Tammy breaks down Manchester’s affordable housing market and Carla makes silly jokes.
Below is my response to a dear friend who posted this on FB: “here’s what I don’t understand about the anti mask stance. It’s not just *your* body and your choice. People who don’t wear masks actually are putting others at risk, according to science. Which I believe in. If you don’t, that’s where this all falls apart. Why do you not believe the science, tho? How about all the proof of people winding up in the ER, dying, etc? I have personally known people who have died or almost died from it. And at its height, I laid my own eyes on big rig freezer trucks to store the bodies of the dead in NYC bc they couldn’t bury them fast enough. I’m all about freedom and rights too. But that stops when a particular freedom infringes on my or my unvaccinated nephew’s (because he is too young) rights. Like, you want restaurant employees to wash their hands after they take a shit, right? Or does that infringe on their rights? I’m truthfully not trying to start an angry debate – if anyone wants to, go ahead, but I won’t engage w anger – I’m just trying to understand your side of it.”
You’re free to believe “the science” you have been fed. I have delved deeper into the actual statistical data to make my own informed decisions, FOR ME.
“Science,” by its very nature, changes all the time. The more information we have, the better decisions we can make. When the government claims, as they now do, that there is only ONE TRUE SCIENCE, they are lying to you, and they are wrong. The censorship of any counterpoint to THE ONE TRUE SCIENCE is a “tell” that indicates something fishy is going on.
Did you know if you compare countries with or without mask mandates, it makes no statistical difference to the infection rates for a virus that has a 99.7% survival rate? I.e. regardless of what you have been told, masks don’t matter. If you feel better wearing a mask, more power to you. I don’t.
I understand you may be scared. I hope you also understand that you have actively and purposely bamboozled into thinking a certain way about this virus, and, unless you are willing to, say, champion AIDS or herpes or other communicable disease Passports next, you have to understand that arguing, as you do, that “*I* am in some way responsible for whether you get sick when you leave your house” is a terrible way for us to start interacting as a society…
Did you know the U.S. excess death rate was higher in 2017 than 2020? I.e., “In 2017, excess deaths and years of life lost in the United States represent a larger annual loss of life than that associated with the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020.” [SOURCE: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/16/e2024850118].
Did 2017 feel like a “pandemic” to you? (Did you know the WHO changed their definition of the word “pandemic” in order to take out “severity of illness” so that contractual obligations by nation states to buy vaccines is automatically triggered at a lower level of severity than before? Stated differently, did you know the WHO colluded with Big Pharma and said: Hey, if a virus spreads worldwide, regardless of how strong it actually is, we’ll say it’s a “super bad sounding pandemic” and guarantee to buy your stuff? Talk about perverse incentives!)
Did you spend 2017 living in fear? Did you feel the need in 2017 to protect yourself from, or judge, your friends and neighbors for their personal choices about their body autonomy? No.
Did you in 2017 think it was OK for unelected officials to ban what medicines doctors can prescribe to their patients? No.
Hysterical propaganda from the government, aided by the legacy media and social media platforms, pushing a “product” for which there are NO long-term studies and for which no one can be held liable if it causes harm, to a population that has been literally scared out of their minds. On purpose.
Let me say that again: Scared out of their minds. On purpose.
What you have experienced this past year is basically like a WWII air-raid siren blasting nonstop in your brain, negatively affecting your amygdala and mental health. There is now a large body of work on “the science” of fear and “the science” of propaganda. I recommend you explore this area if you want to better understand what has been happening.
As a starting point, all I can advise is: Turn off the your TV, especially the news, and be careful about your screen time and innocuous seeming “push news” on your phone.
I don’t want to argue with you about this either, but I will not stand down from my position MY BODY MY CHOICE. I know it sounds harsh, but I do not have a duty to protect you from harm–YOU have a duty to protect yourself, and if you prefer to be around only masked or vaccinated people, that is your choice, but it better be in your home and not the public sphere. In public, I have as much rights as you, unless you now think you own me?
I’m unwilling to embrace the idea that I am a permanent germ vector that needs to be punished and forced to do something against my bodily wishes just for leaving my house.
Again, you do you, but you don’t own me. Not even one teensy bit, and definitely not my pie hole! That said, I love you, and I hope we can hang again in the future. Galt speed!
Also, unless you think there should be cameras in toilets watched by Big Bro Crap Police with fines, penalties and quarantine camps, that analogy falls way short. What if the person forgot to wash their hands, but there’s no shit or germs on their hands, should they still be punished even if they weren’t spreading a disease? Should we just pretend everyone is sick and diseased, or should we strive for a society where we don’t punish the healthy?
My hot yoga class has a sign from Buddha above the door: “You are what you think.” I suggest we all think about that…
The following is based on an analogy between infectious particles and pollution. However, I realized that it is a very bad analogy. Infection by virii and bacteria is, and has been forever, an inescapable risk of human interaction. As it has ever been, if we do not accept that risk, we should not interact with other humans. Inventing a new right in order to shirk our responsibility for our own health and actions is impermissible. Even if not so, a new right would require the people asserting that right to make the case for it. People that correctly deny that such a right has ever existed does not have to defend the status quo against an empty claim.
A curious “right” has been discovered by some libertarians: The so-called right to not be infected with viruses. Curious, because this right did not exist before, when spreading infection was just the way things were, and the way to herd immunity. Usually, this right is asserted as “You violate the NAP when you don’t wear a mask!”
Let’s get three obvious things out of the way.
First, some hold the extreme position that people are responsible for infection by proxy: Andy bears responsibility for Chris if Andy infects Betty, who in turn infects Chris. Under a just (i.e. free market, libertarian) legal regime, no-one can be held liable for the actions of others. This makes no more sense than if Betty slapped Chris because Andy angered her.
Second, the NAP can only be violated if actual damage occurs, not if damage is possible. Driving a car is not a violation of the NAP, even if it entails the possibility of an accident. Likewise, not wearing a mask, even if it entails the possibility of spreading an infection, cannot be a violation of the NAP.
Third, edge cases, like deliberate attempts to forcibly infect people directly, by restraining them, injecting them, or spraying fluid into their respiratory canals, is outside the scope of this discussion.
With that out of the way, if we examine the mechanics of infection, and the nature of property rights, the charge of a NAP violation, even when spreading infection, becomes mostly baseless.
An infected person expels infectious particles into the air around him, or, transfers them by touch to surfaces. The airborne particles can settle on surfaces, including the bodies of people. Then, an uninfected person has to transfer the particles into their respiratory system via inhaling them, or, via touch. And then, this person may or may not become infected. (There may be a pathway for infection via the eyes or skin, but that would be an extreme minority of cases.) Thus, in the vast majority of cases, the “victim” is an indispensable agent in his own infection.
There is, furthermore, an absolute requirement that a person, in order to be infected, has to be in a place that contains infectious particles. Visiting such places makes the “victim” an indispensable agent in his own infection too.
In a private property regime, leaving infectious particles in the air or on surfaces is just pollution. A property owner can allow infected people on to his property, just like he can allow people who smoke. People can minimize the possibility of getting infected by not visiting places where infected people are allowed. If a person gets infected when visiting such a property, then clearly it is a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
“Public” spaces would not exist in a libertarian private property regime, so there would not be places where the admission of infected people would not be governed by private contract. “Public property” under the current regime is at best un-owned, or at worst, stolen. If ownership does not exist, or is illegitimate, then all rules governing use of that property are illegitimate. So people that get infected on public property would also be a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
In cases where property owners bar infected people, and an infected person knowingly enters, the NAP violation is a violation of an implicit contract with the property owner. Simple trespass, not murder, as the advocates for the NAP violation would have it. Anyone who gets infected as a result of the pollution of that property has a dispute with the property owner, not the trespasser.
Since no property owner can guarantee 100% protection against infection, visitors always agree to the possibility of getting infected. If they do get infected, they are due the compensation offered by the property owner (if any), no more. Since they agreed to being infected, what claim do they have against the polluting trespasser?
Finally, it is worth considering that in previous flu seasons, property owners were not barring entry to infected people, and no-one was accused of “murdering grandma” because they left their house without a mask. A somewhat novel virus with a 99.6% survival rate does not justify the establishment of a new “right” and a new “crime”. Under libertarian property law, there is no NAP violation in choosing not to wear a mask, other than run-of-the-mill trespass, where it applies.
(I update this essay to strengthen the argument, based on feedback and counter-arguments. I’d like to thank Varrin Swearingen and Paul Best for their thoughtful contributions.)
In the inaugural episode of the Told You So Podcast, Brinck and Carla take a deep look at the news documentary “Seattle is Dying” – homelessness, drug policy, and out of control city governments are at the heart of the story, and there are more than a few lessons that Manchester can learn from what cities on the West coast are experiencing right now. LISTEN NOW…