To what extent does it matter to you the substance of what the bloc is pursuing and the consequences of that choice? The UFT example suggests maybe not that much: while you weren't happy with her choice of candidate, her bloc solidarity was what was most important.
Let's say one of these states that currently bans localities from having mask mandates were eventually to prohibit anyone from taking the vaccines. Let's further say it's a state where the vast majority of the public is supportive of the policy. Under your logic above, why isn't it just as problematic for someone who "believes science" wants the vaccine in that state to violate the state law and get it anyway (and further say this is is someone who's on the more reserved side who isn't interested in organizing in opposition to the policy)? Aren't they defying the bloc?
Here, as in your previous Irving piece, you barely speak of the obvious rationale behind a vaccine-mandate: the more people that are vaccinated, the more the spread of Covid curbed, and the less risk to everyone's health Covid poses. To what extent does that---that the Covid mandate has immense public health benefits--matter to your argument here?
My point is that you have to be willing to set aside your substantive disagreements with the bloc in favor of bloc solidarity. Of course, your loyalty shouldn't be endless -- there are issues where you might disassociate with whatever organization or group you've previously identified with -- and you can always try convince fellow members of your bloc to change their mind, but in general you should be acting collectively, not individually.
As for the Vaccine Ban hypothetical, I'm not really sure I understand your point. It seems like your twisting my words to say that all state laws with majority support should always be followed, but I obviously support things like civil disobedience. The entire electorate isn't the kind of "bloc" I'm talking about. A bloc is a group you actively identify with and share something in common with, like an employer or a neighborhood or an ethnic identity or a signature issue you care about. Ideally you are part of some process of deciding the group's position (or at least theoretically could be if you felt like it) on whatever the issue is. If such a group were take a stringent, No Vaccines Under Any Circumstances position, then I suppose you should follow it, or consider leaving such an organization over such a stance, but I think it's telling that you almost never encounter such a position by reputable organizations. You can only get to the pretzel-twisting logic of "don't get vaccinated as some kind of protest against vaccine mandates" if you elevate the importance of symbolic individual gestures, which people acting collectively tend not to do.
As for the substance, yes, I suppose I'm taking the substantive pro-mandate arguments for granted. But I also think there's an obvious anti-mandate argument, specifically that people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. These arguments are so obvious to me that the difficulty is in balancing the tradeoffs, which is not something I really believe individuals can do alone. Deciding on mandates for teachers, for example, involves knowing how many teachers don't already have the vaccine, how many would get it if a mandate were in place, how much teachers/students/parents/other school staff want all teachers to be vaccinated, what changes would be necessary to accommodate or replace unvaccinated teachers, etc. These are not really things individuals can "do their own research" on, since the answers might change depending on other people's answers. In other words, the substantive arguments cannot really be appreciated without considering the larger group dynamics.
To what extent does it matter to you the substance of what the bloc is pursuing and the consequences of that choice? The UFT example suggests maybe not that much: while you weren't happy with her choice of candidate, her bloc solidarity was what was most important.
Let's say one of these states that currently bans localities from having mask mandates were eventually to prohibit anyone from taking the vaccines. Let's further say it's a state where the vast majority of the public is supportive of the policy. Under your logic above, why isn't it just as problematic for someone who "believes science" wants the vaccine in that state to violate the state law and get it anyway (and further say this is is someone who's on the more reserved side who isn't interested in organizing in opposition to the policy)? Aren't they defying the bloc?
Here, as in your previous Irving piece, you barely speak of the obvious rationale behind a vaccine-mandate: the more people that are vaccinated, the more the spread of Covid curbed, and the less risk to everyone's health Covid poses. To what extent does that---that the Covid mandate has immense public health benefits--matter to your argument here?
My point is that you have to be willing to set aside your substantive disagreements with the bloc in favor of bloc solidarity. Of course, your loyalty shouldn't be endless -- there are issues where you might disassociate with whatever organization or group you've previously identified with -- and you can always try convince fellow members of your bloc to change their mind, but in general you should be acting collectively, not individually.
As for the Vaccine Ban hypothetical, I'm not really sure I understand your point. It seems like your twisting my words to say that all state laws with majority support should always be followed, but I obviously support things like civil disobedience. The entire electorate isn't the kind of "bloc" I'm talking about. A bloc is a group you actively identify with and share something in common with, like an employer or a neighborhood or an ethnic identity or a signature issue you care about. Ideally you are part of some process of deciding the group's position (or at least theoretically could be if you felt like it) on whatever the issue is. If such a group were take a stringent, No Vaccines Under Any Circumstances position, then I suppose you should follow it, or consider leaving such an organization over such a stance, but I think it's telling that you almost never encounter such a position by reputable organizations. You can only get to the pretzel-twisting logic of "don't get vaccinated as some kind of protest against vaccine mandates" if you elevate the importance of symbolic individual gestures, which people acting collectively tend not to do.
As for the substance, yes, I suppose I'm taking the substantive pro-mandate arguments for granted. But I also think there's an obvious anti-mandate argument, specifically that people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. These arguments are so obvious to me that the difficulty is in balancing the tradeoffs, which is not something I really believe individuals can do alone. Deciding on mandates for teachers, for example, involves knowing how many teachers don't already have the vaccine, how many would get it if a mandate were in place, how much teachers/students/parents/other school staff want all teachers to be vaccinated, what changes would be necessary to accommodate or replace unvaccinated teachers, etc. These are not really things individuals can "do their own research" on, since the answers might change depending on other people's answers. In other words, the substantive arguments cannot really be appreciated without considering the larger group dynamics.