Spencer Critchley

coronavirus

COVID “Libertarians:” That Word Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

by

Portrait of John Stuart Mill by George Frederic Watts
Portrait of John Stuart Mill
by George Frederic Watts
via Wikimedia Commons

The mask and social distancing refusers who claim to be libertarians don’t seem to understand what a libertarian is. Let’s check with John Stuart Mill, a primary authority on the topic, and one of history’s most influential moral philosophers. Mill argued strongly for the rights of the individual against authority, including against “the tyranny of the majority” in a democracy: even if most people make one choice, we must preserve the freedom of individuals who make another.

And that’s where the refusers’ knowledge of libertarianism apparently stops. To them, libertarianism seems to mean “I can do whatever I want.”

That’s not what it means.

This is what Mill actually says in his canonical text from 1859, On Liberty:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control… That principle is, that… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

If refusing to follow COVID safety measures only posed a risk to the refuser, Mill would be right there:

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.

But given the risk of “harm to others,” in reality there would be a whole lot of social distance between Mill and our refuser:

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.

Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Mill’s and another libertarian leading light, stated this same argument as the “law of equal liberty” in 1851’s Social Statics, drawing on John Locke and a long line of other antecedents:

Every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man.

There’s always a temptation to use highflown language to justify lowdown behavior. But sadly no, COVID refusers, the fancy word “libertarianism” doesn’t justify plain old selfishness.

Bread, Circuses, and Covid

by

The Roman Collosseum
Photo: FeaturedPics, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The argument over mask-wearing and social distancing is a mess, one that exemplifies the state of our democracy.

The argument is confused three ways:

  1. Most liberals don’t understand the conservative definition of freedom.
  2. Most conservatives don’t understand the liberal definition of freedom.
  3. People who reject masks and distancing don’t understand either definition of freedom.
[Read more…] about Bread, Circuses, and Covid

The corner we’re rounding? It leads to even more deaths.

by

Here are two views of the corner we are most definitely not rounding, no matter how many times the president repeats his latest branding catchphrase/magic spell.

Bar graph oof countries ranked by coronavirus deaths per 100,000 people.

We are entering our third spike in cases and deaths, and continue to rank near the bottom of countries being measured for deaths per capita. When Trump says we are among the best, “best” means “worst.” We are only among the best if you include only the bottom cluster of the 168 countries ranked by Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. And no, it’s not because we test more, which we don’t. It’s because more of our people die.

It’s a record of criminal negligence and failure that in the private sector would amount to tens of thousands of counts of manslaughter, if not what the law calls depraved-heart murder:

Depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a “depraved indifference” to human life and where such act results in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. In a depraved-heart murder, defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a “depraved indifference” to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought. In some states, depraved-heart killings constitute second-degree murder, while in others, the act would be charged with “wanton murder,” varying degrees of manslaughter, or third-degree murder. (Wikipedia)

We’re Watching Trump’s Presidency Implode

by

I was on a panel on China Global Television Network’s “The Heat” on Oct. 7, 2020, talking with host Mike Walter about President Trump’s return to the White House after his hospital treatment for COVID-19, in the context of my book Patriots of Two Nations.

Excerpt:

Spencer Critchley: I think he’s in very serious trouble, and we’re watching his presidency imploding before our eyes, and we’re watching his behavior become increasingly frantic as he tries to figure out what story he could possibly spin to get himself out of this trouble, which is really his only tactic, as essentially a lifelong con man. And, I would say, a very seriously damaged human being.

I actually feel some compassion for him, wondering what the pain must have been like of his childhood, to turn him into a person who’s grown up to be apparently incapable of imagining the lives of others and seeing everything as a projection of himself.

I think this is also, as terrible as it is, if I could be forgiven for using the word, it’s the perfect crisis for his presidency because, as I found in researching my book, the division we’re experiencing now didn’t start with Trump, and in fact, it goes all the way back to the founding of the country. And he really represents a worldview that’s different from the Founders’ worldview. But it’s one that’s always been there, and it’s one that actually rejects the Enlightenment legacy of reason in favor of faith, tradition, loyalty to the leader, ties to the native land, and ethnic identity.

And I think that’s one reason why it feels like we’re living in different realities when we talk to Trump supporters. But what’s happening now is Trump’s reality is actually colliding with the reality that kills more more than 210,000 Americans, or destroys our reputation, or blows up the economy. It has these real world impacts that cannot, as I say, be spun away with a story.

Mike Walter: And does that shatter that — that kind of mythology for his followers?

Spencer Critchley: Yes, I would have predicted, and I do predict this in the book. I describe what would shake this absolute loyalty of his followers, which we should think of, I would say, in pre-Enlightenment terms, as if we’re in the Middle Ages or the Dark ages. If you imagine knights, loyal to their king on the battlefield, and nothing will shake their oath of loyalty because his authority is embodied in him — except failure, and that’s what we’re seeing here.