Freedom v. Rights
World wide, wearing masks prevented millions of hospitalizations and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. When vaccines became widely available, they prevented millions of hospitalizations and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Both could have saved many more lives, prevented many more hospitalizations but for opposition to masking and vaccination. So why were so many Americans opposed to the requiring of wearing masks and vaccination?
“An infringement of their freedom,” they said. Their exercising of this ‘freedom’ greatly extended the lifespan of the pandemic and increased the hospitalizations and deaths from the virus. Was it their right to do so?
In the early days of the pandemic, before the vaccine and before much was known about the virus, how to prevent the spread, or how to treat the infected; healthcare workers around the world worked until they couldn’t, grabbed a few hours sleep, then went back to work. So many healthcare workers were infected and died; sacrificed their lives for us. They gave so much. Their loss was a national tragedy. In those early days, it was ‘best effort’, ‘best thinking’, on everyone’s part.
After the vaccines became widely available, most of those hospitalized with COVID, of those dying from COVID, were unvaccinated. Since the wide availability of vaccines, most of those long shift after shift hours by healthcare workers went toward patients who refused to wear masks and/or to be vaccinated. Was it their right to impose this great burden on healthcare workers? The nation? Their loved ones? In the name of their personal freedom?
Over the past year, we’ve seen too many of these healthcare worker heroes dropout of the healthcare field. They are burned out, exhausted. It takes years to train nurses and doctors to perform at these high levels. Replacing them will neither be easy nor quick.
Many of those who contracted the virus will have long-term, long COVID, effects, some of which are disabling. With or without long-term effects, COVID infections will impact the lives of many Americans, their families, and the nation’s healthcare system for generations. We don’ yet know all the long-term effects of COVID. After the vaccines became widely available, it was overwhelmingly those opposed to masking and vaccination who contracted COVID, who were hospitalized. Some of those who opposed masking and vaccination who were infected and survived will have disabling long-term effects; will be an added burden to their families and the healthcare system for generations. Many of those opposed to masking and vaccination died from COVID. Their deaths will impact the lives of their loved ones for generations. Was it their right to impose the added burden, the pain of their deaths, on others?
To be clear, the requirements by governmental agencies and commercial entities for the wearing of masks and proof of vaccination weren’t about making anyone do something, they were about saving lives and reducing the strain on the healthcare system. Wearing a mask, getting vaccinated, could prevent your getting infected, your infecting others; could free up medical resources for things other COVID: could save your life, the lives of others. They are trying to save your life!
“An infringement on their freedoms,” they said. Their opposition to masking and vaccination in the name of their freedoms was one of the most selfish, self-centered acts, the nation has witnessed. They may have had some right to die for their freedoms. They had no right to cause the pain and suffering of others; the deaths of others. Will they now claim the right to drive on the roadways under the influence in the name of their freedom?
It does seem likely that there are certain inalienable rights accorded us all. Surely none imaginable would include the right to do so at the expense of others; to bring harm or injury to others.
So whence these claims to freedoms by Americans opposed to masking and vaccine mandates? Were they from law? Religious belief? The media? Entertainment?
The Declaration of Independence, circa 4 July 1776, declares that we are endowed by our creator with certain ‘unalienable’ (now usually interpreted as inalienable) Rights. Declares that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Doesn’t say anything about freedoms.
Neither does the U.S. Constitution, as ratified 21 June 1778. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, circa 15 December 1791, protects the freedom of speech, the right of assembly, the right to bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their homes, the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, and others retained by the people. The 14th Amendment, passed Senate 8 June 1866, ratified 9 July 1868, doesn’t speak to freedoms, but it does speak to Civil Rights.
There seems little premise in law for their claims.
Written two thousand and many more years ago, the bible speaks of freedom from slavery, from sin. Doesn’t speak to masks and vaccines.
Could be that their claims to are premised on media pontificators. Widely believed, but hardly a defense.
Hollywood has washed many an American, world, brain. Yet, it still is only entertainment. Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Garth Brooks, and professional athletes are entertainers.
Webster’s defines personal freedom as freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public. Defines personal liberty as the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to regulate his action to secure the public health, safety, or morals or other recognized social interests. Defines civil liberty as freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the U.S. especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Wikipedia says that civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Equates civil liberties and personal freedoms.
FDR, in his The Four Freedoms speech of 1941 proposed the addition of freedom from want and freedom from fear to those for speech and worship.
Is there any evidence in support of these claims to personal freedom from doing what is right? It isn’t about what someone feels like, what someone likes or don’t like, wants or doesn’t want to do; it is about what should be done.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jamal-greene.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Difference Between Right and Freedom | Difference Between
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-right-and-freedom/#ixzz7K3eew9ox
Ken,
“…Many of those opposed to masking and vaccination died from COVID…
[Maybe we should just take the win on that one :<)
In the area of freedoms and liberties there are plenty dubious notions that appeal to some section of the electorate which politicians have found that they can encourage and support with no cost whatsoever to be borne by their sponsors in the donor class. Who said there was no such thing as a free lunch, certainly not a politician?]
The right to dispose of one’s bodily integrity is clearly within the scope of the 14th amendment.
It is also the basis of the Nuremberg code, the Declaration of Human rights, the Helsinki declaration, the Hippocratic oath, the patients’ bill of rights, and the right to informed consent to a medical procedure.
Those are not negotiable.
Thought that I had included this link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Ken
Hmmm, that’s it? You do have the ability to delete him or her. Sandwich Man has in the past. And you know I do also. At the same time, it is an example too.
Probably will. See what happens?
Ken:
I am troubled by dissenting involving deletion. There are some who are banned. One thing we can do is just ignore them. Give them no audience. I usually double check history to see if they are trolls too. It is your choice.
This one is steve, marc, cresus, etc with various sites. It is a chameleon. It keeps changing. I spammed it already, so it uses another site to get back in.
“one’s”
Two years and you totally missed everything. Amazing selfishness and stupidity
EMike,
Apparently “one’s” integrity is negotiable and perhaps fungible as well. When you have read one troll, then you have read them all.
seems it used to be that ones rights ends at the nose of another?
basically as long as we dont hurt others we are fairly good
course not trying to avoid giving others a virus that can kill or harm, would seem fit the bill, of do not harm others
Find the Cost of Freedom
…buried in the ground.
[We only have the Freedoms that we are willing to die for. Trolls do not know this. No one knows this now better than Ukrainians. ]
Ron
Crosby, Nash is at least a bit ambiguous. All them Jan 6th believers thought they were willing to die for freedom. They were wrong on two counts.
There is a difference between present danger and hysterical belief in smoking mushroom clouds.
I am afraid our fear of Putin’s nukes will leave us ashamed we did not stop him when it would only have meant saving Ukrainians. I have some hope that Biden has something safer and more effective…. but the time to have called his bluff was back in the day when some people were arguing that it would be provocative and a violation og sacred treaties for us to mass OUR forces on the border, but somehow it was not provocative and a violation of treaties for Putin to mass his forces on the border. We have been through this before.
It is a matter of judgment (not Judgment, I hope). Even perfidious Albion was able to figure out the difference between Sudentland and Poland.
Coberly,
My moral sentiments do not disagree with yours, but my nagging realism knew that was not in the cards for the US. My disagreement with Rosser on this was not a matter of ethics or moral commitment, but rather his choice to hang it on the Budapest Accord of 1994. The US has always abandoned its commitment to treaties when it found those commitments inconvenient; just ask any native American about that. Look how we betrayed our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our SOP for military intervention is to follow US self-interest. Short-sighted foreign policy is endemic to our political system.
Coberly,
CS&N were most likely referencing Kent State anti-war protest gone wrong and several civil rights demonstrations, notably Bloody Sunday on March 7, 1965. The January 6, 2021, US Capital riot was an attempt by motivated thugs to undermine the freedom of others by pulling at the loose threads of our republican political system to overturn an election that had more black voter turnout than they had wanted. Those reactionary “freedom fighters” were not really serious about dying because it was not really freedom that they were fighting for, all convenient rationalizations aside.
Coberly,
The underlying reality is a matter of functional institutional frameworks that would provide for the governing of any nation as big, wealthy, and powerful as any of the G20 nations. There are basically two choices, but in either case the actual control is managed by a few people that have elite stations in life.
Some people train animals by strength and fear, but it is generally easier to control animals with kindness and rewards. We the people are just a bunch of animals, than can communicate in a more sophisticated fashion than Koko the guerilla. A political system that acquires the acquiescence of its citizens with emotional pandering and creature comforts is in the long run easier to maintain than one that maintains strict control under force of arms and threat of imprisonment, although the former must resort to the latter to treat some behavioral problems. Unfortunately, the elites that run the show are inferior to the task at hand in either case when considering the long term consequences of their decisions which are invariably dependent upon the biases of class for guidance. Rights and freedoms are enticements for ordinary people to cooperate with elites despite their failings.
Every rule has an exception now and then, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy stands as an exception throughout all the history that I know of one who leads taking his authority as a man of the people rather than a tyrant or a pandering politician. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the least elitist political leader in my recollection. That alone would give pause to elitists of all sorts when it comes to rendering aid. Clearly Putin wants him dead and that would likely be a comforting thought to many leaders including those in opposition to Putin.
marquis
i am opposed to forced vaccination myself. and right now i am not sure that your being vaccinated protects the people around you.
but neither am i in favor of those people who don’t give a damn what other people think, and will happily share their germs with someone else whether he wants it or not. because, of course, if you don’t believe in infection then it doesn’t exist, right?
your idea of freedom is immoral and in any society less kind than ours would get you taken out into the forest and left to fend for yourself.