COVID-19 pits liberty vs. harm

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights probably were influenced more than any other by John Locke, the 17th-century physician and philosopher. One of Locke’s guiding principles was that “All mankind … being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Of course, the rub comes when one’s exercise of liberty harms another’s life, health or possessions.

One of the functions and conundrums of civilized society and its governing bodies is to preserve and enhance its members’ liberties while regulating their exercise to minimize the harm to others’ life, health and possessions. Our current situation has brought this problem to the fore. Simply stated, it now is the unenviable task of national, state and local leaders to achieve a fair and reasonable balance of the liberty (right to work) vs. harm (disease and death) scale with very little reliable information at hand. What is too much or too little in either direction?

Notwithstanding unsettling statements from leadership, particularly at the national level, our contribution to this task should be to assume, until proven otherwise, that our leaders under impossible circumstances are acting in good faith, that the objectives of each are the individual and the public good, and that political and personal goals are not significant factors in decisions being made. There will be a time for unfettered political discourse. This is not it.

Richard Gossett