by Tay Zi Heng
Ever since the formation of society, the struggle between people and government for personal liberty has been a topic for contention. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America (USA), once famously said “(T)hey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote shines a light on the importance of liberty for many. During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, this debate has been brought back to the forefront as governments globally began to restrict the movements of residents while enforcing mask-wearing regulations, in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. I thus write this article with a question in mind: should there be a limit to how much personal freedom one preserves in a society?
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm in 2020, leading to shutdowns, restrictions and much frustrations globally. Heading into 2021, however, a selected few countries are continuously suffering from the pandemic while some of the world seems to have left the pandemic behind. Notably, as the Chinese seemed to resume most of the their daily activities, the USA suffers through their second wave of the virus, with some other countries reaching daily numbers that exceeded the first wave.
One major issue facing the USA in curbing the pandemic wave are some states’ refusal to push for mandating mask wearing. An example is North Dakota of the USA. The governor, Doug Burgum, has refused to impose a state-wide mandate for mask wearing, claiming that “the decision to wear a face covering is a personal one.” A Republican member of the Florida legislature even went as far as to term the mandatory wearing of mask and its supporters ‘mask-Nazis’. Beyond the bipartisan nature that mask wearing seems to have taken up, the idea that mask wearing is seen as a personal decision is not completely new. Back in 1918, while the Spanish Flu killed 195,000 Americans, there were still resistance from some Americans who complained about the “appearance, comfort and freedom” of the masks.
The situation in the USA was in stark contrast to China, who locked down the city of Wuhan as a response to the spread of COVID-19, and mandated the wearing of face masks. It also implemented one of the strictest lockdowns, where no one was allowed to leave their residential compounds. While it may seem restrictive in nature, its effectiveness was undeniable, as the city where COVID-19 originated managed to return to normal while the rest of the world remains battling the pandemic.
This then leads me back to the question: should there be limits to one’s personal freedom preserved in a society? I personally believe that the freedom one possesses ends when it infringes on another person’s safety and freedom, and one’s refusal to wear masks and adhere to lockdown regulations is simply that. By refusing to adhere to safety regulations, it increases the chances of others around them contracting the virus and thus limiting the freedom of others. This is exactly why the lockdown and safety measures should have never been an issue for the government, and why I am particularly upset over the situation in the United States. So many lives lost could have been prevented, and so many sufferings would not have happened if only the government acted swiftly and decisively in lieu of the virus, by mandating safety regulations to prevent the spread of the virus. Liberty should never come as an expense of the safety of others.
I encourage each and every one of you to discover within yourselves, what is your own limit when it comes to liberty? It is an important question, and while there is no universally ‘right’ answer, it is a question worth considering for everyone.
Sources:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/covid-19-wuhan-bustles-a-year-after-worlds-first-lockdown-14011564
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-covid-19-deaths-top-3100-single-day-first-time-13693736
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/mask-wearing-coronavirus-hot-spots/2020/10/27/71001546-1883-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/mask-protests-1918.html#:~:text=the%20main%20story-,The%20Mask%20Slackers%20of%201918,in%20political%20and%20cultural%20wars.&text=The%20masks%20were%20called%20muzzles%2C%20germ%20shields%20and%20dirt%20traps.&text=Then%2C%20as%20now%2C%20medical%20authorities,slow%20the%20spread%20of%20disease.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52197054
https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/china-wuhan-returns-to-normal-as-world-still-battling-covid-19-pandemic-121012300375_1.html
The Watercooler 
I agree that people should don masks to prevent loss of lives. However, I’m coming from a utilitarian standpoint instead. If freedom is limited to only actions that don’t infringe the rights of others, governments will not have the right to establish armed institutions such as the military and the police. This is because even though these armed institutions are paid by the government, soldiers and policemen still risk death due to the dangerous nature of their jobs. One can argue that loss of lives can never be fully compensated with money. In other words, by the aforementioned logic, establishing armed institutions is akin to infringing rights. Yet, most nations can still agree that armed institutions are necessary due to utilitarianism. You put a few lives at risk to safeguard countless more lives. The benefits outweigh the sacrifice. Similarly in the case of Covid, wearing masks is a small price to pay to save lives.
LikeLike
I agree with the general sentiment that liberty should never come at the expense of the safety of others. Apart from the example of the COVID pandemic where masks were considered vital for the control of the outbreak, there have been various other scenarios in the past where liberty of citizens has been controlled for the safety of others. A prominent example of this is the freedom of speech act. Most democratic countries including Singapore and USA have given citizens the freedom to speech provided it does not incite violence. Speech that incites violence is not covered under the freedom to speech act and therefore, is punishable by the law. With these examples, a parallel can be drawn where liberty is controlled so that it is not at the expense of the safety of others. I stand by this sentiment that as long as we are part of the society, our liberty should align with the greater wellbeing of the society.
LikeLike
Whether there should be limits to one’s freedom in society depends on the context – the issue involved and the context of the country. For the case of mask-wearing, it should never have been a personal choice in the first place. This is so as literally the entire world is facing a pandemic, and masks are the only way the virus spread can be slowed down before the effectiveness of vaccines kicks in. If governments are forcing individuals to don masks pre-covid, then yes – individuals should have the right to stand up for their right to personal preferences. However, with Covid-19, masking is now a symbol of civic responsibility rather than an encroachment of personal freedom. When the contexts change and the new normal emerges, the idea of freedom and its associated costs or benefit can also change. Right now, instead of fighting for ‘freedom’ that would only further destruct civilizations, economies, and lives, we should be fighting to do the tough things – preserving a united front to protect our communities, or even just wearing a mask. When there are greater emergencies to be dealt with, our personal choices that diminish the greater good should never be a priority. There is always a need to do the right thing at the right time.
LikeLike