In response to my article “Life in No-Lockdown Sweden,” some people argued that the Swedish government’s approach to COVID-19 has caused an unnecessary number of deaths and that the Swedish government has, as one commenter put it, “failed its people.”
Comparing the “COVID-19 death rate” in Sweden to that in other countries carries with it all manner of problems, which I detailed in that article. Different countries record deaths with COVID-19 in different ways, and no one knows the actual death rate from COVID-19 in any country. Nonetheless, per-capita death rates with COVID-19 in Sweden and some other European countries—countries that implemented strict lockdowns—are now evening out. For instance, the United Kingdom and France are currently reporting daily COVID-19 death rates in the four hundreds, while Sweden, with its almost complete lack of mandatory restrictions, has continued to report daily figures of near zero throughout October and into November.
Setting aside all of these figures, the fundamental problem with claiming that the Swedish government has failed its people is that the proper purpose of government is not to protect citizens’ health but rather their rights.
Consider, for example, fatal road accidents. If we accept the premise that the purpose of government is to keep people healthy and thereby save lives, it would follow that it should reduce speed limits to some absurdly low speed—say, 5 mph—so that fatal accidents are virtually impossible. Clearly, this would be ridiculous. It would curtail people’s freedom enormously and cause all manner of negative consequences for their lives—much as lockdowns have done.
The Swedish government did not “fail” its people—quite the opposite. It did the only legitimate job of government. It protected its citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far better than most other governments.1 The Swedish government did not strip away its citizens’ basic rights to live their lives. It did not precipitate an economic catastrophe that will leave untold millions out of work or in poverty for decades to come. It did not shut down vital services people depend on—from dental visits to mental health services to child care to cancer screenings. It did not wreak havoc on the future of an entire generation in a superficial attempt to save lives. Most other governments did.
If governments leave people free to act on their own judgment, then people are free to decide how best to protect themselves. Some may decide that the risk from COVID-19 warrants staying at home and limiting interaction, whereas others may decide that carrying on with their lives, work, and relationships is worth the risk. They recognize that it’s their own responsibility to protect their health, not the government’s, and not other people’s. Mandatory lockdowns deny people the freedom to evaluate risks, act on their own judgment, and pursue their values. They force everyone to curtail their lives: those who would choose to stay home for health concerns along with those who would decide that putting food on the table, running a business, or pursuing leisure is worth whatever risks COVID-19 poses (which, apparently, are minimal for most people).
Next time you hear someone criticize Sweden for “failing its people” or “causing deaths,” remember the proper purpose of government. Recall its legitimate role and its proper means of carrying out that role. And consider whether it was Sweden’s government—or the governments that placed their people under crippling lockdowns—that really “failed their people.”
Click To Tweet
You might also like
Endnotes
1. There are a few other examples of countries that avoided heavy lockdowns, but many of these, such as Belarus and Turkey, are serial rights violators in other respects.
