The idea that "I can do whatever I want to without regard for the consequences to others" is how a 5-year-old thinks about freedom. It isn't a serious approach to public policy.
https://twitter.com/PaulDMiller2/status/1423759016661078018
Ironically, the right used to criticize the left for parroting this kind of freedom. They would accuse the left of advocating total individual autonomy with no thought for broader social responsibilities. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
The idea that we should refuse to cooperate with commonsense public health measures *in the name of freedom* is irresponsible and, literally, juvenile. The founders would not have recognized the kind of "freedom" described here.
There may be some folks who cannot mask because of health conditions, or get vaxxed because (very rarely) of religious conviction. I don't support forcing them to get vaxxed.
But I have no patience with the claim that it violates our freedom. We aren't free to ignore the consequences of our actions, at least not without expecting those consequences to redound upon us, as is clearly now happening.
To be more specific: 1) not wearing a mask last year led directly to the prolongation of the pandemic this year, 2) unvaxxed people not masking today makes it worse for everyone, 3) not getting vaxxed is, in most cases, unhelpful.
I'm frustrated about the renewal of restrictions, and I'm not convinced masks are necessary *for the vaxxed*. Govt is overreaching in reaction to public intransigence. But that is the natural consequence of the abuse of "freedom" rhetoric to justify irresponsibility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
