In Response

Dear Editor,

I felt compelled to write after reading the letter authored by Gordon Bell, M.D., published in The Glasgow Courier on November, 25, 2020.

As a common citizen of the United States, I do believe the highest level of intellectual rigor is appropriate when confronting a pandemic as reportedly severe as the one we now face. This is especially true when those appointed authorities are intent on continuing to hinder our essential liberties in the name of public health. Is it not noteworthy that several recent scientific studies seriously discount the efficacy of mask wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Dr. Bell asserts the science is clear, but what then should be done with the study titled, "Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish mask Wearers" published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on November 18, 2020? Should not such studies be at least considered before we adopt unprecedented government mandates wholesale? Perhaps I have more faith in the decision-making abilities of the American public than Dr. Bell, but I would prefer to live in a country that encourages more liberty, not less.

I found one statement in Dr. Bell's letter particularly striking:

"Some say they have a right to not use (masks), sorry that is not in the Bill of Rights. What is there is the freedom to choose."

Dr. Bell is correct, the word mask is not mentioned once in the Bill of Rights. What is clearly articulated in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and a host of other foundational documents, however, is the concept of negative liberties. Explained simply, our Country is founded on the idea that the state CANNOT compel anyone to do ANYTHING against their will....without cause. The more comprehensive a decree, the higher the obligation of the state to provide its necessity.

For instance, the government CANNOT compel anyone to attend church, to speak, or to vote. They are also restricted from demanding action contrary to those liberties not expressly listed in the Bill of Rights. The government CANNOT dictate who is permitted to enter your home, what you eat or when you decide to go to bed. In those rare instances when the government has the authority to compel citizens to do something against their will, such as search a home without consent, they are required to reach an exceedingly high threshold.

These protections exist because our founders understood that impulses of the state to impose its will at the demise of essential liberty was the greatest threat to a free society. Certainly, a greater threat than COVID-19. Yet, we accept our liberties trampled without lifting a finger. We do NOT have the freedom to choose, we have freedom from the government imposing its will on us unnecessarily. In other words, we are free FROM the government choosing for us.

Perhaps Dr. Bell and I differ in our opinion of when it is appropriate for the government to demand action, or what constitutes an emergency necessitating autocratic response. Debate on such matters is warranted and should be encouraged. However, state despotism at any level should be met with suspicion. The concept of negative liberty exists because our founders understood authority tends to corrupt. Human nature excites impulses which must be vigilantly guarded against. We must be cautious of the tendency to progress from emergency to emergency, relinquishing bits of our freedom with each emergent threat. Those advocating such archaic mandates as mask wearing should expect scrutiny. They must be sufficiently convincing in their insistence. Until then, I will not wear a mask. As Ben Franklin so eloquently wrote," They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Sincerely,

Sarah Hitchcock