When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In other words, if you have only one tool, you try to use it for everything. In part, this adage explains government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Government has only one tool—force.
Every tool has a proper use. A screwdriver is great for tightening or loosening screws; it is useless for driving nails. Similarly, force has a proper use—protecting individual rights, including property rights. When used properly, force is beneficial. It protects us from criminals and terrorists. But when used improperly, it is a threat to our well-being.
Government has a role to play in a pandemic. But that role must be clearly defined. When and how government should use force in a pandemic must be as objective as when government uses force in regard to any threat to individual rights. The police need evidence that an individual has committed a crime before they can arrest him. Similarly, government should have evidence that an individual is infected with a deadly disease before it can quarantine him.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of the pandemic, government did not have clearly stated criteria defining when force would be used. Such criteria should include the health threat posed, the ease of transmission, and the existence of preventative measures (such as vaccines). Because an objective standard did not exist, government’s only recourse was force in the form of a universal lock down. This is akin to arresting everyone because they might commit a crime.
It should be abundantly clear that this response did not work. The lock down did not “flatten the curve.” Indeed, in the last months of the year new cases are being confirmed at record levels. And when we consider the economic destruction wrought by the lock down, the government’s response has been a complete disaster
It is imperative that we learn from this failure and demand that it not be repeated. We must demand that government define when and how it will use its hammer.