During the lockdown, businesses that were declared “non-essential” were prohibited from opening. In Texas, liquor stores were considered essential, but hair salons weren’t. By what standard was a business considered essential?
Like many aspects of the lockdown, government officials weren’t very transparent regarding their criteria and standards. Instead, they issued dictates and expected the masses to obediently comply. We can only conclude that public officials think that alcohol is essential to our well-being, but haircuts aren’t.
Certainly, we can survive without a haircut. We can also survive without alcohol. But taking away whiskey and beer from Texans is likely to draw more protests than prohibiting them from getting a haircut. And public officials didn’t want protests. They wanted obedience.
Consider the message that public officials sent to everyone working a “non-essential” job: The values that you produce aren’t important. What you do doesn’t matter.
To those who work in those industries, their job is essential. Their job is essential for them to pay the rent, put food on the table, pay medical expenses, and meet all of their other financial obligations.
Consider further the businesses that were first closed: bars, restaurants, gyms, and movie theaters. These are businesses that provide us with pleasure and happiness. The message in closing these businesses was clear: Pleasure and happiness isn’t essential to human life.
Each individual has a moral right to choose what is essential to his life and what isn’t. This includes his choice of career, where he eats, where he gets entertainment, and every other aspect of life. But when government officials decide what is essential and what isn’t, his values, judgment, and desires are irrelevant.
When government officials take it upon themselves to decide what is essential for our lives, we must demand that they answer one simple question: By what standard?