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 libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!'

(1 of 5) Next position >

The state should not control the individual

This view sees lockdown as a state-sanctioned siege and violation of basic constitutional rights. Proponents advocate flouting social distancing rules to seize back their individual freedoms, and ‘liberate’ themselves from state control. Proponents include the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the US gun rights lobby and alt-right activists The Proud Boys.
Freedom Liberation
Matt Shea Ammon Bundy
< (2 of 8) 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. As a result, many fundamental rights enshrined in democratic constitutions around the world cannot be effectively put into practice because of their conflicting character with lockdown measures. Most prominently, the right to assemble or to protest is touched by this as social distancing makes protests a high-risk environment for transmitting the virus. [1]

The Argument

This view sees lockdown as a state-sanctioned siege and violation of basic constitutional rights.[2]. The government shouldn’t restrict the individual from using his/her fundamental rights. Even during a global pandemic, the constitution must be respected, and citizens shouldn’t be stripped from their opportunity to do what they want. Around April of this year, first anti-lockdown demonstrations broke out all around the US and in other countries like Germany because citizens felt as though the government is not respecting their constitutional rights. Often, the movement is powered by Republicans or alt-right groups and activists. Beyond being an effort to “regain” full control of their constitutional rights, the protests are often politicized on a larger spectrum of right-winged views, conspiracy theories or anti-vaccine advocates.[2] To further mark their disagreement with government and state regulations on COVID-19, protestors have been discouraged to wear face masks or to maintain social distancing during their demonstrations. According to them, it is unconstitutional and invasive of the state to impose such measures on its “free” citizens. Hence, they shouldn’t be forced to obey to rules deemed unconstitutional by the protesters. Despite a global pandemic, the government shouldn’t try to interfere in the private lives and rights of its citizens.

Counter arguments

The governmental lockdown measures do not undermine any constitutional rights. The extraordinary circumstances that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed makes temporary limitations of fundamental rights necessary to combat the health crisis and to save lives. [3] The fact that protestors are able to protest despite the lockdown measures and a global pandemic proves that there is no democratic infringement on their rights but a possibility for them to live their constitutional rights. [4]

Proponents

Framing

The individual shall not be limited in his/her actions by governmental intervention.

Premises

[P1] The government should not have too much power over the individual. [P2] Personal freedom and rights weigh higher than governmental measures and interventions. [P3] Collective protection is less important than individual freedom.

Rejecting the premises

[P1] The government should have power over the individual for sake of public good and in extreme situations putting the entire nation at risk. [P2] Personal freedom and rights weigh less than governmental measures and interventions. [P3] Collective protection is more important than individual freedom.

References

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/08/us/08reuters-health-coronavirus-events.html
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coronavirus-protests-restrictions
  3. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-lockdown-orders-constitutional
  4. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/guns-protesters/611560/
This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:30 UTC

Explore related arguments