Contributions

You have no posts

We reward new content.

START POST

Whoo Knew

No replies

Share your opinion on topics.

CONVERSATIONS

Contests

No entries

Win gift cards and more.

Your Profile

FOLLOWERS

0

Users

POINTS EARNED

0

REDEEM

Happiness Tuesdays

Rights & Freedom

Should We Sacrifice Freedoms for Security?

The question is age-old, and yet, this year, it takes on a new life in light of Covid-19. Should we sacrifice freedom for security? If so, how much? How far is too far?

Many of us take deep pride in our freedoms. Our rights have become our identities, we fight for them and believe they are one thing no one can strip us of. But this year, we've been faced with a problem. A conflict. Our rights are no longer simply related to comfort or even happiness, but survival. The threat of a global pandemic and serious illness has left us with uncertainty regarding how far to stand for these freedoms.

Is autonomy over things like masks worth demanding? What about meeting in large groups? Travel restrictions?

The problem with this discussion is that not everyone defines rights the same way, and even further within the category, we all have rankings. For example, some would argue it is their right to go out in public safely and not worry that someone will get them sick. Others would contest it's their right to do whatever they want.

Benjamin Franklin famously said "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". But is not wearing a mask essential liberty? When it comes with a high risk and dangerous cost? Refusing to sacrifice freedoms for security -- not just of yourself, but of others, is a dangerous stance to take. 

What would happen if instead of demanding our own rights and freedoms, we chose to lay down some of them for the good of everyone around us? How things would change. 

Perhaps there isn't a right or wrong answer to this question, but a balance to be struck. One based out of compassion and empathy, and not of a sheep-like mentality. Maybe we could strive to find a middle ground, an opening with both autonomy and sacrificial love for those around us.

Recommended Book

Neither Liberty Nor Safety

Sep 29, 2020
ISBN: 9781598130126

Interesting Fact #1

The Bill of Rights wasn’t a part of the original constitution.

SOURCE

Interesting Fact #2

For 130 years after it was written, the Bill of Rights was rarely enforced as if it applied to all individuals.

SOURCE

Interesting Fact #3

Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts didn’t ratify the Bill of Rights until 81 years ago.

SOURCE

Quote of the day

There is no success without sacrifice. If you succeed without sacrifice it is because someone has suffered before you. If you sacrifice without success it is because someone will succeed after.

- Adoniram Judson

Article of the day - A Voice of Reason: If we sacrifice liberty for security, then we receive neither

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once wrote in a letter on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly which had one of his most famous quotes: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  Nowadays, we see that quote applies to much that we face.  Currently, given the COVID-19 fears, the government sacrifices the liberty of the people in order to provide them with temporary safety.  

Governor Newsom has forced the shutdown of numerous businesses and ordered people to stay at home except when engaging in “permitted work, local shopping or other permitted errands.”  Further, he ordered all Californians to wear face masks in public.  This executive order has been challenged by many public officials as an abuse of power.

A common catchphrase for Libertarians is that “good ideas don’t require force.”  Yet, when the government, whose enforcement powers are based entirely on use of force, demands that people engage in otherwise “good ideas” it has been seen that many people who may have otherwise worn the mask, stayed at home, or engaged in social distancing, end up rebelling against government dictates. 

Now we must ask ourselves how much safety the government is really offering us in exchange for our freedom.  In the process of trying to save lives, the government is costing people their livelihoods.  The argument that people are more important than money is absolutely an important one and can’t be cast aside.  However, the fact is that money, or at least the economic health of the people, impacts directly the lives of those people.  

Every social species of animal lives in a social structure built largely around the management of resources.  Humans are no different.  The social structure of humans is built around management of resources.  While capitalism has increased the availability of resources to the masses, there is still scarcity.  The reaction of the government to save lives is resulting in economic disaster which will likely impact society for more than ten years.  

Not only is money being impacted, but production is being driven down and resources are becoming more scarce.  Supply is decreasing while demand remains high for basic essentials such as food.  With people either getting sick or staying home from work, food production has been heavily impacted.  Food shortages are inevitable if these circumstances continue as they are.  Production is being impacted in other sectors of the market as well as manufacturing dropped.

Additionally, people are out of work and therefore not getting paid.  This means the government is receiving less tax revenue.  Yet, the government has decided to give economic stimulus relief to the people and to businesses.  Businesses have received the lion’s share of that relief.  Businesses are closing, people are out of work and losing their jobs, production is down, and costs will be increasing.  The government is increasing spending while their revenue decreases.  This is a recipe for an economic disaster.  

On top of all of this, a study published in 2016 shows that there is a positive correlation between economic recession, alcohol consumption and suicide rates.  Additionally, the government is telling people to socially isolate themselves.  Yet, social isolation and loneliness are widely known to heavily influence the suicide rate.  It is reaching a point where many people who are at a higher risk for mortality by COVID-19 would prefer risking exposure than continue to live in solitude.  

So my question is this:  Does the government’s response to COVID-19 actually save lives?  It is hard to measure. But surely we can agree that we are giving up “essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety.”  Even with all of the government mandates and restrictions people are still at risk of being exposed to COVID-19.  Sure, the risks are higher when people don’t follow the government’s requirements.  But that doesn’t mean that the government should force people to adhere to them, nor does it mean that people are actually better off adhering to them.  

It seems to me that Benjamin Franklin’s words ring true.  As a people, if we are willing to sacrifice our freedom in exchange for “a little temporary safety” we really do deserve neither, as we receive neither.   

 

 

Question of the day - Would you ever sacrifice some of your freedom for the good of others?

Rights & Freedom

Would you ever sacrifice some of your freedom for the good of others?