How did we get to this point?
The federal government is about to decide whether it has the “constitutional” power to force everyone in America to submit to “vaccination” . . . not because they are sick or even likely to get sick – but on the basis that they might and if they do then it could affect others, impose “costs” on “society,” generally.
This is not a new argument. It is an old one, elaborated. For what else is the argument behind, for example, speed limit laws – and enforcement (the forcing) thereof?
The premise is that if anyone drives even slightly faster than whatever the number on the sign says is permitted, they might lose control of their car and that could affect others and that might impose “costs” on society. It is the same argument used to justify probable cause-free “checkpoints” at which everyone who happens to be on that road must stop and prove to the satisfaction of an armed government worker that they are not “drunk” – on the the basis of the argument that “someone” might be “drunk” and those “dangerous drunks” could . . . impose “costs” on “society.”
Never mind the costs imposed on all those people who aren’t “drunk.”
Or who drove faster than the number but never lost control of their car, never “imposed” any “costs” on “society.”
Is it not the same argument as regards the presumption of sickness? This idea that because you might get sick and could spread sickness you are to be presumed sick and in need of treatment as if you in fact were sick? Even though – in the case of these jabs – you can still get (and spread) the sickness that serves as the putative justification for the jabbing?
It must be treated foundationally – by rejecting this immoral and outrageous business of presumptive (and generalized) guilt and resurrecting the old idea of requiring proof of harm caused before force (in the form of punishment/consequences) is applied to anyone.
It’s an entirely reasonable idea because it is a limiting idea. While it is absolutely true that some harms will still be caused by some people absent prior restraint, it is also absolutely true that fewer harms will be caused overall – by dint of the inarguable fact that not everyone will be harmed in the name of preventing harms that have no actually happened.
Consider the case of “speeding” – and of “drunk” driving.” Despite the laws forbidding both and the punishment of everyone on the presumption of harm caused in the absence of any actual harm caused, harms are still caused. People still lose control of their vehicles – and many still drive drunk.
It is inarguable.
Some will argue that fewer people drive above the speed limit or drink and drive on account of the fear of being caught/punished and that is also true. But it does not prevent either from happening – while it ensures that everyone is potentially as well as actually harmed on the basis of the presumption of harm, including being “ticketed” – that is, forced to hand over a large sum of money – or degraded by being made to prove innocence in the absence of any reason to assume guilt.
Of a piece with forcing the healthy to “mask” – and submit to a Jab.
Return to a harm-caused standard and you now have a reasonable because objective standard. One that applies specifically, to individuals – who either did (or did not) cause the harm alleged. The driver who loses control of his car – whether on account of “speed” or impairment caused by liquor (or for that matter, inattention) has caused harm. By all means, hold that person responsible for the harms he caused.
Most reasonable people – including the people guilty of having caused such harm – can see the justice of that and won’t argue otherwise.
There is not much justice in levying extortionate fines on people who’ve not lost control of their cars. It’s unjust to presume people are “drunk” just because they’re driving – and require them to prove they’re not, in order to be allowed to continue driving.
How about seat belt laws?
These correlate even more with the latest etiolation of the sickness – of government asserting the right to force us all to be “vaccinated.” The argument used – decades ago – to justify forcing us all to “buckle up” was that driving unbuckled might result in someone (again, not anyone specifically) being hurt and that if they got hurt as a result of not buckling up, “society” would have to be bear the “costs,” in the form of medical bills and so on, is precisely the same argument being used now.
You – and not even specifically you – might get sick. That could result in “costs” being imposed on others, monetarily as well as in terms of “getting others sick.” The fact that you aren’t sick and so can’t get others sick and have not “imposed costs” on anyone is as immaterial – to the sickies pushing this line of rationalization – as your not having been harmed or caused any harm to (or imposed any costs on) anyone by not “buckling up.”
The sick doctrine of you might has replaced the healthy doctrine of you did. And even more so, did not.
That is why we find ourselves, today, on the cusp of being told we must submit to being “vaccinated” – serially – for a sickness we have not got and so cannot spread, on account of the fear of hysterics (and those who use hysterics) that we might.
Next installment: A review of how the rejection of the right of free association and of private property led us to “lock downs” and more to come, probably.
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes, or Sickness Psychosis? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
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!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!