Free to be stupid


Most political arguments boil down to questions of freedom and of human rights. Sometimes debate results from a conflict of rights. For example, does an unborn baby possess the right to life, or does his or her right to life begin only after birth, when it no longer depends directly on the support of his or her mother? Does a woman’s right to freedom allow her to do whatever she wishes to her own body—even to the point of killing a child developing within her body—or is her freedom limited by her child’s right to life? People who have made up their minds about such issues are sometimes unable to see the reasonable thinking that supports the opposing position.

As American citizens, we have freedom of speech. But that freedom is restricted. We are not free, for example, to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. We are not free to threaten public leaders, or any person or group of people, with violence, or to call other people to attack them violently. Yet we are free to disagree with our leaders. We are free to contact them, to try to persuade them to exercise their authority in certain ways. We are free to support their political opponents and to try to persuade our fellow citizens to vote for those opponents. When support for a leader or a party is prohibited by law or attacked by powerful corporations that provide space for public statements, then democracy and freedom both suffer.

Part of the debate about freedom relates to the Social Contract. Citizens willingly limit their rights and freedoms to the government for the benefit of all citizens. The government builds roads, defines how the roads are to be used (speed limits and other traffic laws) and taxes the use of those roads (license fees, tolls, and fines for breaking the law, for example). Citizens use the roads. They might willingly break traffic laws. They might even avoid paying some of the required taxes. But, when those citizens are caught breaking the speed limit or driving with an expired license, the law punishes them with further fines and other penalties. We accept government control over the roads for the obvious benefit of safe and rapid transportation.

At some point, though, citizens begin to resist the restrictions made by their government, restrictions that are intended (at least on the surface) to benefit all citizens. People are required to wear seat belts and are fined if they are caught traveling unbuckled. This is supposed to protect those people and also to save the general public from sharing the medical costs of injuries to unbelted drivers and passengers when they suffer from a collision. Smoking tobacco is prohibited in many places, and taxes are placed on cigarettes to discourage smoking. Freedom to smoke is not entirely prohibited, but the government protects non-smoking citizens from second-hand smoke and, in general, uses its power and authority to discourage smoking.

How do issues of personal freedom and the Social Contract relate to the current virus crisis? For the good of all citizens, does any government (national, state, or local) have a right (or even a responsibility) to require all citizens to be vaccinated or to require all citizens to wear masks? Can these questions be answered by appealing to precedents set by the seatbelt debate or by the smoking debate? First, cigarettes can be taxed to discourage smoking, but no fair tax can be applied to people who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID or refuse to wear masks. Second, rapid transportation by car is a right that can be regulated by the government, including license fees and speed limits and even the use of seatbelts, but people are free to walk or ride bicycles or use public transportation; they do not need to travel by car if they dislike the regulations about transportation by car. But a law requiring vaccination, or even a law requiring masks, reaches beyond personal privilege into choices that should involve individual freedom, choices that should not be coerced by government rules and regulations.

Ironically, the labels pro-life and pro-choice that, for more than a generation, have applied to sides in the abortion debate appear to have flipped in the mask and vaccination debate. Regarding abortion, the conservative position is called pro-life because it defends a baby’s right to life, even before that baby has been born. The liberal position is called pro-choice because it defends a woman’s right to do as she chooses to her own body, even while that body supports the growth and development of a child. But now the conservative position regarding masks and vaccines can be called pro-choice. Citizens can choose whether to wear a mask. They can choose whether to receive a vaccine. The opposing position calls itself pro-life. It claims that lives are being lost to the virus, lives that would be spared if everyone wore a mask and if everyone received the vaccine.

Science is used to support both sides in the abortion debate, the seatbelt debate, the cigarette debate, the mask debate, and the vaccine debate. Once the debate has ended (as is the case with seatbelts and cigarettes), people remember the science that supported the winning side and forget the science that supported the losing side. While debates continue, people remember and quote scientific facts and statistics and observations on both sides of the debate. Science is used to support either side; science does not end the debate and declare a winning side and a losing side.

Freedom to smoke cigarettes, or freedom to ride in a car without wearing a seatbelt, might be described by some people as “freedom to be stupid.” When a debate is not settled, though, either side might consider the position of the opponent to be “stupid.” If national and state and local governments passed laws prohibiting all the behavior that some people consider “stupid,” no judge or lawyer would be able to remember all those laws, and no police force would be capable of enforcing all those laws. Rules and regulations generally address the most important choices and decisions, leaving people free to make a lot of decisions on their own, even at the risk that some people—probably most or all people—will, from time to time, make a stupid decision.

Because it is entwined with politics on the highest levels, debate about the current virus crisis has become highly enflamed, with both sides regarding their opponents as stupid. Some claim that thousands (or even millions) of lives are at stake; others reply that the freedom of all citizens is at stake. Some citizens prefer to live with a government that exercises close control of personal decisions, minimizing risks and protecting all citizens from any preventable danger. Other citizens prefer to live with a government that protects freedom, regulating only behavior that is so dangerous that it can rightly be labeled “criminal.” Inevitably, elected leaders must seek and establish a compromise that protects freedom as much as possible while also reducing danger to citizens as much as possible.

Given the choice, I lean toward freedom. I do not trust the government to monitor my life and to protect me from all the stupid decisions I might make. While the virus crisis is not the best arena to shape a national debate about personal freedom and government control, it happens to be the arena in which we stand today. While we await compromises reached by our elected leaders, I continue to wave the banner of freedom. After all, I have been taught to think for myself. I have been taught to question authority. Watching movies like Dead Poets’ Society and Footloose and The Matrix—not to mention Star Wars and Blues Brothers and Ferris Buehler’s Day Off—I have learned the important of remaining free, challenging the status quo, and defending my independence as a human being. That, my friends, is the battle we are fighting today. J.

13 thoughts on “Free to be stupid

  1. What a very thought-provoking post, J.
    In my country, people mistake the “freedom of speech” for the “freedom to say anything you want, at any time you want to say it.” In fact, our freedom of speech is the freedom to disagree with our political parties openly.
    Freedom has a different definition for different people. I don’t mind sticking to the laws, for instance, because they serve a purpose. But I wouldn’t be happy if someone would tell me how to dress, behave or what to do with my life. I think I like a little of both sides.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Our countries our similar in that regard–mistaking freedom for license, thinking freedom of speech has no limits, although genuine freedom has obvious limits regarding truthfulness and harmfulness. The way the world is now, we cannot abolish all laws; we need governments to protect us from one another. But a government that goes overboard with the laws, trying to control what we write and what we say and even what we think, is also unacceptable. We call that “totalitarianism”–which is something I will eventually address, when I get back to my series of history posts, which left off with the fall of the Roman Empire. J.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well, of course; in that sense, we are not free to stay silent when others are threatened by the danger of a fire, or–worse yet–to quell shouts of fire with, “Don’t worry! Everything’s fine!” So our freedom of speech is, in some cases, limited; but we seek, as free people, to make those limits as few as possible. We are allowed, for example, to shout “Movie! at a crowded bonfire. J.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Hmm. Well, personally I’m not following any mandates, demands, or laws, all rooted in lies, deception, censorship, manipulation, trickery, incentives, threats, or force. Why do we wash our hands? Because it’s sensible, because we’ve been presented with some sound science, and because even if it turned out to be all wrong, there is no risk or harm from complying.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rather reminds me of those disaster films where one group of survivors elects to go off on their own, and you know they made the wrong choice. I suppose we will not know until the end of the movie where this is all going.


  3. A fair argument given the many I have read/listened to, who have attempted this. Here’s the key that you mentioned…. “Because it is entwined with politics on the highest levels, debate about the current virus crisis has become highly enflamed, with both sides regarding their opponents as stupid.”
    Why is there politics at all involved in any of this? After all, both sides accuse the other of engaging in it. I explore this in my own post here…..

    To your concept that you’ve been taught to think for yourself… that’s fine and admirable, but does that suggest you might not be a team player? Does it suggest that it matters not what others might be more knowledgeable about, that you will just do your own thing? Does someone “telling” you what to do automatically mean someone wants to control you or your life? All that’s rhetorical.. not looking for a reply to that. Just making a point. This is exactly my point when I said that Americans seem to have lost faith in the Constitution in spite of everyone saying they would die to defend it. We end up with a national crisis that has thus far killed more than a half-million Americans with more to die… and no single person is in charge because we are all too afraid the “other” will take control with secret power agendas. In the meantime, this nonsense it left up to 50 different people on the state level who have NO concept or uniformity of action. It’s a mess. Like Roosevelt in WW2, Congress should have granted short term emergency powers to the president. Now you have red state governors… governors of the deadliest states in this pandemic…. posturing this craziness to object to mandates of any kind that might mediate this and save some lives. Where is the direct line being drawn from being told to wear a mask and loss of personal freedoms? Yep.. frustrates me as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s