Letter to the editor: Personal freedom vs. the greater good – My Edmonds News

Editor:

A friend of mine and I have been discussing the recent anti-quarantine protests going on is states such as Ohio, and the question that arises is to what extent is the state or the nation, or the city justified in compelling observance of restrictions imposed or steps taken to counter threats or dangers?

Neither of us is comfortable with compulsion, and both of us believe in the sanctity of individual freedom. We also believe that freedom has to be exercised in balance with responsibility. And therein lies one of the rubs: sometimes a degree of freedom has to be sacrificed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the well-being of the community. We are not free to drive as fast as we might like, or to fire guns in the middle of the city, or even to have a rock concert on our lawns in the middle of the night. Sacrifices have to be made for society to function safely and for the general benefit. You might say that restraint is the price we pay for freedom.

So what do we do to encourage people to act with responsibility and a necessary degree of self-restraint? Education helps, surely, to seeing something bigger than self. Travel often has the same effect. But what do we do with those who refuse to sacrifice any perceived freedom, for the greater good and to the consensus of what that greater good entails? Most of us recognize that sneezing in someones face is not a way to demonstrate freedom, so where do we, can we, draw the line, especially in the face of a pandemic?

Laws are one way we try to encourage, or where necessary to compel, socially responsible behavior and self-restraint. Sanctions warnings, fines, confinement are ways we compel compliance where personal responsibility falls short. But where, and to what extent can we, or should we, go that far?

What, for example, can we make of the anti-quarantine demonstrations? Medical and elected officials have determined that quarantining is necessary to slow the spread of the virus. Dissent is part of the American way but what if the form of dissent potentially creates the risk of spreading the disease to those who dont participate or dont agree? At a recent demonstration in Ohio, one woman brought along her 10-year-old son. To what degree is that responsible?

What to make of those who see their rights being taken away when the city temporarily pedestrianizes Sunset Avenue? The people we elected to worry about such things agreed that a) given the crowds of walkers and the narrowness of the street when cars are parked all along it, automobile traffic was dangerous; and b) that pedestrianizing the street would allow room for responsible social distancing, impossible given the numbers and the narrow sidewalks when cars are parked all along the street. Decisions were made for the safety and well-being of the walkers, surely a greater number than those who perceive themselves as discriminated against by loss of parking spots on Sunset. (I do not speak of the disabled who genuinely cannot walk a block or two from available parking. We should have handicap spots for these!)

I dont know the solution. I doubt if there is One Answer, short of police intervention, which in the case of Sunset would be unthinkable. There never is One Great Solution. But there are many small ones: a degree of willing self-sacrifice in times of need; some self-discipline about distancing; an idea of common mutual responsibility, i.e.: community; a measure of compassion for those in real need or in fear; an agreement that caution is preferable to risk; restraint when tempted to put me ahead of us. These could all help, nationally and in our small Edmonds community. And I believe that in Edmonds, at any rate, the more severe forms of constraint are not needed if we commit to acting as a community, rather than as a number of mes.

Nathaniel BrownEdmonds

More:

Letter to the editor: Personal freedom vs. the greater good - My Edmonds News