IN the past decades, a letter by American Benjamin Franklin has been quoted often: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
In the past few years, that quote has been analyzed in the context of the letter as written, Franklin’s position as a member of a state legislature and in terms of the context of the situation he was talking about. Those on the “Progressive”/left interpret it one way—that the legislatures must make difficult but necessary decisions even if the public objects to any infringement of its rights. Those considered “Conservative”/right say that Franklin was issuing some sort of “call to arms” against government damaging basic citizen liberties.
It really does not matter what was in Franklin’s mind when he wrote those words because the words themselves speak volumes, regardless of the context and “meaning.”
Since the beginning of humans assembling in tribes of unrelated families, there has always been a battle between the “collective good” and “individual freedom,” both defined in the broadest sense. Does a man have the right to urinate near the community water supply when nature calls? Does the government have the right to stop that same man from digging his own water well and urinate near it?
So we argue about the question of collective/individual safety as balanced with the collective/individual liberty.
We accept, even grudgingly, that it is in the best interest of both the community and the individual to have traffic laws that limit individual freedom. But it is almost always considered on a case-to-case basis. Should the state limit the sale of alcoholic beverages only to people above a certain age? The overwhelming majority of citizens would say yes. But should the state require that people of a certain age attend school under penalty of law?
We often label the ideas of individual freedom under the broad banner of “human rights.” Unfortunately, these rights and the balance of liberty and safety are like pornography, the definition of which is in the “eye of the beholder.”
The Covid-19 pandemic unfortunately has shattered what we thought was a clear separation of collective safety and individual freedom.
In the United States, you can drive your car to a McDonald’s drive- through to get burgers and fries. But it is a crime to sit in your car in a church parking lot and enjoy your freedom of religion to worship.
Poland’s government developed an app where users are forced to upload selfie photos to prove that they are inside and not violating the lockdown. It is required for people returning to Poland from abroad to self-quarantine for 14 days. When the app requests a photo, users have 20 minutes to upload a picture from inside their home, or the police will come to the house.
In South Africa, police broke up a wedding that took place last weekend despite a nationwide ban on public gatherings in the South African state of KwaZulu-Natal. All 50 guests, plus the minister and the bride and groom, were arrested and hauled off to jail.
You might say that all of these measures are necessary in the time of Covid-19. But there’s no denying that basic freedoms—assembly, worship, speech, privacy, and more—are partially gone all over the world in the name of safety.