Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
“I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” –Patrick Henry, 1775
This is going to be a post that articulates my deepest dissatisfaction and disappointment with the public response to the spread of COVID-19. In no way do I mean to suggest that I know what the most effective means would be by which to address this problem–and indeed, it is a problem. And I do not mean to invalidate the fear that many Americans have of contracting the disease, especially the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions that leave them especially vulnerable to COVID-19. However, I think it is nonetheless appropriate to assert the following about our current state of affairs:
COVID-19, though certainly more fatal than other comparable diseases, is not a bubonic plague responsible for the deaths of 30–60% of continental Europe. It is less contagious than the chickenpox, and less deadly than SARS and the Spanish flu. Over 80% of all individuals with COVID-19 exhibit mild symptoms, and a bulk of infected individuals fully recover from the disease. For more on the statistics relevant to understanding the kind of risk that COVID-19 poses as a public health issue, click here.
The American public, on the whole, is not responding to our current state of affairs reasonably or rationally. The American public is hysterical. There are certainly some individuals who have good reason to be fearful and to take many precautions so as not to be infected by COVID-19–particularly, elderly individuals and those with pre-existing medical conditions. But most members of the American public are unjustified in raiding convenience stores, drug stores, and gas stations as they have been.
In addition to these claims that I take to be largely substantiated by evidence, I would like to make some additional claims that may, to some, be controversial. For the most part, though, I think that citizens of liberal democracies will be able to accept the validity of the following claims:
Desirable consequences are not and should not be the only consideration that figure into calculations about whether a particular policy should be implemented or not. There are two reasons for this, which I think can best be illuminated by an extreme hypothetical. We can imagine a scenario wherein we would be able to considerably improve the state of the environment and American ecosystems by enslaving 1% of the American population in service to this end. First, we must ask in what way enforcing such a policy is desirable–to whom is it desirable? Second, even if we had no qualms about the manner in which a given policy engenders desirable consequences, there seem to be overriding reasons we could have for refusing to enforce an eco-fascist policy like the one enumerated above.
One of the kinds of considerations that do and ought to figure into calculations about whether a particular policy should be implemented or not is the interest that persons have in the protection of their rights. When I speak of rights here, we do not have to accept that rights are pre-political or natural. We just have to accept that there are certain state actions that should almost always be prohibited because of the exceptionally strong reasons that citizens have for acting without interference from the state in certain respects. In Western liberal democracies, free speech seems be the kind of right that will not be suspended even when its suspension can engender desirable consequences in some respect.
That being said, I believe that the response to COVID-19 is becoming such that state and local governments in America are neglecting the role that rights must play in the determination of whether a particular policy can be permissibly implemented. Instead, they are so fixated with producing the desirable consequence of containing COVID-19 that they refuse to figure rights into the deliberative process of passing and enforcing legislation or executive orders.
In Travis County, Texas, bars and restaurant dining rooms will be closed and gatherings of more than 10 people will be prohibited until at least May 1st, 2020. In the state of Maryland, all bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and gyms have been shut down to slow the spread of COVID-19. In the city of San Francisco, residents are legally prohibited from leaving their homes except to meet basic needs such as shopping for groceries, going to the bank, or going to the doctor’s office. In hopes that we will be able to contain this novel disease efficiently, public officials are willing to entirely disregard the enforcement and protection of rights. But should this be the case?
In 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. U.S. that President Franklin Roosevelt permissibly relocated and interned Japanese Americans or individuals of Japanese descent because a “martial necessity arising from the danger of espionage and sabotage” warranted the military’s evacuation order. In 2001, the PATRIOT Act ( (officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was signed into law because the American public looked anywhere, anywhere at all, to safeguard itself from the purportedly imminent threat of Islamic terrorism. Most people tend to look back on both of these events skeptically, as what we now take to be perverse means were justified by ends that were believed to render desirable outcomes. I think that something similar, though admittedly not perfectly analogous, is happening with COVID-19.
Surely, what is at stake here is a matter of life or death and some steps must be taken so as not to leave especially susceptible individuals vulnerable to the wrath of a disease about which we have very limited knowledge. Regardless, we must be thoughtful of how we go about addressing this issue and think about ways of doing so without suspending the enforcement and protection of rights that are worthy of protection such as associational rights, rights related to the pursuit of integrity (religious and otherwise), and rights of contract. The impulse to turn immediately to the government to provide authoritarian solutions to problems that, though legitimately worrisome to specific populations of persons, really only appear so severe because of the hysteria that surrounds COVID-19, is irresponsible.
Desirable consequences are not the only thing that should figure into our calculations about policy. Indeed, considerations about rights must figure into these calculations at least in part, especially if we are good liberal democrats living in the United States of America. Some, perhaps many, are probably willing to take extreme measures to make themselves feel secure against the threat of COVID-19. But to them I say that we should take seriously what motivates Patrick Henry’s call to give him liberty or give him death when a choice must be made between liberty and security or complacency.