As the story goes, if you take a frog and throw it into a pot of boiling water, the frog will jump out because the frog realizes that they are in immediate danger and must flee. However, if you take that same frog and place it in a pot with cold water and turn the burner on the frog will remain. As the temperature increases the frog will adjust to the new temperature and remain comfortable inside the pot of water until it boils to death.
Whether or not this is a true story the lesson that we derive from it is a relevant one relating to what has happened to our freedom. Since our founding we have been the frog put into the pot with cold water. Year after year the government has slowly encroached upon our lives and taken more and more of our freedoms away. Since the changes were so incremental, we have barely noticed and have allowed the government to increase its encroachment.
We do this because each small change has such a small impact on our day-to-day lives. One change happens and we adjust to it, and we get comfortable again until the next change occurs. But year after year and decade after decade these changes have a massive cumulative impact on our freedoms.
Then the pandemic hit, and the switch was flipped, from the content frog adjusting and silently enduring as our freedoms were taken away, to the frog thrown into the boiling water noticing the immediate danger. Businesses were shuttered, schools were closed, and our day-to-day lives were turned upside down. We waited with bated breath for the next press conference on what freedoms the government was going to strip from us next.
Most could understand the need for some of these decisions in the beginning of the pandemic as temporary adjustments to our lives were understandable to gain the knowledge necessary to end the pandemic. We heard repeatedly how these measures were temporary and if we just followed the edicts life would get back to normal.
However, like anything associated with government, when you give an inch, they take a mile. In my estimation the local and state governments across the country used the pandemic as an excuse to grab power that they have never been allowed and will not give that power up without a fight.
CAN VS SHOULD
When politicians discussed changes that needed to be implemented to protect the public during the pandemic, we often heard whether the government can do this or can do that, whether they have power necessary to impose proposed restrictions on our freedom. This is not unique to the pandemic, with all laws and regulations that are created by government the argument often falls to whether the government has the necessary constitutional authority to pass a given law. What we rarely hear is if the government should do it.
When we discuss a vaccine mandate, the Supreme Court gave the States the ability to mandate vaccines on their population with Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). This controversial ruling told States that they can mandate their citizens to be vaccinated “for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people.” This decision gave cover for States to have unlimited power over our health care decisions based on if the law provides for the safety of the citizens of the State.
If you took the time to read the details of the case, the Jacobson case was referring to a smallpox outbreak in Massachusetts. Once an individual receives the smallpox vaccine, they do not have a risk of contracting smallpox and thus cannot spread it to the rest of the population. COVID is different, as we have seen even with the COVID vaccine a person can still contract the virus as well as spread it to other people. Some will argue that even though this is true it does minimize the effects and symptoms of those who have received the vaccine, so it does help the general population because it limits the burden of the more severe cases on the health care system.
Jacobson states that the decision to require the vaccine on their citizens was “for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people.” But the question is who is a person protecting if they receive the COVID vaccine? If they can still spread the virus to others in the community, is it really acting as a safety mechanism when protecting the general population which is what Jacobson was intended for?
In my opinion the answer is no. If we were guaranteed that by vaccinating everyone in the population we would eradicate the disease than I could see some justification for issuing a mandate, but as we have seen this is not the case. Because of that the government should not be infringing on a person’s liberty by requiring them to be vaccinated.
Jacobson gave the States the right to mandate vaccines but stopped short on allowing the Federal government to do so. The Biden Administration knows this, and with that they decided they would do an end around and use the Executive Branch through OSHA to make a rule that required any business with over 100 employees to require their employees to be vaccinated or regularly tested. I will give the Biden Administration points for creativity in finding a way to get what they want with the power they have, but it does not make it any less tyrannical.
One of the most important aspects of government intervention is to use policing powers to protect citizens from harming one another. As a society we have accepted this, as we rightly should. But when mandates start being implemented that infringe on people’s liberties that do not directly protect one citizen from another, that is tyranny.
With Jacobson we have clearly seen that the State can mandate the vaccine. However, based on the facts of this given virus and the fact that individuals can still contract and spread the virus even when vaccinated it is not reasonable for the government to mandate the vaccine. It is not the governments responsibility to make decisions for individuals that directly impact themselves and no one else. If we are going to take that approach as a society, government also needs to look at stepping in on the other activities that cause the comorbidities that cause complications from COVID. Is it time to start mandating the calorie intake of individuals? It would make sense if we were going to institute mandates that would protect people from themselves since obesity is one of the major causes of severe cases of COVID. Of course, that would be ridiculous, that is why based on our current knowledge of this pandemic the State and Federal governments can take actions regarding vaccine mandates but should not.
GOVERNMENT OVERREACH
With all government intervention it creates a slippery slope. It has been proven time and time again that when, as citizens we give the government an inch, they take a mile. That is why the story of the frog is so relevant for this situation, degree by degree the government keeps taking more of our liberty and we continue to take it.
Time and time again they have overreached based on a previous law that was practical. I do agree with the decision in the Jacobson case, smallpox is highly infectious and once you take the vaccine you will not get the virus, hence you cannot spread it to others. This seems reasonable to me and completely opposite of what happens with COVID.
What I have not told you yet about Jacobson however is that that same Supreme Court decision was used as precedence for evil. In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in Buck v. Bell (1927) that the State of Virginia had the right to use “sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility.” With this decision “as many as 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized.” This article went on to say this included those “labeled “mentally deficient,” as well as those who were deaf, blind, and diseased. Minorities, poor people and “promiscuous” women were often targeted.”
Think of the significance of the year of this decision, 14 years later the Nazis would start a eugenics program of their own that went beyond sterilization to extermination. While the Nazis used extermination as a means of implementing their eugenics program, in America, Buck v. Bell looked to breed our undesirables out by eliminating the next generation.
This is a chilling example of the atrocities that can happen when we evaluate a decision on the premise of can we do it instead of should we do it. Jacobson which was a reasonable decision based on public health was later used for the reasoning behind forced sterilization of 70,000 of our citizens. As a country we need to start evaluating decisions based on how it impacts our liberty not whether the Supreme Court will deem the decisions Constitutional.
TO MY SON
There is nothing more precious in this life than liberty. As we progress through this pandemic, we have seen more and more of our liberties stripped from us. Whether it is the small business owner that was put out of business by lockdowns, to the children who lost a year of education because schools were closed. These events showed us how precious our liberty is, and that without proper vigilance it can be stripped from us at a moments notice.
Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.”
That is my goal, to pass on the lessons of the importance of freedom and the consequences of what can happen when we do not “fight for it, protect it, defend it.” It is a heavy burden to live in a free country, it is the one form of government that requires work from the citizens, but that burden is worth it. To be able to control your own destiny, to be able to live your life as you see fit, it truly is a gift that should be cherished.