One of the first questions you should ask yourself is “what does it mean to be a free person”. Unfortunately, too few of us truly understand what freedom means. Our misconception of freedom, or of human rights, often starts with our misunderstanding of the constitution. When we refer to our “rights”, we often refer to them as our constitutional rights. This is a poor choice in terminology because it incorrectly implies, in the minds of many, that our rights come from the constitution. This is absolutely not the case.
The authors of these so called constitutional rights were very clear that rights are endowed by our creator and are unalienable. Endowed by our creator means they were not given to us by man, or government, or a constitution, or any social compact or document. They are inherent to being human. Each and every individual has these rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness irregardless of who they are, when or where they were born, and certainly irregardless of what any other man or government would say, or any physical characteristic.
The rights enumerated in our constitution are not rights granted to us by our founders or our government. They are not so much a declaration of rights for individuals as they are a set of limitations placed on government. The purpose of the first amendment is not to inform all citizens that they have permission to speak freely, it is a declaration that government has no right to violate any person’s natural and unalienable right to speech or to assemble. Similarly, the second amendment is not to inform the citizenry that they are allowed to have firearms, it is to inform government, both present and future, that they have no right or authority to abridge the natural and unalienable rights of the people to defend themselves, whether from each other or from government itself.
It is when you understand that none of your rights as a human are contingent upon the permission or agreement of any other person, or any other body of people, that you begin to understand the concept of freedom.
A government, either foreign or domestic, can write into law any restriction imaginable against your natural rights, but it has no authority under natural law to do so. Neither do you have any obligation whatsoever as a human being to oblige any such injustice. A stranger that would approach you on the street and prior to attacking you state that you are not allowed to defend yourself against him, has no authority to do so. Only a fool would obey him. In similar manner, no government has the authority to tell you that you are not allowed to defend yourself, or that you are not allowed a voice, or that any of your natural rights are contingent upon any condition of their choosing.
Fortunately for us, the framers of our constitution recognized this very fact and built into our constitutional system of government robust protections for our natural rights. It is the maintenance of these protections under our constitution that allows us to live in harmony with natural law. We have a lot to be thankful for in this country.
Of course, to live within an orderly and cohesive society we must still have laws, and enforcement of those laws, but laws exist to protect the rights of people, not to deny these rights. Acknowledging that free people hold no obligation to respect the violation of their natural and unalienable rights is very different than claiming indifference to laws designed to protect those rights and to bring order to society.
An individual’s natural rights being completely independent of any condition, requirement, or permission is what the founders meant when they stated that they held these rights to be unalienable. Natural rights are not rendered inapplicable if some situation warrants. Wars, famines, plagues, natural disasters, or tragedy do not negate the natural rights of anyone.
That is precisely the danger of a collectivist ideology which is the belief that certain conditions do negate an individual’s natural rights. This ideology is often phrased as “the greatest good for the greatest number”. In the mind of a collectivist (someone who believes in giving a particular group preference over the individual) human rights are applicable only so long as they align with that particular collectivist’s idea of what is good for their chosen group of preference. To a NAZI, the natural rights of jews were not applicable because the jew’s rights were in conflict with the will and values of Hitler and his regime. To the Soviet communists, none of the rights of the millions of people they threw into the gulags or murdered were applicable because any person’s views that were contrary to communism were in conflict with the will and values of Stalin and his body of elite rulers.
Even today in communist run countries like China, people who dare to go against an approved narrative are silenced or disappear completely never to be seen or heard from again. This behavior is justified in the mind of a collectivist because individual rights, even the right to life, is subordinate to the will of the “greater good”.
Covid-19 As An Example
The covid-19 virus has become a hot topic and one of widespread debate. Opinions range from genuine fear of death, to the belief that the entire thing is hoax to gain political power. Regardless of where you land on the spectrum of thought around this, the crisis makes a very interesting thought exercise because it so succinctly illustrates one of the fundamental challenges to self governance in regards to respecting the natural rights of the people when those rights appear in opposition to the greater good.
For the purpose of this argument I am making the assumption that this virus is truly a pandemic, has not been sensationalized in any way, and all information we have been told in regards to it by our government is true and accurate. Based off of these premises, lets all agree, at least for the sake of the broader discussion, that social distancing and staying home are both vitally important to reducing the spread of the virus and that it is in everyone’s best interests that certain businesses close down.
This does not change the fact that your natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not contingent upon a health crisis. Our government has no authority under natural law to restrict any of these rights. Yet, someone, somewhere, deemed certain businesses essential and other businesses unessential, subsequently ordering all the nonessential business to close. In so doing they deemed some people’s income and livelihood essential while deeming other people’s income and livelihood unessential. People were ordered to stay at home, prohibited from travel, and forbidden to peacefully assemble, further violating their rights to liberty. Rights to worship, even with reasonable precautions, were denied in some areas.
So what is the right answer in this situation? Is it ethical to use force, or the threat of force, against peaceable law abiding citizens to temporarily violate their natural rights if it is genuinely believed to be in their best interest? Or would it be more ethically correct that no action was taken that would restrict the natural rights of the people, even if that meant more death and suffering?
One of the big dangers around this is that as soon as it becomes necessary to make an exception against individual rights, more exceptions are imminent. If there is one legitimate case for ethically violating natural rights, then there will inevitably be hundreds if not thousands of legitimate reasons to violate rights in the interests of the greater good for the greater number. This is especially true when the violations of those rights bring additional power to those in charge. When one or several legitimate exceptions to human rights have been established, your rights have become contingent, as such, they are no longer rights, they are peacetime privileges.
The problem with making human rights contingent upon the health and wellbeing (or just plain greater good) of others is that the only necessity to remove the rights of individuals is that fear exists. As long as humans remain human, fear will always not just exist, but it will always be present. Rights that are contingent upon a lack of fear will result in rights only for rulers, not the people. Freedom cannot exist outside of a courageous people. Courage, therefore, is a necessary virtue of a free society.
We should at this time, take a minute to make a clear distinction between the concept that human rights are not contingent on the health or wellbeing of others and the universality of rights among all individuals. Stating that the health and safety of others is not a prerequisite for the existence or continuity of your natural rights as a human is not a statement that your rights as an individual supersede or negate the rights of any other individual. See also: Three Core Values To Establish a Moral Structure.
What if you genuinely care for the wellbeing of others? What if you are genuinely concerned for your own safety? What is the morally correct course of action? I would offer the only solution available, that does not violate anyone’s natural rights, is taking personal responsibility for your own life while simultaneously understanding that no matter how wrong others may be, or much you may disagree with them, they have both freewill and all the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you do.
Where the situation gets dicy is when we attempt to draw that fine line between an unwarranted violation of individual rights and defending our own life and wellbeing from the actions of others that could cause you harm. When someone acts violently against you the case for justified self defense is plainly evident. When a group of potentially infected people decides to assembly for business, worship, or just fellowship, and you have every ability to easily and voluntarily avoid that gathering, your right to compel or deny other people’s actions in the name of self defense is much less apparent.
Personal responsibility and independence means that you are responsible for directing your own life as best you see fit. This means that in the face of a global pandemic it would be the individual who decides to self quarantine, to voluntarily wear a mask or to social distance in their personal lives and to conduct their private businesses in accordance with these views. It would also be the individual who would accept responsibility for the consequences of not taking such precautions in light of reasonable evidence.
Of course this sounds simple enough on paper, but in practice there are a number of requirements of each individual, and even their broader society, in order to functionally pull this off. The first requirement is achieving a level of independence to where you physically and financially could take potentially significant precautions such as self quarantine independent of the majority.
Financial independence means either having multiple streams of revenue to hedge against uncertainty or market risk, or it could mean having sufficient cash reserves to self sustain for a period of time. Ideally, it would include both of these measures. Unfortunately, there are many Americans today that are either dependent, in part or in whole, on government or living paycheck to paycheck who do not have the means of financial independence for any period of time. Their only options are to continue working, or to rely on someone else.
In addition to having the financial means of independence, each individual would also need the various physical means of independence. What these specific things are depends of course on your own specific situation, location, as well as the specific problem you are facing, whether an economic, social, or natural disaster. It could mean having a backup supply of food, water, face masks, and so on, or it could mean having a local support group ready to act in the time of need.
When a particular challenge of any significant magnitude arises, it is very common that the implementation of the optimum response or solution to that challenge encounters one or several additional challenges of its own. For example, it is best that we exercise daily. Actually exercising every day requires that we have the time, means, and energy to do so. For some, none of these things is an issue, for others every one of these things is a barrier. The fact that these barriers exist for some is not reason to conclude that exercising daily isn’t in our best interest. Of course it still is, it just means that there may be some additional but independent problems that need to be solved first.
It is important to realize, that while these auxiliary challenges are indeed problems in their own right, and do require solutions, they are all independent issues with independent solutions. The fact that they exist, that they require action, and that those solutions may very well need to be implemented prior to addressing the core issue, does not warrant the abandonment of the best solution to the core issue. Not having the time to exercise on a regular basis is a problem, and one that needs to be solved in order to begin working out regularly, but it doesn’t change the fact that you still need to exercise.
While it is true that achieving widespread independence by the majority of the population presents many challenges, and each of these challenges need to be addressed, none of these independent issues negates the solution to the core problem being discussed. That is, that the only means as a nation to weather fear and challenges with our liberty in tact is to accept personal accountability for our own lives while simultaneously respecting the rights and freewill of others. As acknowledged, this presents many challenges, namely the challenge of getting the majority population to not only accept personal responsibility but to achieve functional independence, but that doesn’t negate the fact that personal responsibly is the solution to preserving liberty.
Personal Responsibility versus Government Action
In the face of a global pandemic such as covid-19 it may first appear to many that the functional capability of any individual is powerless against such a widespread disaster and that only a major government would have sufficient power to act against it. Upon closer inspection of the matter, it becomes evident that the complete opposite may very well be the case.
One of the challenges in riding out the covid-19 disaster has been the lack of adequate supplies including personal protective equipment such as face masks. Many have criticized the government for not having the foresight to hold large enough strategic reserves of critical equipment to supply to the general populace. Think for a few minutes what governmental strategic reserves of basic necessities would entail.
First, the government would have to purchase bulk supplies over time to build up massive reserves. Then they would have to store these reserves in extremely large warehouses which would need to be strategically placed around the country.
Next, when the appropriate crisis finally arose, there would be the logistical challenges of determining when to release the supplies and how to physically transfer them to the individuals. Would they be shipped out to local communities, would people be required to go retrieve them, or would they be mailed to each home? How many masks would each community or household need? How would we ensure that the supplies were released appropriately, not prematurely to deplete the strategic reserve unnecessarily, but not too late where they didn’t serve their intended purpose. All of the warehousing, transportation, logistics, and manpower necessary to manage the whole process would represent significant overhead, all funded at the expense of the taxpayer.
Conversely, what if the government did not choose to build a strategic supply of face masks and left it solely to the discretion of the individual. Suppose each household were to purchase their own private supply of masks. Each person could then decide for themselves when it was appropriate to begin wearing a mask. They would not have to wait for congressional or executive action. There would be no warehousing, mass transportation, or overhead necessary; each person would already have the equipment in their possession.
Rather than the taxpayer having to fund not only all of the masks, but also all of the warehousing, transportation, manpower and management of large reserves, he would only have to purchase the number of masks he felt were necessary for his own family. This system is not only more affordable to everyone who pays taxes, but it is a much more efficient process as well. Most importantly, it would be safer for each individual since all the necessary equipment would already be in their possession the moment it was needed, whether for a local, national, or global emergency.
Add to this model the undeniable fact that government has proven to be the least cost effective and least efficient means of nearly every endeavor it sets out to, it becomes reasonable to expect that on top of the additional required overhead for governmental provisioning of the people, you would also realize a significance level of waste, or even corruption, throughout the process. That waste or corruption would be transferred to the taxpayer in the form of additional cost. Personal responsibility and independence affords tremendous efficiencies over socialist or collectivist strategies.
To many people, particularly in light of the recent coronavirus pandemic, taking these relatively simple and affordable measures makes a lot of sense. What will continue to be much harder to accept is the other side to this argument which is that all people have freewill, furthermore, none of us has the right to deny someone else’s freewill. What this means is that if other people choose to ignore the warnings, or choose not to prepare for uncertainty, they will be poorly positioned to weather hardship. This will almost definitely have negative consequences.
I think the aspect of this argument that people will struggle with the most is that it would appear that governments should not take action against a major crisis and that survival will ultimately be left to the fittest, or perhaps the luckiest. People will view the free exercise of liberty by others as a direct threat to their life or safety, if for example, the exercise of liberty could mean the spread of a global pandemic, or that potentially violent people have access to weapons.
This argument is not against government taking action in a crisis. It is an argument against governments, or individuals, using the pretext of a crisis, or of people’s fear, no matter how justified, as justification to remove or ignore human rights and liberty. As much as all of us, myself included, wish that this were a peaceful world without fear, conflict, violence, or any other vice of man, it is not and it never will be. Ultimate safety and security will never exists and cannot be offered by anyone, not even a powerful western government. In light of the impossibility of security, it would seem a poor choice to trade liberty for security that will never be achieved.
In remembrance that self governance is a social compact among free people, acting in their mutual best interests, it is perfectly appropriate that a government take action on behalf of the general welfare of the people in the event of crisis. The argument is that those actions should never infringe of the freedom or on the natural rights of the people. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When governments take action that are in accord with this end they are acting justly and within their prescribed duty. When they take action that violates or endangers individual rights they are acting outside of their authority. Tyranny committed in a time of tragedy is still tyranny.
Secondly, this argument is that taking personal responsibility for your own life and wellbeing is ultimately safer, more efficient, and less costly, than relying on someone else to accept responsibility for you and act in your best interest.
My belief is that smoking is bad for you and exercise is good for you. That’s why I don’t smoke but I do exercise. I genuinely want everyone else to be healthy and sincerely wish they would exercise and not smoke. I do what I can to promote healthier lifestyles, first by example, and secondly as sharing whatever information or help I can to motivate others to live healthier as well. Even as much as I truly want others to live a good life and to be as healthy as they can be, I have no right or authority to ban smoking or any other unhealthy behavior. I do not hold the power to tell you what you are allowed to eat or not eat, I can’t hold a gun to your head and force you to workout three times a week (nor would I want to). Those actions, while arguably good for some people, are a violation of not only their natural rights, but also of their freewill.
Similarly, in the face of a global pandemic, I genuinely want everyone to stay healthy and to not spread the virus, but that desire for good does not grant me the right to deny people the liberty to continue conducting their businesses. It does not give me the authority to place people under house arrest, restrict their travel, or to physically force them to wash their hands. At the end of the day I am responsible for myself. I still care about others, will offer any information, education, or assistance I can to help them make good decisions, but neither I, nor any other individual, or group of individuals, have the right to suspend the natural and unalienable rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness simply because I believe doing so is in mine, or our, best interest. Human rights are not contingent upon values, fears, or societal interests.
Again, this is not an argument against government and it is not an argument against governmental action in the face of a crisis. While we are fortunate that the covid-19 pandemic has not yet resulted in anywhere near the number of deaths that was initially predicted, it isn’t hard to image a different virus, or a crisis of a completely different nature, where the outcome could be dramatically worse. Reasonable actions to protect the general population could very well require actions that limit the freedoms of individuals. Challenging times can, and often times do, call for sacrifice. However, there is a critical distinction between a ruling authority using fear or the threat of danger as justification to act counter to their duty of protecting human rights and that of a united people accepting voluntary sacrifice for their mutual protection.