When Personal Rights Collide with Social Well-Being

Context

A personal interest in politics is looking at how individuals and groups deal with situations where personal rights collide with the rights of other individuals, groups and society as a whole. My approach has been to look at various affected people and groups individually and/or society as a whole. The point of looking at affected people and groups is to try to get an at least semi-objective feel for (1) how much of a burden on rights that (i) a new social situation, (ii) a new law or regulation, or (iii) a new imposition of existing government power imposes on adversely affected people, groups and/or society, and (2) how much of a benefit accrues to affected people, groups and/or society. The analysis tries to be ideologically and morally neutral or blind, socially realistic and objective in assessing benefits and burdens.

The two detailed analyses I've done so far focused on burdens and benefits of legalized same-sex marriage (SSM) in two contexts. The first is SSM burden and benefit on freedom of religion and speech (that analysis is here). The second is SSM burden and benefit on freedom in commerce (that analysis is here). The two analyses are very different because the groups and their sizes differ and because the size or severity of impacts are often quite different. The basic lessons from those two analyses are:

1. With some exceptions, most people who complain that their freedoms and rights are burdened (~90%) tend to grossly overstate the seriousness of the burden they actually experience. Most rarely acknowledge that any expanded freedoms or rights for benefitted people and groups even exist. If acknowledged at all, the expansion is usually attacked as illegal, not American and/or immoral or evil. Some see literal brute tyranny in situations were the degree of burden on themselves and people in their group is low to almost none at all.

2. Most people who benefit tend to understate the impact of the expansion of freedom and rights for themselves. Many of them seem to be almost completely silent, as if expanded freedoms for themselves or groups they identify with is shameful or wrong somehow. That perception may be skewed by the information sources I usually rely on.

Sporadic protests against state lockdowns continue in various places. This discussion superficially considers the collision between people who oppose lockdowns to slow the spread of coronavirus and states who impose lockdowns in the name of public health. At the rate I do it, a complete analysis would probably require about 30-60 hours. As explained below, a coronavirus analysis is much more complicated than SSM analyses.

Protests against coronavirus lockdowns: 

Freedom of movement and commerce vs public health

 In theory, everyone in society can be infected and experience effects that range from undetectably mild to death. People over the age of 65 face significantly higher risk of death. The death rate is uncertain because there is insufficient testing to know what it is. So far, there has been about 68,000 deaths in the US, with the total possibly reaching at least 100,000 in the coming 4-6 months. The efficacy of lockdown measures, including wearing masks, is uncertain. The slow, inept US response may have neutered state efforts to reduce infections. Compounding the federal failure, are states that refused to impose lockdowns, possibly making unrestrained virus spread nearly impossible to stop. In view of the uncertainty of ultimate deaths, the death rate and the economic cost-benefit of lockdowns, specifying economic and public health benefits are hard to objectify. One can make uncertain estimates at best.

In terms of rights and freedoms, economic freedoms and freedom of movement burdens here are moderate to high for various groups. Some people will lose their jobs permanently or for months, possibly for years. Some or many of those people will lose their homes. The US debt will increase by trillions. The added debt will probably be about $8 trillion in the next year or two, maybe significantly more. That will probably exert negative effects on social spending such as food stamps and welfare, which in turn will have a range of adverse effects on affected groups.

As seen in other contested situations, some see outright illegality and tyranny in the burdens the lockdowns impose.

As with SSM opposition, lockdown opposition focuses on lost freedoms of burdened people and groups. Protests are usually mostly or completely silent about social benefits, such as not spreading infections to vulnerable people. Protestors see themselves as free-thinking and patriotic.

Compared to actual tyranny in places like North Korea and China, an allegation of tyranny here is an exaggeration. Compared to pre-lockdown America, the burdens on individuals are moderate to high. Moderate for people who do not lose their jobs or homes, but high for people who do lose a job and/or their home. Some families will be devastated and irreparably broken. Those costs are real and not trivial.

Some lockdown opponents are openly defying and even mocking the use of masks as a means to reduce the spread of the virus. The efficacy of masks is unknown, making mockery easier but not rational.

Because the pandemic has been politicized, the lockdowns are adding to polarization, which is socially damaging. Polarization cements existing social distrust and ill-will while fomenting new distrust and ill-will. It is hard to pin that kind of damage down, but it is not trivial. Also, the politicization is accompanied by misinformation and lies that distort the reality of the situation. That tends to inflame emotions and thus irrationality. There is social damage in all of that. Some of it is overtly threatening violence, despite being labeled with deflecting euphemisms (lies) such as being heavily armed in public for 'added security'.

 

Some of the protests make valid points. For example, some freedoms probably do not pose a risk of spreading the virus. It is likely that restrictions on those activities are going to be relaxed fairly soon. But even there, false information is sometimes mixed with valid criticism.

 That the pandemic has been politicized for the president's re-election is also polarizing and thus socially damaging.

A healthcare provider trying to make a point, 

but probably failing

Given the uncertainties, the cost-benefit of the lockdowns so far is hard to estimate. As this issue continues to polarize and divide Americans while inflicting major damage on our economy and and adversely affected people, it seems that America probably should ease restrictions in stages with advice from experts. It is hard to shake the feeling that since the federal effort failed due to a too slow and far too incompetent response, there may be no choice but to relax lockdowns fairly soon. One can only hope that the remaining uninfected vulnerable people can somehow be protected, but that seems unlikely.

We may have reached a point where American society more or less abandons those vulnerable to the virus to those who are vulnerable to the economy. What an awful situation we are in. What an awful choice.