outside. Ask Nanaimo residents who were blocked from getting into their own hospital.

Equally significant, we should remember that these costs are being incurred not only while the protests are taking place. We have every indication that they will continue building in the future. Even if the initial experience seems only flu-like, there is the very real prospect of ongoing debilitation from long-COVID. Available models suggest that increasing economic costs from COVID are just beginning and that the costs of long-COVID may dwarf the expenses paid for the initial pandemic.

Which leads to the conclusion that the convoys’ use of “freedom” is even more ironic than suggested by Paul Klugman. The participants’ demands amount to more than for just the freedom to obstruct, intimidate, and destroy. They equate to demanding exemption from accepting anything that isn’t an immediate, direct and exclusively personal benefit to themselves, alone. Theirs is the “freedom” of free-riders and of freeloaders.

It would seem that those who make such calls fail to understand that benefits in groups are derived the same way as they are in personal relationships. We look after ourselves best by also looking after others. (If you don’t believe that principle, just go and ask your friends or partner.)

That lack of understanding does not bode well for us as a whole going forward to the future. The kind of communities the majority of us want may not survive the “freedom” demanded by the convoys.