I agree with the premise presented by John Balentine in his column in the April 3 edition of The Forecaster (“Viral reaction ‘at the point of absurdity'”), that government rarely cedes individual rights back to individuals once assumed by the government. However, a lesson I learned in high school clearly explains why individual rights are, and should be, limited. The lesson was expounded by a teacher who told the class that our individual right to take a swing at him ended at his chin. In other words, no individual has the right to assert his right on another if so doing would cause harm. It’s the same reasoning that no one has the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater, thereby inciting panic.
Each state that has imposed travel restrictions during this time of a national emergency caused by a disease that is estimated to have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of citizens is simply exercising its power to protect its citizens. In every national emergency, citizens must make personal sacrifices for the good of all other citizens. During World War II, when rationing was imposed on everyone, such sacrifices were accepted and honored even though they weren’t popular. It was recognized that rationing was a necessity for the prosecution of a major war and would be temporary.
That is the situation we, and the rest of the world, face today. Travel restrictions, in conjunction with personal isolation, have already been demonstrated to limit the spread of the virus. Since the virus is not constrained by state or national borders, it is a small sacrifice for people to voluntarily stay where they are to prevent an uncontrolled spread of the health hazard.
Warner Price
Harpswell
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less