Entry 2187, on 2021-11-29 at 17:53:33 (Rating 4, Politics)
They say there is no "I" in the word "team", meaning people should sacrifice their individuality (I) for the good of others (the team). By the way, forget about the old joke that: "there is an I, it is hidden in the A hole" (search the internet for this if you don't know what I'm talking about).
I think this represents one of the great defining characteristics of our age - and potentially previous times as well - which is this: how important is the individual and their rights, compared with the good of society, or humanity, or even the world as a whole?
This question was stated in different words in a Facebook post I recently saw. It was this: "Forget 'right' and 'left' for a moment... The real battle is between people who want to be left alone and those who refuse to leave other people alone. Always has been. Always will be."
I think this is a good point. My political beliefs have gradually drifted over the years from the idea that we should be working as a team for the good of everyone, to the idea that the individual is paramount, and I just want to be left alone to live the way I want to. This is the underlying philosophy which has driven my move away from socialism to libertarianism.
Just to be clear, I don't really like political labels, because there are aspects of every political ideology I like and dislike; even from wildly varying beliefs such as socialism, conservatism, and libertarianism. I don't think anyone has it completely right, and I am prepared to concede that different political systems have strengths and weaknesses in different situations. But overall, my wish for self sufficiency and individual autonomy does mean I am primarily in the libertarian camp.
Everyone except the most extreme believers in this doctrine understand that there must be a limit to individual freedom, generally to the point where the freedom of one person starts affecting the freedom of others. Note here that other positive factors, such as safety, can be thought of as part of the larger concept of freedom here.
Clearly the problem here is a matter of degree. To what extent should I be prepared to sacrifice my freedom of thought, speech, and action to reduce the negative effects they might have on others? It is a difficult question, which is why so many laws which try to formalise this idea are so ineffective, seemingly arbitrary, and often dysfunctional and counterproductive.
But there is one point I should emphasise in the paragraph above. That is, I mentioned thought, speech, and action. Many people today can't distinguish between these three things.
We are told that making an inflammatory comment about something or someone is a form of violence, as if that equates to actually taking some action. Well, it doesn't. As long as free speech doesn't include an obvious incitement to negative actions (such as violence), and doesn't contain any material which would be fairly considered as private, then I think anything goes.
Luckily we don't have any way to evaluate thoughts, except through speech and action, so that is still safe. But I have to wonder if thought-reading technology existed whether having the "wrong" thoughts might also be seen as a form of violence!
Of course, actions have the greatest consequences, and that is what we should be concentrating on. Again, I support the maximum freedom to take whatever action an individual wishes, until it starts significantly and negatively affecting others.
So, with all the theory out of the way, let's have a look at an actual relevant current problem in this area. What responsibility does an individual have to modify their actions in relation to protecting others during the current pandemic? More specifically, is it reasonable to require an individual to have a vaccine under the guise of it protecting others?
Before I answer this, I have to say that I believe vaccines are an effective form of disease control, and that everyone should seriously consider getting vaccinated for COVID.
But should it be mandatory, even in the form we current have in New Zealand, where theoretically vaccination is a matter of individual choice? Although vaccination isn't strictly mandatory here, anyone who isn't vaccinated will have serious restrictions on their life (including possibly being fired from their job), and is likely to be derided by some other groups. So it might as well be compulsory, and I will continue this discussion as if it is.
It is often pointed out that we already have many laws making various behaviours, for the good of both the individual and others, which people follow without questioning them too much. For example, when I drive on public roads the law says I must wear a seat belt, even though I am not really affecting anyone else if I didn't. I'm told that law exists for my own good and overrides my personal autonomy for my own benefit.
And if I drink and drive I might be prosecuted because that endangers both myself and others on the road. Many people fully support this law, and I would assume that some who would support it might reject compulsory vaccination. But what is the difference?
Well, there is a difference. First, not being able to drink alcohol before driving involves a restriction on what might be seen as a negative behaviour, and that restriction has no significant bad consequences to me or others. This contrasts with the need to engage in an action which might have negative consequences for the person involved (getting vaccinated with a new vaccine which has no long term testing is potentially harmful).
Not drinking has few negative consequences, but being vaccinated has some very real potential negative effects. Also, drinking is a social activity and vaccination is a health intervention. They are two very different things.
In addition to all of this, I resent many of the laws which are assumed to be accepted in the argument I presented above. I am very capable of making a decision on whether I need a seat belt or not, for example, and in all but the most extreme cases I can decide whether I have drunk enough to impair my driving safety. So I don't accept those existing laws at all, just like I don't fully concur with any laws.
But wearing a seat belt and not drinking to excess are two things I have decided are worthwhile in almost very case, just like I have decided that being vaccinated against COVID is a good idea, on balance (although I'm still not 100% convinced). I don't need a government telling me this, or making it compulsory.
The primary advantage of the COVID vaccine is not to prevent infection or spread, although it does that to some extent. It's biggest benefit is to reduce the effects of the disease when someone does get infected. So, despite the government propaganda saying "do it for your whanau (family)", it is primarily something you do for yourself.
But the people you interact with deserve some protection, so why shouldn't they demand you get vaccinated? Well, I think it's fair for them to say that if you're not vaccinated, you can't visit them, or enter their house or shop, but that is another example of individual choice. If someone makes the individual choice not to be vaccinated, then they shouldn't be too upset when someone else makes an individual choice not to get too close to them.
But that is not the same as a government imposed order which applies to everyone. In that case the government is making decisions on behalf of others - which you might say is their job, to be fair - but surely we should minimise that to prevent a slide into total tyranny.
OK, at the end of this post I'm not sure if I will convince anyone of my perspective, because I'm not sure if I believe it myself. I don't like government orders, but I also don't like people making stupid decisions which affect others. Like every question of this type it's a matter of balance. Are vaccine mandates justifiable given the situation we are in? I would like to say no, but I admit the answer isn't obvious!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 21:59:49:
OK, the good news is you don't believe yourself. We agree on that one.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:00:25:
I try to avoid having inflexible opinions on anything. It's always good to understand that every significant social question has nuance, and everyone should be prepared to question their own beliefs. Anyway, thanks for the support! :)
Comment 3 by Rob on 2022-01-28 at 22:02:34:
Had a good chuckle out of comment 1.
I used to be opposed to seatbelt mandates as well as helmet mandates however my attitudes on these "attacks on personal liberties" have changed. I realized that when someone chooses not to wear a seatbelt or helmet for comfort over safety it is my tax dollars, funding my health care system (NZ, not USA)that pays for the bodily damage incurred when such a choice is made. Is that fair? A bit of a can of worms that. What about rock climbers? Should we ban that sport too? How about a ban on motorcycles full-stop? Where is the line on this slippery slope, to mix a couple metaphors?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:03:14:
Yes, I totally see what you're saying, and I agree with your objection to your own argument (where does it end). Question: have you ever figured out how much extra it would cost if seat belts and helmets weren't compulsory? A lot of people would wear them anyway (I would), and the amount spent on helping those who don't would be very small compared with other items the government wastes money on. Is that small extra cost worth the extra freedom we get?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE