Saturday, August 8, 2020


Moab, UT

89.3 F

    Freedom isn’t free, it’s also not well understood

    Another Perspective

    Featured Stories

    Survey: Local parents want daily in-person teaching

    “I really don’t think that 40% of all people are not going to send their kid to school.”

    Tales of Trails: Savor spectacular views from thrilling Shafer Trail

    In the 1890s, Moab pioneer brothers Frank M. And John S. Shafer developed the route from what had been a Native American pathway connecting what is now Canyonlands National Park to the river below.

    At 99, Moab man is knighted by France

    “The French people will never forget his courage and devotion to the great cause of freedom,”

    Leaving Guatemala, Part 4: ‘A year in the land of eternal spring’

    Though I planned to return someday, whether as a Peace Corps volunteer or not, this experience proved that even the best-laid plans go awry.

    Leaving Guatemala, Part 3: Sudden departure came with painful goodbyes

    Men donned wooden masks and numerous layers of sweatshirts and ponchos then proceeded to hit each other with whips as they danced around the town square.
    Public submissions to The Times-Independent can range from press releases to obituaries to feature stories and news. All submissions are subject to editorial review and approval.

    By George Cheney and Sally Planalp

    “Freedom” is probably the word most often associated with U.S. values and what we call the American experience. One sure way to energize people at a large gathering is to celebrate freedom, as we do on July 4th and other national holidays. But how often do we stop to consider what freedom means, or more accurately, its many meanings? Our various freedoms are a diverse bunch.

    George Cheney and Sally Planalp
    George Cheney

    In a society that features the individual person, the kinds of freedom that first come to mind are usually important rights, like “freedom to” exercise free speech, practice religious beliefs, own property and guns, etc. Many of these freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Some of those amendments also concern “freedom from,” as in freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and from cruel and unusual punishment.

    Discussed less often is “freedom with,” which involves achieving freedom in coordination with other people. When we’re caught up in our own “freedom to” and “freedom from,” we can easily forget that we are at the same time bumping into others who have their own rights and freedoms. It’s easy to think that extending our freedom to others around us somehow diminishes the freedom we have, but this is a narrow perspective. Some freedoms and rights cannot be created and exercised alone. Think of freedom of the press or the right to a fair trial, but also the freedom to buy food at a grocery store, make a phone call, or use the internet, which require coordination with uncountable other people.

    Sally Planalp

    We often fail to distinguish between short-term and long-term effects of freedoms. A powerful example of this right now is resistance to wearing masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A sense of freedom for the moment — not wearing a mask and not being told to wear one — can ironically undermine the freedom for all of us to be in public for the longer haul. The appeal to “freedom” creates an illusion that individuals will be actually freer if they can choose what to do in any situation; in the long run, however, it puts lives at risk and jeopardizes our collective freedom to return to a less restricted public life.

    It’s unfortunate that masks have been politicized when wearing them would benefit everyone. At its core it is a public health and safety issue that should never have gotten tinged by politics. In this case, individual rights and the rights of the group are inextricably intertwined. What seems to be a simple exercise of individual rights actually gets a lot more complicated and can circle back like a boomerang to hurt everyone. On June 23, Lori Freeman, the CEO of the National Association of City and County Health officials, stated: “What has typically been just pure public health advice coming from a trusted source in the community, the local health department, is being politicized and made to seem like the public health advice is something that is restricting people’s rights, their freedoms to move about.” The head of the Royal Society, the British counterpart of the National Academy of Sciences, went even further to say that not wearing a mask should be viewed as antisocial and taboo, like drunk driving because both threaten other people’s lives as much or even more than your own.

    A creative way to make the point was circulated on Facebook by Barbra Barbour on July 1. She announced the guidelines of the “Freedom Café.” In addition to allowing everyone to choose to don masks or not, she allowed for other kinds of choices: “We understand that you may be used to chicken that is cooked to 165 degrees. We do have to respect that some of our cooks may have seen a meme or a YouTube video saying that 100 degrees is sufficient, and we do not want to encroach on their beliefs.” The Freedom Café also encourages but does not require hand washing by employees who are touching food, etc. You get the point. Your “freedom” is my health risk. Ultimately, it’s your risk too if others make the same moment-to-moment decisions to exercise their freedoms in the way they see fit.

    As President John F. Kennedy might have said, “Ask not whether your freedom, comfort and convenience are worth the lives of others. Ask whether their freedom, comfort and convenience are worth your life.” The answer to each question should actually be the same. To paraphrase Dr. Anthony Fauci, because of non- or pre-symptomatic transmission of COVID-19, you cannot know if you might be the victim or the carrier. There’s the rub with this strain of coronavirus: you may feel fine but still transmit the virus to others.

    The life you save may be your own, or it could be your mother’s, your neighbor’s, your co-worker’s, your teacher’s, your grocery clerk’s, or your nurse’s life. In the U.S., we have come to accept reasonable requirements for operating vehicles (seat belts) and entering buildings (“No shirt, no shoes, no service”). So, why prolong and deepen a crisis by avoiding a simple adjustment with proven results around the world?

    Cheney and Planalp are residents of Moab and communication professors, now retired from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. The opinions expressed here are their own and do not represent the University of Colorado or any other institution.

    Share this!

    - Advertisement -

    Latest News

    USFS proposes campground fee increases

    Members of the public are invited to comment on the proposed fee changes to the developed recreation program.

    Pine Gulch burns north of Grand Junction

    Bureau of Land Management spokesperson Maribeth Pecotte said the fire continued to grow in Sunday’s hot and dry conditions, which are expected to persist through the first half of the week.

    Zion rangers looking for vandals; squares painted on stone

    While most of the paint was removed, the area still has some paint remaining on the sandstone

    BLM lifts fire bans in Tres Rios, Uncompahgre field office areas

    “The BLM areas near the City of Durango are ‘Day Use Only,’ and overnight camping and campfires are prohibited to reduce fire risk."

    BLM proposes updates to oil, gas regs

    Federal royalties generated from onshore oil and gas production on federal lands totaled nearly $4.23 billion in Fiscal Year 2019.