Home Categories About
argument top image
How do we think about the UK lockdown debate? How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
The libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!' The libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!'
The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us' The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us'
The authoritarian position, or 'Do not lift lockdown!' The authoritarian position, or 'Do not lift lockdown!'
The collective coordination state The collective coordination state
Test, trace, isolate, protect Test, trace, isolate, protect
Lockdown puts us on the path to totalitarian rule Lockdown puts us on the path to totalitarian rule
The state should not control the individual The state should not control the individual
The greater good must come first The greater good must come first
The UK lockdown model is false The UK lockdown model is false
Death rate predictions are rooted in lies Death rate predictions are rooted in lies
The government cannot be trusted The government cannot be trusted
Most people have already had the virus Most people have already had the virus
The pandemic will kill, lockdown or no lockdown The pandemic will kill, lockdown or no lockdown
We should relax the lines between the public and the private We should relax the lines between the public and the private
The role of the state must adapt in times of crisis The role of the state must adapt in times of crisis
Give the healthy their independence back Give the healthy their independence back
The state should end lockdown in phases The state should end lockdown in phases
We must trust Neil Ferguson's model We must trust Neil Ferguson's model
Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic
Despot now, doughnut later Despot now, doughnut later
Lifting the lockdown will give rise to a police state, which must be avoided Lifting the lockdown will give rise to a police state, which must be avoided
Lifting lockdown forces workers to risk their lives during the pandemic Lifting lockdown forces workers to risk their lives during the pandemic
The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost
We should stop the virus from spreading We should stop the virus from spreading
Contact tracing apps can potentially help individuals monitor their risk of exposure and transmission Contact tracing apps can potentially help individuals monitor their risk of exposure and transmission
More public health jobs would be created in the UK More public health jobs would be created in the UK
We need to support the test, trace, and isolation infrastructure We need to support the test, trace, and isolation infrastructure
Debate Mini Map

How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
Back to question

The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us'

< (2 of 5) Next position >

The role of the state must adapt in times of crisis

UK Premier Boris Johnson is fully representative of this position. Having spent his career deriding state interference in personal affairs, the pandemic finally pushed him to introduce the lockdown. The driving idea here is that wherever you stand on the role of the state, during this extraordinary period of global uncertainty, it must assume control of its people to guide us safely forward. Proponents include UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma.
Coronavirus Government Health Lockdown United Kingdom
Boris Johnson
< (2 of 4) Next argument >

Context

The global outbreak of the COVID-19 virus in early 2020 led to national and international measures of social distancing, lockdowns and quarantines. Many governments deemed them to be necessary to combat the pandemic despite these measures entailing a more invasive role of governments.

The Argument

Wherever you stand on the role of the state in the affairs of state, the lockdown is a time to cast away those beliefs. Now more than ever before we need to accept state intervention is our only way out of this. [1] Even if libertarians like Boris Johnson highly value individual freedom and are opposed to so-called “nanny state” laws, the propagation of COVID-19 pushes them to reconfigure their vision of what kind of role the government should take at this time. In such extraordinary situations, the government should take responsibilities by temporarily restricting the individual freedoms of its citizens to better manage the health crisis and reduce the risk of new infections. [1] Despite this shift in the perception of the state during a crisis, Boris Johnson stays committed to his principles and announced that they would only stay in effect as long as it is necessary.

Counter arguments

Even in extraordinary situations, individual liberties and rights of citizens should not be limited. Such interference into the private sphere is unconstitutional. [2]

Proponents

Framing

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Premises

[P1] Values can change in application to different situations. P2] In extraordinary circumstances, one must be able to adapt their set of values to new constraints that a situation may present.

Rejecting the premises

[P1] Values remain constant non-regarding the situations they apply to. P2] In extraordinary circumstances, the set of values one acts by should not be altered.

References

  1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8136643/SIMON-WALTERS-Boris-Johnson-real-coronavirus-despite-loathing-nanny-state.html
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coronavirus-protests-restrictions
This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:46 UTC

Explore related arguments