I hear people say that it's time to suspend liberty in the pursuit of safety.
It's probably not a rare thought for people to have in these trying times. What if we give the government all the power in order to save us from this coronavirus? Screw liberty. Screw freedom. We want protection from this monster that is trying to kill us!
And this is what I say to that: during these times it's more important to preserve our own liberty and freedom than outside of times of crisis. Lockdowns may be necessary, but draconian curfews, martial law, and unusual punishment will leave their mark on the conscience of the people and the government.
The question is, how much power should we be giving to the government to control our daily lives in service of the "greater good?" (I'm putting that in quotes, but it's obvious that this greater good should be served in some way. This is no fake "greater good.")
I am not a political scientist. I know almost nothing about politics besides what filters down to me through the media I consume. But I do know that emergency powers enacted during times of crisis tend to stick around after the crisis is over. I am not against quarantine or lockdown. What I am against is the removal of key freedoms of the individual in service of government initiatives.
There's a difference here between "greater good" and "government initiatives enacted to serve the greater good." When freedoms and liberties are denied, they are usually part of the second.
But how far is too far? What freedoms can't be infringed upon, no matter the effect on the greater good? The freedom to locomote has been removed in many modern democratic nations. People are stuck in their homes except for necessary excursions. Is that enough destruction of freedom to warrant questioning? What about the banning of public gatherings? Those are a key part of freedom of speech. What happens when, for the next couple of months--perhaps even a year--public gathering is banned everywhere? What if a bunch of people want to make a statement?
Is that an overreaching of the powers placed in the state? What is it about this virus that makes us supple enough to give the government this much control over our lives?
In a case where personal freedom might mean death for hundreds or thousands due to r naught, what are we to say against the government's incursion into our individual lives? Why are we so willing to obey draconian lockdowns and curfews?
One of the key points of true liberty is related to the life, liberty, and happiness of others. If my liberty (going to a sports game while just sick enough to walk) causes the death of 85-year old Mr. Winkles, who has a heart problem, am I really entitled to it? Or does the government have the power to lock me down in the service of others?
This is a problem in political thought kind of like the trolley and the track. Do you flip the switch to kill one? Or do you leave the train on its track and let five people die?
I think, in this situation, we should kneel before r naught. (Not in a religious manner.) Science says that the freedom of person X to associate and mingle could cause the permanent loss of the freedom of persons Y and Z, as well as the endangerment of A through W. If we calculate for maximum "freedom utility" (kind of a stupid term but whatever), is the government restriction of person X's personal freedom actually an enablement of persons Y, Z, and A through W?
I'm not educated enough to tell you where the government should curb its advances into our lives. If the government tells us that we can't do business, or can't leave our houses except for permitted reasons, we obviously have to obey. I think this situation could be considered a "war" of sorts. And, during any wartime, I think it's necessary to take actions to limit personal freedom in the service of the freedoms of the majority. The freedom of Mr. Winkles to live another ten years is worth more than my freedom to watch the big game happen live.
But the moment the virus goes away, the moment the coast is clear, I think we should be proactive in reasserting our dominance as the people who the government is for. And, I think we should be careful to curb any intrusiveness or funny business enacted while we are in a state of compliance.
The point is that it's a balance. When there's a war going on, people will be drafted. When there's an outbreak, people will be quarantined. But I also think we should fight for the time when the war ends and put our thoughts towards restoring peace and prosperity.
We need to be careful. Programs enacted during a time of suffering have a tendency to stick around. Let's make sure that the only ones that do are the ones that are beneficial to the tenants of the American Spirit.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And this is what I say to that: during these times it's more important to preserve our own liberty and freedom than outside of times of crisis. Lockdowns may be necessary, but draconian curfews, martial law, and unusual punishment will leave their mark on the conscience of the people and the government.
The question is, how much power should we be giving to the government to control our daily lives in service of the "greater good?" (I'm putting that in quotes, but it's obvious that this greater good should be served in some way. This is no fake "greater good.")
I am not a political scientist. I know almost nothing about politics besides what filters down to me through the media I consume. But I do know that emergency powers enacted during times of crisis tend to stick around after the crisis is over. I am not against quarantine or lockdown. What I am against is the removal of key freedoms of the individual in service of government initiatives.
There's a difference here between "greater good" and "government initiatives enacted to serve the greater good." When freedoms and liberties are denied, they are usually part of the second.
But how far is too far? What freedoms can't be infringed upon, no matter the effect on the greater good? The freedom to locomote has been removed in many modern democratic nations. People are stuck in their homes except for necessary excursions. Is that enough destruction of freedom to warrant questioning? What about the banning of public gatherings? Those are a key part of freedom of speech. What happens when, for the next couple of months--perhaps even a year--public gathering is banned everywhere? What if a bunch of people want to make a statement?
Is that an overreaching of the powers placed in the state? What is it about this virus that makes us supple enough to give the government this much control over our lives?
In a case where personal freedom might mean death for hundreds or thousands due to r naught, what are we to say against the government's incursion into our individual lives? Why are we so willing to obey draconian lockdowns and curfews?
One of the key points of true liberty is related to the life, liberty, and happiness of others. If my liberty (going to a sports game while just sick enough to walk) causes the death of 85-year old Mr. Winkles, who has a heart problem, am I really entitled to it? Or does the government have the power to lock me down in the service of others?
This is a problem in political thought kind of like the trolley and the track. Do you flip the switch to kill one? Or do you leave the train on its track and let five people die?
I think, in this situation, we should kneel before r naught. (Not in a religious manner.) Science says that the freedom of person X to associate and mingle could cause the permanent loss of the freedom of persons Y and Z, as well as the endangerment of A through W. If we calculate for maximum "freedom utility" (kind of a stupid term but whatever), is the government restriction of person X's personal freedom actually an enablement of persons Y, Z, and A through W?
I'm not educated enough to tell you where the government should curb its advances into our lives. If the government tells us that we can't do business, or can't leave our houses except for permitted reasons, we obviously have to obey. I think this situation could be considered a "war" of sorts. And, during any wartime, I think it's necessary to take actions to limit personal freedom in the service of the freedoms of the majority. The freedom of Mr. Winkles to live another ten years is worth more than my freedom to watch the big game happen live.
But the moment the virus goes away, the moment the coast is clear, I think we should be proactive in reasserting our dominance as the people who the government is for. And, I think we should be careful to curb any intrusiveness or funny business enacted while we are in a state of compliance.
The point is that it's a balance. When there's a war going on, people will be drafted. When there's an outbreak, people will be quarantined. But I also think we should fight for the time when the war ends and put our thoughts towards restoring peace and prosperity.
We need to be careful. Programs enacted during a time of suffering have a tendency to stick around. Let's make sure that the only ones that do are the ones that are beneficial to the tenants of the American Spirit.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Comments
Post a Comment