Voluntary association of individuals has been the hallmark of our country since its inception. The government has recognized the rights of people to form businesses, attend religious services, start political organizations, and even create utopian communities. This system has allowed individuals to flourish in voluntary cooperatives that are still individualistic in nature, meaning that people are allowed to live their lives in a manner they see fit, while also partaking in a moral, economic, or political community that lies outside of state coercion.
One fundamental assumption of this system, however, has been the idea that people are rational beings who are able to gauge the risks they face in society. This is true of businesses when people put their money on the line and in charities where the charitable work is often dangerous. At a basic level it is true of religious institutions, which pose the greatest risk of all; if you choose the wrong religion, you could spend eternity in Hell.
The kings of the Middle Ages used this argument in order to burn heretics and force people to participate in state run churches. However, during the Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke challenged the notion that individuals should have religion forced upon them by governmental authority. Locke believed that religion was a voluntary choice that did not infringe upon the civil rights of any other person. The capitalist Adam Smith, another important Enlightenment thinker, extended this idea to his theory of the economy. He believed that individuals should be allowed to accept risk in order to form voluntary corporations with others.
The idea that individuals are able to accept risk and engage in voluntary action with others is at the bedrock of Western civilization. This philosophy has been used to justify the separation of church and state, the destruction of slavery, and the ability of individual to choose the professions they enter, rather than having family heritage dictate their job.
Despite its utility, this ideal has come under attack by leftist intellectuals who believe that they possess enough knowledge and intelligence to effectively gauge the risk of all others and dictate the actions which they take.
This urge has always been strong among politicians but never has it been more pronounced than during the COVID-19 pandemic. To justify their coercive policies, left-wing politicians and propagandizers often repeated the phrase, “you just want to kill grandma.” What many of them forgot is that “grandma” has free will. If grandma wants to attend mass and even die, then that is her right to do so. The same is true of all others. If people want to party without masks, then why should they not be allowed to? Everyday we gauge risks when we make investments, drive our cars, or get married. It is not the job of others to perform this task for us.
Third party onlookers have no business hindering mutually voluntary interaction because they think the risk is too great. There is absolutely no justification for this kind of tyranny in everyday life. It evokes images of Dark Ages tyrants who forced people into religious practices, because their mortal souls were at risk. It also evokes images of Soviet Gulags, where individuals were forced to work because the risk that free market enterprise would create inequality was too great. When someone says that the risk is too great, they forget that this is a personal decision, that does not justify governmental coercion. Life would be much better if people focused on personal improvement in voluntary collectives rather than having the government control others every time they think that something is wrong with the world.
Very well said. Why is there still an issue of wearing masks? If all have the opportunity to get the vaccine, why would I wear a mask to protect the unvaccinated. They chose their risk level. I never wear a mask anymore!!