Forcing healthy people to wear a “mask” as a condition of being allowed to live was never meant to “stop the spread.” It was meant to establish the precedent – in this case, for forcing healthy people to submit to a vaccination.
To many vaccinations. And more than just that.
A writer for the Daily Beast makes the point – without putting it quite that way.
Instead, he uses the world-turned-upside-down logic of the “mask” pushers – i.e., that you must accept the vaccine as the price of being allowed to work, shop and socialize with others because you haven’t got the right to expose others to sickness.
“ Just as I may have a right not to wear a mask or get a shot, you have a right to be able to walk down the street without me giving you a lethal disease. Choosing not to get vaccinated isn’t “freedom” any more than driving drunk is. It’s endangering other people. It is profoundly unethical. ”
Except it isn’t either thing – if you’re not sick. Because a person who isn’t sick can’t ”give you a lethal disease.”
Presupposing sickness is the same as presupposing guilt, which is vile enough. And much more dangerous to societal health than a virus – especially one that doesn’t kill 99.8-something percent of the people who are infected by it.
Because presupposing sickness would kill 100 percent of everyone’s right to be presumed innocent.
If the person who wrote the article has the right to presume I am sick then surely I have just as much right to presuppose he’s mentally ill, say – and insist on “testing” him to establish that he is not. And to deny him entry into a restaurant or shop if he does not submit – if he does not produce an official document attesting that he has been examined by a psychiatrist and found sane – because otherwise he might be a dangerous lunatic and that risk, which is possible, is simply unbearable.
Perhaps someone will explain why not.
The moral toxicity of this sentence-first/verdict-preordained on the basis of nothing more than someone’s finger pointing fear ought to be obvious (the writer apparently does not understand the difference between ethics and morals).
Both rely on the same hysterically malevolent nothing – an accusation about a possibility purveyed as a certainty used to justify punishment, preemptively. And that is precisely what the writer prescribes: “Too much is at stake to wait for people who refuse to get vaccinated. We need a plan to move forward without them.”
The plan, of course, is to “move forward” by closing the doors to life to people who refuse to get a vaccine that they don’t need – healthy people having almost no risk of being killed or even made seriously sick by this virus – while the risk of taking a vaccine that has been rushed to market, without long-term testing of side effects and that is known to be capable of causing death in some cases is very real and quite possibly greater than the extremely slight, almost nonexistent risk assumed by healthy people choosing not to take the vaccine.
They are to be locked-out rather than locked down.
These “anti-vaxxers” – take note of the language, intended to marginalize and even dehumanize people, in order to make what is done to them seem not only okay but necessary – must be transmuted into a pariah caste; they must be cordoned off, marked as untouchables. No freedom of moment, no freedom of association – even with people who wish to associate with them, it is important to state. As has been the case with the “masks.” It is not sufficient for these j’ accuse hysterics to “mask” themselves and to “mask” their own businesses – if that is what they wish.
Everyone must “mask.”
Which brings up interesting questions about the “masks.”
Shouldn’t the “maskers” be content to “mask” themselves if the “masks” protect them? Shouldn’t the same apply to vaccines? If one has received the Jab, then one is safe – assuming the vaccine is in fact effective. In which case it ought not to matter whether others do not get it, since they can’t get others sick – assuming, of course, that they are in fact sick.
The writer has a very sick answer for this. He says that the vaccine is only “95 percent effective” (a number pulled out of a hat, as “we” really have no idea just how “effective” whatever is in this “vaccine” is, but let’s leave that lie for purposes of the immediate discussion) and thus the possibility of any chance – however attenuated – that someone might be sick and that someone else might get sick justifies both the “mask” and the shot.
Which means more shots, going forward – to be justified on the same basis. How can one argue against the ordinary flu shot, for instance, once one accept the basis for imposing the WuFlu shot?
Shots for all, for everything – forever.
This is how the world – as we once knew it – ends. Because there is no end – no limit – to such “reasoning.” It opens the door to general presumptive guilt – of anything – based on anyone’s assertion – not just about sickness. And does it in the complete absence of a scintilla of specific evidence to support that a given individual may be guilty of whatever it is that’s being generally asserted he might be guilty of because anyone might be guilty of it.
The writer says this without saying it plainly, by using the royal “we” so popular among such great minds.
To efface the individual. To collectivize him. With certain self-appointed individuals embodying the supposed will of this collective.
“We need written proof of vaccination that is as difficult to counterfeit or falsify as a hundred-dollar bill. We need it to be standardized and easy to show to others. And we need to start rolling it out in this phase of the pandemic, not the next one. Call them “vaccine passports”; simple, standardized documents, digital or printed, that enable society and the economy to get back to semi-normal without waiting for every anti-vaxxer to see the light.”
This person could have written similar piece for Der Sturmer – another publication the specialized in “we” – and in the pariah-ization of a caste characterized as a threat to the health of the collective.
No need to find the individual guilty of anything. It is sufficient to punish him – to make outrageous demands of him – on the basis of assertions made by people such as this writer who insist their hysterical fears justify them as such.
Americans are to be forced, de facto, to carry and present their “papers” everywhere they go.
And these “papers’ will almost certainly not be paper at all. They will be digital – embedded technology in smartphones, which it will become de facto necessary to carry everywhere – so as to monitor where everyone goes and what everyone does, all the time. It will no longer be possible, as a practical matter, to not have a smartphone – if you wish to leave your home, at any rate – and take with you all that it contains and all that is capable of doing, all the time.
And once it is cemented that healthy people can be forced to take this vaccine – on the basis of an assertion about their being possibly sick and assertions, however attenuated, about the possibility that they might spread a sickness no one has shown they have – there will no longer be any reason to not force the population to get any vaccine peddled as a palliative against any sickness, ad infinitum – which means forever, ongoing.
It will mean accepting as moral the idea that our health – however hypothetical – is the public’s business. That “we” have the right to inject you, shun you and inevitably, worse for those who still refuse.
“I suspect that when enough businesses and other public places go “vaxx-only,” that may incentivize some of the unvaccinated to change their behavior. If they can’t get into a baseball game, a graduation, a diner or a veterinarian’s office, they might find themselves re-examining their opinions about the vaccine.
“This is what freedom looks like,” the useful idiot writes with predictable moral inversion.
No, it doesn’t.
Freedom looks like leaving people alone unless they have done something to harm someone else. Quivering fears of The Might do not rise to the standard, unless “we” wish to quiver in fear, perpetually – of what others worry we “might” do – and about what they are going to do to us on that basis.
Which is far worse than worrying about the threat posed by a virus that doesn’t even make most people feel sick.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)