Let’s Talk About You…
By: Aj Writes Things
Tags: Vaccines, BlackLivesMatter, Politics, Life, Perspective

The other day I was sitting at the nurses station on an unfamiliar floor in the hospital where I work. I had been moved there because my home unit, a neurosurgical floor, is being converted to accommodate COVID-19 patients. As I sat there charting, feeling like a guest in a stranger’s home, the topic of the newly conceived COVID-19 vaccine came up, and in particular, a controversy about certain “front-line” staff being among the later tier to receive the vaccine. “Someone told me they were protesting in the atrium this morning” I heard from a blue-haired nurse in thick black-framed glasses. “Yeah, I guess there was some kind of problem with the algorithm or something” responded another. “My name wasn’t on the list for this round either, was yours?” said another, “Nope, but I’m sure we’ll all be getting it pretty soon, did you sign your consent form yet?” One asked, looking at me.

A photo from the actual protest

I knew this question was coming eventually. I knew I would be pressed, possibly by a group of coworkers, to declare my intent to accept or decline the vaccine. My position on the matter is not entirely my point, but rather this new phenomenon I see arising here and there, on social media, in the news, at work, and in the political rhetoric promulgated by leftward politicians. A move toward community ownership of the individual.

This, in my eyes, is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right. One camp values the collective over all else, including the individual, while the other honors the individual above all, including the collective. There are good arguments to be made on either side of this divide. I’ve watched radiant intellectuals parry and fleche brilliantly over this issue on University campuses and on old timey talk shows like The Firing Line. But ultimately, this entire field of inquiry is reduced to the most basic of moral questions.

Is it ever morally permissible to take, by way of force, from another person?

Looking at it from 30,000 feet, the moral argument for the group seems to hold the high ground over the argument for the individual. Naturally, if a small sacrifice for you means a net benefit for the whole the math is pretty straight forward. And it more or less says stop bitching and pay your taxes. From this perspective it is morally vulgar to, say, not pay into a community fund, refuse to wear a mask, or decline a vaccine. And this logic applies under pretty much all circumstances. This is the favored perspective of the Left, but you knew that already.

Gun ownership for example, another hotly contested issue, benefits the individual gun owner. But is the individual’s sense of security (false or not) worth the safety of the rest of us? The Collectivist view says no. I mean, how can we (society) be sure that you (an individual), being the gun-totin’ chew-spittin’ apple pie eatin’ country bumpkin that you are, won’t suddenly rip off your drive-thru headset, vault over the Chik-fil-A counter and blast an unsuspecting patron in a fifty-eight dollar “Tax The Rich” sweater?

Photo by Mark Hallum on amNY.com

And on the other hand, you have the Individualist perspective. The common understanding among those of us who received a public education is that these people care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. Which, may very well be true. But allow me to reframe that understanding just slightly.

Full disclosure, if you haven’t already guessed, I’m a staunch supporter of capitalism, individualism, and freedom. But it’s not because I’m a selfish jerk. It is because I’m an individual, and so are you.

In other words, the individual doesn’t just seek freedom for himself, as the suits on TV and in the Governor’s mansion would have you believe, he seeks freedom for all. This is a key point. Because when you get down to the micro level of the Individualist vs. Collectivist debate, the moral rules that applied at 30,000 feet actually get reversed. Let me explain.

No, there is too much, let me sum up.

I believe it is wrong for anyone to take anything from you, or force you to do anything, yes even if it’s for roads. This is the individualist view. It is not borne out of pure self-interest, but rather a conviction that it is a person’s God-given right to tell me and anyone else to kick rocks. It is my moral duty to defend an asshole’s right to be an asshole just as it is my duty to defend a saint’s right to be a saint. This is in opposition to the Collectivist’s view that we must force the ideals and actions of the group, whether they be moral, political, economic etc., onto individuals whether or not they agree. Individualists believe in voluntary, rather than compulsory action, no matter how noble the cause.

To the Individualist, this moral position endures regardless of color, stripe, shape, creed, or income bracket. This means that I feel it’s just as wrong to tax the guy who dried my windows at the car wash as it is to tax the devil himself, Jeff Bezos. The Individualist does not, in any sense of the word, discriminate. But oddly enough he is the person whom society sees most fit to apply racist, sexist, classist stereotypes to. Go figure.

Jeff Bezos may be an evil bastard with too much money, but who am I to say who should have his money? Or how much they should have? Or how much he should keep? In fact, who can I make those decisions about? Not Jeff Bezos, or you or anyone else. And I am extremely suspicious of those who claim that they can. The acceptance of these facts is what lies at the core of individualism.

But of course, individualism isn’t reckless, or without perimeter. One person’s freedom does not supersede another’s. Meaning, I can’t drive my car into someone’s living room and claim it as my right to drive where I want. And yes, the weeds get a tad thick when it comes to intersecting freedoms, or where ownership is difficult to define. Take environmental issues like air, water, and noise pollution for instance. But it is my personal position that it is more a person’s right to not be harmed by such environmental meddling, than it is a person’s right to meddle.