Individual Rights V. Collective Rights

Shannon Bohrer

(2/2022) In February, we celebrate President’s Day, and that appeals to me because of our history with individuals that created and governed a new nation. In celebrating Presidents Day, I am reminded of the importance of our democracy and our freedoms. The words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are reflective of our perception - of who we are, or think we are. The words are from our Declaration of Independence, first written by Thomas Jefferson, and seem to embody the idea of living in a free democratic country. However, our current uncertainty seems to question who we are and the meaning of those words.

The uncertainty I am referring to is a balance between individual rights and the government's responsibility to ensure our collective rights. The most obvious example is the pandemic we are experiencing. One side believes in science, mandating vaccinations and mask mandates, while the other side believes that requiring vaccinations and masks are an infringement on one’s individual rights. Does the individual have a right to remain unvaccinated if the government mandates vaccinations to protect the health of the country? Maybe we should be asking, how do we define behaviors and actions, that when permitted, either contribute or infringe on our rights?

The example of the pandemic and vaccinations reflects the uncertainty, or maybe the unpredictability that seems to be today's standard. How free are we to pursue our life? How do we balance our collective freedoms with individual rights? For many, our freedoms do not seem as assured as we once believed. Maybe, our conflict is with what we believe does not fit with the reality that exists.

Another example of possible conflict between individual freedoms and our collective rights for public safety is the second amendment. On December 20, 2012, there was an active shooter incident at an Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Twenty-six people died, including 20 children. When 20 children, between the ages of 6 and 7, die - the week before Christmas, you might think that we would not just remember the event, but also the promises that were made. Politicians and leaders promised that as a country, we would do something to prevent another school shooting. Of course, we have a history of promises from previous shootings.

After a tragedy, we often hear the words, we will act or do something, so "this will never happen again." A catchphrase that is used often, but never materializes. Since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, at least 80 people have died in school shootings, while hundreds have been shot. Examining the larger picture, from 1999 to 2016, we have experienced 572,537 deaths from firearms, which includes suicides. That is an average of over 30,000 deaths per year, and the numbers continue to escalate. While the deaths continue to rise, many states have enacted laws that have reduced firearm injuries and deaths. The laws include banning dangerous weapons, protection laws involving domestic violence, and strict background requirements for purchasing firearms.

Nationally, on the Federal level, we have done nothing. One simple proposal to enact universal background checks has not moved. In a country where 83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks, why has nothing passed? You could blame the NRA, except that 72 percent of NRA members also support universal background checks. How many people have been denied the pursuit of happiness because we don’t have universal background checks? No law can eliminate all shootings, but that does not mean that we cannot do something.

Why are we the only industrialized nation that experiences mass shootings on a somewhat regular basis? How do we balance the individual freedoms that often seem to threaten our collective safety? States that have enacted laws that include strict background requirements have seen a reduction in gun deaths. So, we know that a national law, just requiring background checks, could be effective. If state laws requiring background checks are not an infringement on one’s second amendment right, then why is a federal law so hard to pass? In some things, like gun rights, do we favor the individual's right over our collective rights - of safety?

Sometimes the conflict around protecting our collective rights is not with individual rights but with the rights of private industry, producing goods for public use. We have manufacturing industries that have produced industrialized pollution in both air and water. While the products produced are beneficial to society, the harm from exposure is usually to people working in the manufacturing process, and often with those living in the vicinity of the industry. Should, or is it, the government's responsibility to balance the harm of the pollution against the value of the product(s) produced? If the product has limited benefits, like toys, is that given the same consideration as paint, gasoline, common cleaning products, or medical supplies? It does seem a little satirical that some medical supplies that were created with a manufacturing process - that created pollution(s) - can be used to help people with an illness caused by the same pollution.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," begins with life, and the right to life itself has been in the news with the recent laws passed to restrict abortions. Obviously, the Texas legislature believes that life is so important that the government has a responsibility to limit abortions for the sole purpose of saving the lives of the unborn. The Texas legislature has prioritized the embryo over the rights of the woman to have autonomy over her own body, yet they also refused to protect school children that already exist, when they prohibited the wearing of masks in schools - during a pandemic. The cognitive dissidence appears to be unnoticed by the lawmakers and yet seems obvious.

Only in Texas can the state prohibit a 12-year-old pregnant child from wearing a mask to school during a pandemic and simultaneously require her to give birth to a child, that could be her sibling. If the 12-year-old is exposed to Covid and becomes sick, what happens to her and the unborn child? Could it be argued that in Texas, the right to life - stops at birth?

In a democracy, how do we balance and ensure individual rights with the collective rights of society?