I read the Other View in the Telegraph Herald on May 12 by Melissa Hyde, regarding protests over COVID-19 policies and was left wondering if the author would also be willing to curb other rights for the “greater good of humanity” besides protesting and gun control?

Maybe we should also consider reducing automobile usage due to the horrific number of traffic fatalities each year, or totally ban travel during the flu season each fall and winter?

The problem, as I see it, is just who defines “the greater good of humanity?” The author states that she is free to practice her religion and I certainly hope that is true, but some residents of the State of Illinois would disagree. All you have to do is research the lawsuits that the Illinois governor has lost in his attempt to abolish gatherings, in any number, at local churches. I don’t know about Iowa, but in Illinois law is made and enacted by the State Legislature, not the governor.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

If we allow individuals to control our rights and lives, we may as well move to some third world country and totally rely on its government to protect us and others by dictating our daily actions and ownership of certain items for “the greater good of humanity.”

The whole idea of a free and democratic society is to place responsibility on the individuals of that society to act in a way that is in keeping with social norms. I do not need someone to tell me what to do and what to own (or not own) for the good of humanity. I am already experiencing that tragedy in the State of Illinois with the edicts issued by a governor that thinks he makes law.