Are civil rights a trade-off we’re all willing to make in the name of safety?
Some may think so, but not all of us.
Tucker Carlson is pushing back on the rationale for some of the key decisions made by political leaders.
Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey is on the hot seat as Tucker pushes past the talking points to specifically ask for the data points, scientific rationale, and Constitutionality of the decisions he’s been making about the restriction of activities.
Liquor stores, for instance, remain open — a necessary service.
And yet religious meetings are not.
And someone sitting alone on a park bench is arrested.
Do we know WHY these decisions are being made? Or on what basis?
Have the rights of those being inconvenienced by government overreach been duly considered? Or is this another example of what CS Lewis predicted, a benign sort of tyranny.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
The problem of government being limited by the will of the people is that sometimes gets in the way of swift and absolute execution of government power.
And, for anyone keeping score at home, that was precisely the point of creating such a system.