Claims of freedom in COVID-19 relative, not absolute

Share this article:

One door closes. Another door opens. Pragmatists, clear-thinking optimists, and realists, can live by such methods.

We live in such times. There is understanding from many individuals that there are no guarantees in staying inside and in keeping businesses shut down in perpetuity. Planning, realism, common sense must dictate our course of actions in reactions to the COVID-19 and to governments’ concerns for citizens.

Those who profess seeking liberty under the circumstances and espouse freedom as their birth rights, and therefore do not have to abide by the use of masks, staying inside, or adhere to physical distance, are incomplete in several ways:

Total freedom is the last step prior to anarchy when it comes full circle. Then, we put on masks to give others confidence that we care. U.S. residents have freedoms of First Amendment rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and political freedom. We do not have freedom to contaminate other individuals, freedom to violate rights of others, or freedom to falsely yell fire in crowded places. Freedom demands responsibility. Freedom for one person may violate another person’s freedom. That is the relative situation that demands common sense and understanding.

• Capitol News Illinois reports that after the State House of Representatives adopted a rule to require use of masks during a legislative session, one House member refused to put on a mask in session and was removed by a House vote of 81-27. Health and safety are everybody’s interest.

Clear and concise, week 21:

• Regardless is correct. Irregardless is incorrect, even though some dictionaries list it.

• Detail is a noun that too many want to make into a verb which makes it cumbersome..

• There is only one modifier prior to a noun, so two words are hyphenated to form one adjective.

Leave a Reply