The False Reality of American Freedom

People who are protesting the continued closure of business in some states and cities are claiming their freedom, their individual rights as being denied them. They gather on the steps of some capital and demand that they are allowed to make the choice of whether or not they want to put themselves in danger, shouting that the government lacks the authority tell them what to do, or how to live. Many are unmasked, huddled together in an act of rebellion, and a few carry long guns in an effort to make some secondary point or association. They offer no particular plan for how to effect their demands, other than an immediate removal of restrictions.

They are, by the very nature of their protests, proving that they need to be ignored… and the attention being paid to them by the media (and by some in office) needs to stop.

The balancing of the economy versus public health is complicated, and there is plenty of room for a meaningful debate. The case of these particular protesters is not complicated at all; they are entirely, unequivocally wrong. Yet, despite the obvious logic of their wrongness, their actions are promoted by the media, acknowledged and even sanctioned by government officials (up to the President), and treated as if they are a meaningful component of the national discourse.

There are things that can be reasonably debated, and then there is general stupidity and irresponsibility. A serious discussion about opening up the country in the midst of a pandemic is based on appreciating the risks and potential outcomes of such a move, and planning on how to deal with it; it is not to pretend that the risks don’t exist. The protesters, implying that their own lives are theirs to do with as they choose, ignore by their actions and their unsupported demands the realities of a highly contagious virus that they can surely spread, and a health care system that will have to deal with their choice by putting first responders in danger.

Even if the government and legal system somehow wanted to say ok, we care not whether you live or die, those same systems could not allow those protesters to bring harm to others by their actions, to endanger their communities and the common resources. There are numerous simple analogies that we accept and understand in everyday life; here’s one:

A man drives up to a bar and quickly begins to drink heavily. After a few shots, the bartender sees that he needs to slow down and cuts him off; the man tells him a story about how hard his day has been, how much he needs to unwind. The bartender refuses, and the man protests loudly, complaining that it’s up to him how much he drinks. The man makes a scene. The bartender calmly tells the man to sit down for a while, hand over his keys, have a couple of cups of coffee on the house, and he’ll call him a cab… if not, he’ll notify the police.

The law makes the bar somewhat responsible for the damage caused by the drunken man and charges him with that control. The bartender knows that if the man leaves the bar in that condition, he’ll threaten the safety of not just himself, but of anyone on the road with him. The man, upset by his circumstances, wants the opportunity to selfishly endanger others and insists on his right to do so.

It’s not complicated.

Those who are protesting the rules by demonstrating their disregard for the safety of themselves and others are disqualifying their argument. Media and officials who elevate their position by sharing it are promoting the idea of specific and identifiable damages to the general population. The exercise of individual rights can not be accepted when they so clearly bring danger and harm to others. It is my right to own a gun… It is not my right to discharge it in a crowded restaurant. The list goes on endlessly.

The response of thinking people should not be to confront the protesters. It should be to confront seemingly neutral media outlets and public officials who promote and advertise their activities and positions. Someone proclaiming a personal grievance without thought or understanding has a limited impact; put that same person on a news show, respond to that person from a podium, and you magnify their dangerous position enormously, bringing legitimacy to it that its intrinsic value would never muster.

In this case, it is fully justifiable and appropriate to “shoot the messenger.” The messenger is the greater danger.