At the very heart of a majority of political issues our nation tackles is the violation of what we like to call our rights. By that, I’m not referring to violations of rights themselves, but more specifically to the confusion that comes along with defining our rights.
The anti-vaccine movement has gathered such momentum not because of its validity, scientific awareness or potential health benefits, but because it cries out that through government-enforced vaccination we are taking the right to choose away from citizens.
The argument for labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms isn’t rising in popularity because its proponents have a solid case regarding the dangers of consuming these foods, but rather because they advertise our right to know.
The democratic nation we live in has given us the liberty to flex all our muscles, and we don’t like to have these questioned, let alone restricted.
The problem comes when we decide that our right to exercise all our freedoms is more important than a protection of a communal right to live a prosperous life. That is to say, the problem with the anti-vaccine movement is not that these people don’t have a valid claim in wanting a say in the matter, but that they value that right more than the entire community’s right to live measles-free. The same goes for the labeling of genetically modified foods. The problem is not in wanting to know the ingredients of a meal, but in valuing it more than the community’s right to reasonably priced food.
I don’t mean to make light of these movements—it’s important we have groups that disagree with the masses and with the scientists we rely on—but they are quintessential examples of groups protecting their rights more than the rights of a community. And I’m sure that in their minds, advocates of these movements are actually protecting everyone’s right to choose and know, but in reality, these rights in action would not have the desired effect. Their roots come not from a belief that a law is oppressing people, but from the belief that if we could have a choice, it is our right to exercise choosing.
And that is simply not a good enough reason.
When we allow movements that stem solely from the discomfort of not having control of something to change the regulations put in place to protect the community, we are saying that it is more important to exercise every possible right we could have than giving up some control for the sake of a community’s well-being. In this way of thought, there is little separating us from anarchy, in which we could exercise all the rights we wished. Something tells me that is not the type of system the majority of us would like to exist in.
Movements against the norm will always have a place in our society and will always be necessary as catalysts for change in the event where we become more attached to a tradition than to advancement. For that reason, it is difficult to challenge any movement that provokes us to think about the things we may do simply because that’s the way things have been, but it makes it even more important that we choose carefully to put our efforts behind movements that would, in action, benefit the greater community.
To show our deep appreciation for all the freedoms afforded to us, it’s necessary that we choose to think through the rights we advocate and that we know the potential consequences for the entire community rather than just ourselves. Appreciating our rights doesn’t mean exercising them all just because we can, but rather exercising those we truly believe in, so as to benefit us all.
