The government must not be impressed by a minority of individuals who threatens democracy

A carte blanche by Jean-Philippe Platteau, economist and emeritus professor at the University of Namur and Dominique Henrion, general practitioner

That movements inspired by the extreme right demonstrate against a so-called liberticide government is obviously smiling: it is always paradoxical to see groups protest against something they would be the first to establish if they were themselves in power.We can only remember the famous extract from demons of Dostoievski which can be read almost like this: "I may return the problem in all directions but, on the logical level, I always arrive at the sameConclusion: I start from unlimited freedom and I necessarily go to the unlimited dictatorship ».

More worrying is obviously the position of certain lawyers, including members of our universities, who take up this criticism and oppose the government as it attacks our freedoms and practices discrimination against a category of people, in this case non-vacuums.It is curious that this kind of criticism is not stated to protest in the name of surgeons who are forced to wear the mask when they operate a patient, firefighters who are forced to wear the helmet and clothesFlogging when they are in practice, these laboratory technicians who must respect strict safety instructions when they enter their workplaces, etc..It is almost trivial to say and reiterate that no society can live and survive in the absence of rules which are imposed on its members, all that which wants us to stop its vehicle when afire goes red) or certain categories (as in the above examples) when the circumstances justify it.

A company has all the more the right to impose restrictions when the exercise of full freedom by an individual has consequences for others that he does not assume.Take the example of baths in the North Sea.When weather conditions make the sea dangerous, a red flag is hoisted on the beach indicating that swimming is prohibited.This prohibition is justified insofar as in the event of an offense and rescue, the drafted person has costs that other people he herself must bear.By stating the prohibition, the company acts in the name of the common good and the same goes for speed limits and many other rules.Interestingly, we have never seen any demonstrations organized against the ban on swimming in the event of a storm on our coasts.

How to Darken A Natural Wood Finish on #cabinets or #Furnature.@Dannylipfordhttp: // bit.LY/3NNNV8

— JELD-WEN Wed Sep 16 15:47:25 +0000 2009

The parallel with social distancing measures and vaccination is striking: if a company considers that imposing such measures and/or vaccination on a large part of its population, it protects all of its citizens and preventsindividualistic behaviors to cause wrongs to this set, it is perfectly justified to do so.These damage are particularly patent when non-vaccinated patients, who clearly occupy intensive care beds, impose great stress on overloaded hospital staff and force the postponement of operations that can depend on the survival of people who have they-Mell monitoring the government's advice in terms of vaccination.

A majority that we hear little...But which exists well

The real threat against our democracy today therefore does not come from the measures supposedly liberticides of the government but from a mechanism by which a minority of individuals takes the majority of the population hostage.This majority must, despite herself, bear the consequences of decisions made by others who refuse to take into account the interests of others when they refuse to be vaccinated, or to respect the rules of distancing or other (for example, by eatingin cinemas, not demanding the COVID-PASS at the entrance to a restaurant, ...).How not to be challenged by these vaccinated and citizen people, a vital operation of which had to be handed out for lack of hospitals and for whom it is now too late to intervene (for example, because between timeTheir cancer has progressed at such speed that they are no longer operable)?How not to understand the anger of this couple of doctors in quarantine, and therefore unable to visit patients in an urgent need, following the infection of a child in a class whose teacher refuses to be vaccinated andto wear the mask?And how can we not sympathize with the dismay of these salaried parents who are imposed by certain schools the obligation to resume their children in the middle of the afternoon when they are supposed to take care of them?

Under these conditions, we should not be surprised that an increasing number of people say they are in favor of the vaccination obligation and rules which force non -vacinated to support, in one way or another, theconsequences of their actions.In Austria where the vaccination obligation exists, a survey revealed that more than 70% of those questioned were in favor of this measure.And we can think that this figure would hardly be different in Belgium.In addition, emergency rescues of vacationers practicing high -risk sports, such as off -track skiing or high mountain mountainees, are borne by people who have taken the risks with full knowledge of the facts.Or else, they must take special insurance which applies exclusively to people who have taken similar risks.How to avoid the parallel with the situation of non-vaccinated people who persist in refusing vaccination while the probability for them to finish in intensive care is much higher than for vaccinated people?Without taking a position here in this thorny debate, it must at least admit that the financing of hospital costs for people who knowingly brave a danger whose gravity can be significantly attenuated by a known means poses a problem.This problem is that of knowing the border between individual responsibility and collective solidarity and how rights and duties of individuals balance it in a society.

C’est ici que l’écrasante majorité de la population, celle que l’on entend peuBut which exists well, attend du gouvernement qu’il adopte des mesures qui prennent en compte l’intérêt général.In a political universe where the parties of the coalition necessarily obey the injunctions of their political customers, are the best guarantors of the general interest not the Gems and the Commissioner Corona?It is paradoxical to note that at the very moment when we particularly need to hear their opinions of independent experts and experts, these bodies themselves complain of being heard less and less by political bodies.To the point that they manage to wonder what they are still used for.What a contrast to Portugal, whose government does not hesitate to recommend measures harder than Belgium, although its situation is much less dramatic, and whose vaccination rate is one of the highest in Europe!The difference lies in this that the Pandgeal pandemic management policy has been largely entrusted to a special commissioner for which the population has the greatest respect.And it cannot be denied that Belgium has eminent people to fulfill this difficult mission.It is up to the government to give them the weight they must have in a period of crisis which arouses the dismay of a large part of the population.