Posts
We all are too familiar with the
approach to pandemics taken by governments at all levels in the US. In the name
of "public safety" governments assumed "emergency powers"
to restrict the citizens' right to peaceful assembly (a violation of the first
amendment to the Constitution) and to deprive citizens of property without due
process of law (a violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution). The
fourteenth amendment applies these protections to the states, too. I will not
repeat all the justifications that emanated from government that supposedly
negated these Constitutional protections. Instead I will concentrate on whether
they are defensible logically, using government's own criteria as the judge.
The individual will be the subject of our inquiry, not the group.
Claim number one:
Peaceful Assembly Threatens Your Health and the Health
of Others
Let's assume that government is right.
If individuals assemble, they threaten one another's health in some way. But
why should government make the decision about what constitutes a threat to
health? What is its criteria? What is the threshold? Some individual in
government makes this decision, but why should his level of acceptable risk be
the group standard? Can't each individual decide how much risk he willingly
assumes? Furthermore, if a person decides to assemble with like-minded
individuals, what risk is that to those who do
not wish to assemble? You've willingly quarantined yourself, as
governments recommended. Your risk is not affected by those who do not wish to quarantine
themselves. They assume more risk; yours remains the same. Even if the pandemic
spreads more rapidly, it does so only among those who took the risk in the
first place, not you. Again, you have not been subjected to any additional risk.
This is the reasoning behind the actions of many hypocritical politicians who
ignored their own orders to their constituents. They merely decided that they
were willing to take additional risk, and no one suggested that they were threatening
others who remained in quarantine. So, logically the government imposed
quarantine, AKA restricting the citizens' right to peaceful assembly, makes no
sense logically.
Claim number two:
"Non-essential" Businesses Threaten Your
Health and the Health of Others
The same logic can be applied to
governments' decisions to lockdown "non-essential" businesses. (All
businesses are essential, so that qualification is nonsense.) Government used
the same rationale; i.e., that mingling with one's fellow citizens in places of
business threatened the individual himself and others. But these
"minglers" assumed the risk and threatened no one who did not
"mingle".
The big question becomes this: why do
those who quarantine themselves insist upon forcing quarantines on others?
Certainly, businesses who choose to close may do so voluntarily. Why should
they be concerned over those who do not choose to close. (Actually, I am not
aware of any business that voluntarily closed due to risk intolerance. But
maybe such a business does exist.) Businesses can adapt their premises to allay
the fears of potential customers. This seems to be happening voluntarily for
those "essential-businesses" that were permitted to remain open. Why
should government dictate business practices to those who remain open? This is
a decision for individual businesses alone. If such businesses adopt too
stringent entry requirements, patronage will flow to more friendly competitors.
If such businesses adopt too lenient entry requirements, the same thing will
happen. There is no objective guideline for determining entry practices. In
fact, the same kind of businesses may be more or less stringent, attracting
more or less risk averse clientele.
Let Perfect Freedom Prevail
Each individual has the right to "perfect
freedom" in deciding for himself how much risk he is willing to assume
from any of thousands of daily risks. We practice perfect freedom every day
without even thinking about it as we go about our daily lives. Each individual may
choose his own risk tolerance, because his decision cannot affect those who
wish to take less or even more risk. Risk averse individuals protect
themselves. Likewise, each individual business decides what is best for itself
and its customers, ranging from closing down to taking no additional risk
mitigating measures at all. If customers decide that the business is not taking
appropriate measures, they can stay home and/or patronize other businesses with
risk mitigating measure more attuned to their liking. In other words, there is
no logical reason that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights of peaceful
assembly and right to protection of our property need be violated in order to
protect "society". Society is composed of millions upon millions of
individuals, all with different risk profiles. Let perfect freedom prevail.
