Have you seen this conversation recently?
“Hey Government – basically coercing people to get a vaccine is wrong and infringes on our personal freedoms.”
“Oh you stupid anti-vax conspiracy theorist psyco – you already get forced to do things like wear a seatbelt, so stop whining about freedom and get with the program.”
Because, it seems to some, injecting drugs into yourself and wearing a seatbelt are basically the same thing.
But really the tension here isn’t about seatbelts or vaccines – it’s an idealogical difference.
How Much Interference is Too Much?
Underpinning the topic is a fundamental disagreement about areas and degree that government (or anyone else for that matter) should reasonably be allowed to interfere in our day to day lives without our objection.
There are a large number of people at the moment who spend considerable time and energy pointing out what’s wrong with everybody. They believe that their worldviews are correct, and anybody who doesn’t agree should be censored. These also tend to be the same people who are fairly content with government intervention in any area that they agree with.
I can’t help but wonder, though, whether they’d be as delighted with government intervention in an area they didn’t agree with. Or perhaps intervention from a government that wasn’t from their political persuasion.
That said I don’t need to wonder too much, because we can kind of just see it in action, can’t we? When the government you agree with is in power, you’re in favour of them intervening and telling people what to do/think, because you mostly agree with it.
And, of course, when the government you don’t agree with is in power, they should keep their noses out of your business.
I’m sure you can hunt down the footage of the democratic party condemning Trump’s fast-tracked vaccine program as unsafe and speculative and saying they would never take it. Yes – the same people now telling you that the same vaccine is a must.
Bit odd though, don’t you think? Because surely a sound and honest political ideology that embraces any kind of democracy needs to withstand a different government being in power? Surely you can’t believe one thing when your “team” is in and something else when the other team is in?
And Yet…
So we get this unusual situation where very similar topics end up with different answers depending what side of the political fence you sit on.
That’s why requiring someone to have ID to vote is fundamentally racist and should be opposed, but requiring that same person to have a vaccine ID to obtain goods and services is perfectly fine.
It’s also why it’s awful and objectionable to prohibit a women from making any decision she might see fit about an unborn child because it’s her body and her choice, but completely fine to tell that same woman she has to inject herself with a drug if she wants to work for a living.
Why? Because politics, that’s why.
Now to those who hold these views, they see no incompatibility because these are different areas of concern. This is why I mentioned that it’s not just about the extent of control exercised, it’s the area in which it is exercised that also factors in to how much we care.
We each have those areas, those topics, and those ideals which we tend to feel more fervour in defence of than others. These are the areas we are more likely to want more or less intervention.
I, for example, don’t really care that much about the people clamping down on the rules for Monster Truck rallies, but care a great deal about freedom of speech. There will be some areas of government intervention that I consider carefully, and others I just let sail by.
Seatbelts and Vaccines
So back to our seatbelts then.
Some people are fairly nonchalant about pharmaceutical medication. To them, they will happily eat, drink, insert or be jabbed with anything they are told to without question. Even if that isn’t the case, perhaps here they have decided that taking the jab as many times as required is a no-brainer, is completely safe, and ultimately the responsible thing to do. For them the seatbelt analogy is pretty close – it’s safe and protects you from harm, has little or no chance of adverse effects, and is ultimately a reasonable constraint placed on your freedom.
But others want to know more information, see more reliable data, and don’t like to get a drug just because someone you don’t know said you should (governments, after all, are not our usual source of sound medical information). And even if all of that data lands in favour, they still might just not like the idea of it because nobody can tell them what, if any, long term effects might exist. For them the analogy is preposterous.
Objectively, of course, we can’t pretend that being forced to get injected with a drug with unknown long term effects and being forced to temporarily gently restrain your body with a bit of cloth stuff are even vaguely the same thing. It’s a poor objective analogy.
At best it is a simplistic way of pointing out that governments enforce constraints on our “freedoms” all the time in a variety of ways and we usually don’t complain that much. This is true – but it’s not a reason that we should never object to anything.
At which point the real question each of us is now answering is this: where is the line we don’t think the Government should cross?
Where is the Line?
So let’s say you’re OK with things as they are. You’re OK with being tracked wherever you go. You’re OK with being told to wear a mask. You’re OK with the government telling you when you can and cannot leave your house, and what places you can and cannot go to, and who you can or cannot be with at a given time. You’re also OK with government dictated mandates for people to get vaccines. Because, after all, it’s a pandemic and we’re “all in it together” – right?
So where, exactly, is your line?
What needs to be proposed, discussed, legislated or implemented for you to stop and think “ah OK, that one seems a bit of an over-reach”?
Because history here teaches us a fairly important lesson: governments don’t generally give back power once they have it. In fact governments LOVE telling people what to do and how to do it. It tends to work the opposite way – one layer of government power leads to another, then another, then another.
The fact that we have been in a “state of emergency” for nearly 2 years now with its associated emergency powers should tell you just how much the government loves holding on to the powers that it is presently enjoying.
And if that doesn’t do it, take a look at Victoria where the premier would like to make it EASIER to use those powers, whenever he and the minister decide they should, without any serious potential for review or fetter.
So where is your line?
My view is pretty straightforward. I believe the Government should exercise as little control as possible to maintain peace and good order in society.
Unfortunately it seems to me that by the time many people realise their line has been crossed it will be so far behind them they won’t even be able to see it anymore.
