Philosophically about this, I'm basically a hypocrite like Voltaire. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I'm double vaxxed. It's their right to be unvaxxed. But I'm so freaking angry to the point that I basically have this crazy anger fantasy where I hope someone drags them out of their beds at night, lines them up in front of their home and shoots them... with the vaccine. I think this, and then I feel kinda embarrassed for thinking this.
Now, I am of the stance that in a state of emergency, citizens may have to suspend their rights to ensure decisive action. So to answer the question in OP: Yes. Individual rights should be allowed to be suspended to improve successful responses during an emergency.
But I'll also say that once citizens have accepted their responsibility to have their rights suspended to improve the emergency response, a citizen should not perceive they need not contribute further responsibility to further improve successful outcomes of an emergency situation.
Not the most historically accurate source, but in the Dark Knight, Harvey Dent (at dinner) mentions that when the enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't honor, it was a public service. In our case, the enemy is Covid. However, I feel that many have mistaken the enemy for each other with a dissenting opinions on whether Covid meets the definition of "an enemy" worth suspending our rights for.
Covid hasn't opened up a new view of a debate relating to rights. It has merely helped many to focus the magnifying glass on the topic of rights that has existed for quite a while now. A few years ago, there was an open debate about the responsibilities that comes with the rights we enjoy. There was lots of lamenting regarding the tepid interest in voting. There was lamenting about the complaints people had regarding the emergency broadcasts/amber alerts that "woke them up" and demands from some individuals for the ability to disable it (ie: Elect out of their responsibility to share awareness) which was denied.
There are times where the government is required to overrule the freedoms of individuals for the common good. The vast majority has perceived that Covid meets the requirements for a reason to invoke that power. A vocal minority has perceived that Covid does not meet that requirement to invoke that power. To simplify it, the reasoning for or against doesn't really matter as it doesn't change the end result.
But a choice must be made. There really isn't an effective choice that is a combination of both. Those that define Covid as an appropriate reason to invoke a state of emergency will likely agree to giving the government the power to be decisive by suspending their freedoms as part of their responsibility.
It seems the minority who do not define Covid as an appropriate reason may not be able to sustain such an opinion without facing repercussions from a mostly majority supported government decision, or via confrontation from the majority who have the dissenting opinion.
|