Every day brings us more news of protests over vaccine and mask requirements. A significant number of people (not just Americans) see even the suggestion of such requirements as an erosion of democratic freedom and evidence of movement toward a totalitarian state. Many others have published careful arguments justifying such requirements. This is but a modest effort to add to those arguments.
Michael Gerson (Washington Post, 7/28/2021) and Solomon D. Stevens (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 8/5/2021) each take their reader back to the political philosophers who informed our founding fathers on the principles of democratic government, including John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and John Stuart Mill. They emphasize that we have government because social interaction requires it for survival. Government limits individual behavior so that we can live together safely. As James Madison pointed out in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
We elect officers to constitute our government, but we also must determine the purposes for which they are authorized to restrict out freedoms. The Founders provided us with such a statement of purpose in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Our states have long been recognized as drawing their governing purpose from the “police power.” That is the power to protect the public health, welfare , and safety.
As many others have pointed out, vaccine requirements are not new. Requirements for smallpox and MMR vaccines are almost universal for attendance at public schools. Those of us who have experienced military service know about required vaccinations. (I do not recall anyone asking for my views on the matter at the time.) What is new is the politicization of the virus in question.
It is important to recognize why governments propose and enforce such requirements. As I indicated above, they are charged with promoting the general welfare protecting the public health and welfare. Note that these are collective purposes that justify infringing upon individual rights. Under our laws, I have never had the right to endanger your health through action or inaction. Americans have understood this for years.
Let us look at another example. Suppose that I like driving an automobile at high speeds. I choose to manifest this preference by driving past your house at 100 mph. Should the government stop me? Of course they should. The speed limit is there to protect you, your family, and your friends. The entire traffic codes of our states are based upon the principle of protecting the many from the dangers presented by the few. There are areas in which legitimate arguments to the contrary might be offered such as motorcycle helmets and seat belts, since those are individual protections and not collective ones.
The science supporting Covid public health requirements is fluid. Experts continue to find out new things about the virus and its changing forms, about vaccines and other preventive measure, and about treatments. That governments have chosen to change recommendations and requirements in response to new understanding has been treated by many as a weakness at best and a demonstration of authoritarian tendencies at worst. It may more accurately be seen as indication of a sensitivity to the need to limit restrictions on the behavior of individuals. The view toward the vulnerability of children is changing. More children are experiencing infection, and some infections are serious. Should vaccination policy and mask requirements not change as well? Does my freedom to avoid a mask have greater importance than the lives of school children? (Although vaccinated, I may still transmit the virus.)
Much of this controversy appears to stem from a more general anti-government attitude in this country. Some are against government in general. Others are anti-police. Still others target the IRS or CDC. There are even a few like the poet William Ernest Henley who insist that “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” These few appear to long for a state of nature in which the individual has absolute freedom. To them Thomas Hobbes’ warning is appropriate. Life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. I hope that most of us would prefer a life in which concern for the welfare of others does not take a back seat.
Well said, John!