The Acorn’s May 14 editorial “Strict orders must come with complete transparency” made reference to a conflict between civil liberties and the security of the state.
From my perspective, it’s less the security of the state that is at stake in demands for more personal freedom in confronting our current pandemic than an issue of where one person’s civil liberties end and another’s begin. We must continually remind ourselves that in any society freedom requires responsibility.
We broadly accept that when we fire a gun, we bear responsibility for any damage done by the bullet, even if we did not know that the gun was loaded. Thus we deny ourselves the freedom to shoot a gun into the air within city limits, where the risk of injuring someone else when the bullet falls is not negligible.
The same logic applies to attending a gathering of people when there is substantial risk of infecting others with COVID-19, even if you don’t know you are infected (i.e., the gun is loaded).
Society’s challenge when someone infects others at a gathering (protest, workplace or restaurant) is identifying the guilty person. The prudent action is to prevent the infection by banning the gathering.
We accept laws against reckless driving and DUI even though no one has yet been injured. Other preventive restrictions on our personal freedoms, such as driving at night without using headlights or in the rain without using wipers, are not the objects of protests on constitutional grounds.
Your belief in a lie (“coronavirus is a hoax”) is not grounds for restricting my freedom to protect my life.
Nick Fotheringham
Thousand Oaks
"freedom" - Google News
May 28, 2020 at 02:15PM
https://ift.tt/2M6RwWw
'Freedom requires responsibility' - Thousand Oaks Acorn
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2VUAlgg
https://ift.tt/2VYSiKW
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "'Freedom requires responsibility' - Thousand Oaks Acorn"
Post a Comment