By Stephen Gessner
April 22, 2020
Throughout the history of democratic countries there has always been a tension between, on the one hand, as the Declaration of Independence states, “…unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and on the other, the needs of the greater society, the common good, and the creation of a social order. Things such as eminent domain government land acquisition, helmet laws, and even speed limits raise issues of how far individual rights go versus the role of the government. This pandemic crisis brings these issues into focus.
On Friday the 13th of March, President Trump declared a national emergency. Many States, Counties and Towns had already made similar declarations, often with more details such as social distancing standards and mask recommendations This had not yet happened in Florida. On March 15 President Trump added “social distancing” to the recommended guidelines but it was stated as not having more than 10 people at a social gathering, rather than any physical distance (6ft) that needed to be practiced.
We tennis players on Amelia Island faced a challenge. The declaration of a national emergency got our attention. But our governor had not acted yet and the federal guidelines on social distancing placed the limits at 10 people. Playing only doubles with a total of four players balanced out having other courts nearby, touching the net, balls, and benches, and thus many of us felt safe.
A few wise people stopped playing all together. Some continued to play but wore masks and gloves. And some, including myself I am ashamed to admit, continued in our regular behavior. We did not really think about the conflict between our induvial rights and the common good. We knew so little about the virus that we assumed we were safe and therefore could not transmit the disease to others. Thus, individual rights were not compromised by any need to pay attention to the common good.
Then quickly some new information emerged. First of all, the Florida governor declared an Executive Order on April 1. He mostly followed the Federal guidelines, calling for a “Safer At Home” policy, which included 6ft.social distancing. He outlined “Essential Services”, which included things like swimming pool maintenance. He also outlined what he called “Essential Activities” which included attending religious services and participating in recreational activities—such as swimming– and thus the essentialness of pool maintenance.
As strange as this Executive Order was, it got many of us tennis players attention. Some pointed to the recreation exemption as a justification for continuing to play tennis, though the governor did not mention tennis. (Interestingly a few days after the Order, the governor clarified that golf was allowed, though with some social distancing requirements) Made us tennis players acknowledge the superior lobbying efforts of the USGA. Then on April 3, the United States Tennis Association came out with a declaration that all tennis should be ended for now (including the US Open). The USTA cited medical concerns about infection, particularly from tennis balls.
For many of us this was the final blow and led to our stop playing. Some of us did cite the greater good conviction, which we felt over road individual rights. Others have continued to play, usually without any sort of protective gear. Some of these cite freedoms as a justification, but they are not only invoking their own individual rights, but unfortunately are exposing themselves and others to possible infection.
The conflict between these two will never get neatly resolved. Hopefully, we can learn from episodes like this, to understand each other’s positions and maybe even think about this again when inevitably this conflict between individual rights and the society’s good, will return in different settings.
Editor’s Note: Stephen Gessner is an educational consultant and lives on Amelia Island.
I remember when driving on the beach was described as a “recreational right.” There is no such thing as a recreational right. There is freedom of assembly and other general rights, but nothing so specific as a right to drive on the beach. That is, unless legislators step in and pass laws allowing or outlawing specific activities. And that is what government is for – to pass laws to protect the citizens from harm. Smoking cigarettes is a good example. Unless there is a specific law saying people do not have a right to smoke, they can. But those smokers do not have a right to cause me harm with their smoking, so governments step in to protect us from the harmful activities of others by banning smoking in public places. I have never seen a law passed that was not a result of someone abusing the common space or directly harming another person. But some laws, like civil rights and safer-at-home regulations, are of a broad nature and more difficult for some to see the greater good involved. Luckily, as a whole, Americans are growing up (getting a wider and deeper perspective) and seeing the benefits, to us all, of such broad-based laws.
I don’t remember when driving on the beach was allowed. I assume it was outlawed to protect marine life. A noble cause if there ever was one. There is no such thing as a “recreational” right. There are, in the Declaration of Independence, the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which governments are created to protect . There is also the Bill of Rights that specifically limits the government’s ability to intrude into peoples’ lives. Now legislators step in and pass laws outlawing specific activities. In our system of checks and balances, unreasonable laws are challenged and fixed or removed as necessary through the Judicial Branch. The Safer at Home order is not an example of this. A legislator did not create this, it’s an Executive Order, something that the Executive Branch came up with to get around uncooperative legislators. We now have a “law” that that same branch of government enforces. Not the American way.
And what government is for? – to ensure laws that infringe upon unalienable rights are not enacted or are at least recalled. Smoking cigarettes is a good example of the right way to establish laws. Governments step in to protect us from the harmful activities of others by banning smoking in public places. Many laws are passed that are not a result of someone abusing the common space or directly harming another person. See the Code of Federal Regulations for examples. Civil rights are more difficult for some to see the greater good involved. Sadly, many Americans are growing used to seeing their rights “chipped” away bit by bit and not seeing the detriment, to us all, of such draconian executive orders..
Concerning the coronavirus, we don’t need to resolve the issue of individual rights vs. greater good. Knowing what we know about the shortage of protective equipment and how contagious the virus is, is it fair to put health care providers at risk so we can engage in non-essential activities?
Personal rights are fine, provided that you are the only person in the world. Two or more people constitutes a society mandating compromise. Dead people have lost the opportunity to choose. Consensus is that we are in the grips of a pandemic. Proximity promotes the spread of the disease. What we know for sure is that limiting interactions limits the contagion. Is the “right” to stroll on the sand…play tennis…gather socially worth dying for? Is it worth endangering the lives of hospital workers who care for you after you have exercised your “rights” and robbed them of theirs? We are our brother’s keeper in this union that we call a community. It is far better that we be selfless rather than selfish.
I would like to report a large body of people not living in fear. It happened at a protest today. They were close together. Most were not wearing face masks. How dare these people. Some of them had wild conspiracy theories. They observed that The World Bank and Big Pharma fund the WHO. They noted that the private central banking systems of the world want to eliminate cash and claimed the virus could be used as an excuse to do just that. Others claimed that there is a revolving door between Big Pharma and the CDC, where ex pharma executives become CDC officials and vice versa. They said the CDC has become like a vaccine company. Then there were those who said terrible things about how vaccines are made. They said mice parts were used. That couldn’t really be true, could it?