Not reasoned
Dear Editor:
I’ve been pondering Don Nelson’s “No Bad Days: A language Lesson” piece (March 2) concerning some folks complaining about “tyrannical” governments setting rules trying to limit the spread of COVID because it kills people and overfills our medical facilities.
Seems to me of obvious benefit to our society in this case. I can see where such “emergency” powers could be abused, although in this case, I don’t see that threat. Don rightly points out, rather emotionally, that this objection is often expressed strongly and illogically, by a significant number of people. Why, in the face of obvious scientific and observable evidence?
I have done a little research on this question, having available some friends in northwest interior states and even in my own extended family who are very concerned about preserving their “liberty” and fighting “tyranny.” My experience is that this is an emotional or gut opinion, enhanced by incorrect information, and not “reasoned.”
Logical arguments only produce more strident assertations and sometime threats of blows. As a scientist, I don’t understand this, but I back off quickly. It seems to me sort of akin to the battles over sectarian religious doctrines when there are much larger questions of our origins and destinies. Not a startling finding, but it may confirm some others’ investigations.
A related finding: I am a military veteran (U.S. Air Force, enlisted), who served isolated and front-line tours. When this service is discovered by the liberty folks, I uniformly get the response: “Thank you for your service.” However, many of these folks (as far as I can tell) have never themselves served or ever thought of serving. Why, when liberty is so important?
Tom McCord
Winthrop
