You have to ask yourself… if nothing sinister is going on with the government’s response to COVID-19, WHY are they censoring alternative or questioning voices? How, in a free society, is there now only allowed to be “one narrative”? This obvious “tell” should make you extra skeptical before you decide to take a Corona vaccine.
In order for YOU to make accurate medical decisions for yourself, you need:
1. Informed consent (understand what the repercussions will be);
2. Medical choice (you cannot be forced to take a medical intervention you do not want and must be presented with your options); and
3. Body autonomy (you own yourself, aka “your body, your choice”).
This is being stripped from us as the government colludes with Big Pharma to push insufficiently tested vaccines on us.
You need to ask yourself if you are willing to be a guinea pig in a worldwide experiment of a brand new “RNA technology” that NO ONE is willing to insure or stand behind (vaccine makers are exempt from product liability, meaning is something bad happens to you after you get this vaccine, you will be SOL).
This “RNA tech” will introduce synthetic DNA into the human race for the very first time in human history. Since 2002, when they first started trying to develop a corona-vaccine, experiments on animals, including ferrets who have similar immune responses to humans in clinical trails, have had severe negative effects on the subjects’ immune systems.
On top of that, experts are sounding the alarm that these RNA vaccines may caused mass sterilization. I haven’t looked into this yet to see how credible this is, but I will be on the lookout for more data to gain a better understanding of the risks.
The real epidemic that is being spread is fear and hysteria for a somewhat novel Corona virus, with a death-rate similar to previous seasonal flus. The only thing that has changed is how governments worldwide have responded. The time has come to ask WHY? What is going on, and as always, cui bono? Who benefits?
PS: I grant that a few things mentioned sound a little “whoo!” or downright strange. That’s OK. In a robust, peer reviewed world where debate is allowed, we will be able to sift through these positions to come to the right conclusions. Also, before someone says it, I am not categorically anti-vax, I am pro-informed-choice.
A typical progressive position about masks that I run into when expressing my view that in a free society, each individual gets to decide according to their individual risk and health profiles whether to wear a mask or not:
Totally down with personal freedoms if a choice to wear or not wear a mask only affected the mask (non) wearer. But someone else not wearing a mask *does* impinge on my own personal freedom. They can give me a motherfucking virus that we don’t yet have a widely available vaccine for.
Online progressive
My response:
First, the likelihood that bodily fluid from a known carrier lands on you and infects you without YOU being somewhere and having done something (like touched your mask) is almost impossible. By leaving your house, you have always consented to the possibility of infection… or how did flus spread before?
What changed this season? Politicians and the media overreacted, then colluded to scare you out of your mind for a somewhat novel flu with a 99.6% survival rate.
My not wearing a mask does nothing to impinge your freedom. Wearing a mask may create a placebo affect, sure. It may affect how scared/”safe” you FEEL, but you don’t have a right to freedom from fear. Think of it this way, driving a car can be deadly but we don’t call every driver every day a potential murderer. And if you believe that non-maskers are infringing on your right, what “right” is that?
Look, we live in entirely different places, too, and masks certainly aren’t warranted in NH. If there were dead people in the streets, I’d reevaluate what I need to do for me to stay/feel healthy, but given the reality vs. the “pandemic story arc,” as a healthy, free human, I’m making the best choice for me, and you should do the same for you.
My body, my choice, right? Or, are you actually arguing, my body YOUR choice, ‘cos that’s a bitterly steep and dark path. And THAT’S why I am speaking up.
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.)
Since the New Hampshire Union Leader is incapable of discerning the difference between being “anti-mask” and anti-MANDATE and pro-freedom, and said this in its editorial today, “But the good news with these anti-maskers is the positive effect they will have on the vaccine supply when it arrives in New Hampshire. Surely none of these flat-earthers will be signing up for a shot,” I will no longer do this “newspaper” the courtesy of linking to its articles. I will copy and paste and post them wholesale on my media channels as I see fit. I encourage others to stop linking to Union Leader articles and also just cut, paste, post, and share.
Here is a very good Letter to the Editor from an intelligent writer who actually understands the issue, being: IF WE LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY, YOU DO NOT OWN ME AND CANNOT MANDATE DECISIONS AGAINST MY WILL OVER MY BODY (aka “my body, my choice”):
“Emergency shouldn’t trump our freedoms
To the Editor: I am writing on behalf of the many constituents who disagree with Governor Chris Sununu’s new mask mandate. We are not inconsiderate murderers who want people to die. We are reasonable citizens, who want to live in a voluntary state where we are free to make medical decisions for ourselves. We should not be forced to give up that right because an emergency is declared.
I’m not debating the efficacy of such mandates or the severity of coronavirus. I’m also aware of CDC and Health Department guidelines, but do not believe their recommendations should be turned into mandates. These entities were not elected to govern us, no matter how many credentials they may have or how grave a crisis may be.
The precedent for restricting freedom has been set and I fear this will go beyond forcing masks on our faces. I’m urging the governor to return to our voluntary system, where heath status remains private, medical decisions are personal, and we maintain our inherent bodily sovereignty.
Let us wear masks as we individually see fit. Let us be responsible for taking care of ourselves and protecting the vulnerable, like we’ve done in pandemics past. This is fair for everyone and will prevent one group of people from forcing their will upon another. This trend will only get worse if mandates continue.
We don’t look to leaders to save us from viruses, but we expect them to defend our civil liberties, even when it is not politically expedient to do so.
ALEXANDRA MENNELLA
Hooksett”
Yesterday, Chris Sununu betrayed his base, and the overwhelming support given to him by the taxpaying voters of New Hampshire mere weeks ago, ignored a conclusive Danish report finding there is no difference to infections rates amongst mask or non-mask wearers, and, apparently after a call with Biden in which a national mask mandate was discussed, instituted an anti-LFOD, anti-Granite State mask mandate.
Today, as I walked around Dorrs Pond with Nellie, where, for what it’s worth, it felt like business as usual, the majority of people weren’t wearing masks, and a few were, these musing kept me company:
1. The two young men jogging around the pond should NOT have been wearing masks. This notion of forcing healthy people into unhealthy behavior for other people’s fear paradigms needs to stop. There is no hard data to prove masks work, and, in fact, this week’s Danish study found that “face masks may only offer the wearer limited protection against COVID-19 infection. Researchers found there was no statistically significant difference in the number of people who contacted the virus in a group wearing masks in public compared to a group that did not do so.”
2. Other things that don’t seem all that healthy for $100!: According to the CDC, the prevalence of American obesity was 42.4% in 2017~2018. Now there’s a mask mandate that says you can only uncover your mouth in order to stuff it. What could possibly go wrong? Imagine if we had spent the past year trying to actually improve people’s health instead of creating neural brain damage through mass fear-mongering.
3. If masks are effective, and I choose not to wear one, wouldn’t I be at higher risk to die, and given the numerous death wishes I have already received for believing “my body, my choice,” shouldn’t the Control Freaks actually be encouraging me to not wear a mask?
4. Fear is subjective. Nothing *I* do can make *YOU* feel safe. There is no such thing as freedom from fear. How would that even work? Whose fear? What level? Do we legislate for the scaredyest person on Earth (let’s call that Greta-level), or, me? Somewhere in the middle? If everyone wore a mask 100%, would the Control Freaks now suddenly, magically “feel safe”? Or would they just come up with something new, like they have with every other reason for this totalitarian crap? Remember back at the start of the year, “Two weeks for the hospitals not to get overwhelmed”?
5. What is in this year’s flu shot?
Repeat after me: If you want to wear a mask, wear one, if you don’t, don’t. This is how decisions are made in a free society. Each person decides individually what is best for him or her or them.
Carla Gericke (JD, MFA) is an advocate of liberty specializing in localized voluntarism, self-determination, and how responsible human action can lead to peace and prosperity. She is president emeritus of the Free State Project, and lives in New Hampshire with thousands of fellow freedom fighters. In 2014, Carla won a landmark case affirming the 1st Amendment right to film police encounters.
She has appeared on WMUR, CNN, and Fox News, been featured in GQ and Playboy, been quoted in The Economist, and has discussed libertarianism on the BBC. She has visited more than 40 countries, hiked to the base camp of the 10th highest mountain in the world, lost a shoe in a taxi more than once, had her passport stolen in Goa, got kidnapped in Vietnam, and has noshed on more “mystery meat” street food than she cares to admit.
Carla once spent an entire summer while working as in-house counsel at Logitech eating tuna fish sandwiches with Doug Engelbart (the Mother Of All Demos dude), she worked on Apple’s acquisition of Steve Job’s NeXT, and bought her first Bitcoin for $6. Carla co-hosts the Told You So podcast, and co-chairs Manch Talk TV. She serves on several non-profit boards, follows a Keto lifestyle, practices yoga and shooting, and plays a mean game of Scrabble.
Carla enjoys cooking, gardening, painting, reading, and watching documentary films. She has twice run for New Hampshire Senate, garnering 42% of the vote in 2018 against an 11-term incumbent, and believes in 2020, third time will be the charm! DONATE to her race TODAY!
Carla’s first book, a collection of award-winning short stories, essays, and speeches, The Ecstatic Pessimist is now available on Amazon. Says Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason Magazine: “It is a fantastic package of writings that veer from fiction, to autobiography and memoir, to political polemics. It’s great, mixes stories about substance abuse, lack of focus, historical wrongs and utopian attempts to remake the world as a better place in a very pragmatic way. I highly recommend The Ecstatic Pessimist: Stories of Hope (Mostly).”
Resources for today’s show…
- Follow Life With Jack on Instagram
- TSP Facebook Group
- Join the Members Brigade
- Join Our Forum
- TspAz.com
- Move it On Over – George Thororgood and the Destroyers
Carla’s Links
- CarlaGericke.com
- The Ecstatic Pessimist: Stories of Hope (Mostly)
- The Told You So Podcast
- Carla For NH Senate
- Carla on Facebook
- Carla on InstaGram
- Carla on Twitter
- Free State Project
Sponsors of the Day
THIS VIDEO IS 7 YEARS OLD AND STILL RINGS TRUE TODAY, MAYBE EVEN MORE SO… Watch to the end!
Ah yes, memberberry when I warned you the state was getting out of control and wasn’t really there to serve YOU but rather themselves?!?
Now, seven years later, they call themselves “essential” and YOU, “nonessential.” They take all the protective gear for themselves first, and lock you down. They tell you all of these unConstitutional precautions for “your own good,” but deep down inside, you no longer believe them because it is clear this is NOT true, that nothing that is happening right now is benefitting you or your business, all it is doing is spreading fear, paranoia, and distrust between friends and neighbors, almost like they want to divide us into two classes–you know, two classes like “essentials” and “nonessentials.”
Perhaps you are starting to wonder why the state is forcing you to do things to your own body against your own will, why they are forcing you to do their bidding when it is clear they are overreacting and the science does not support the destruction to the economy they are creating IN RESPONSE to the virus (it’s NOT the virus itself, it is the government’s response!). Perhaps you are starting to wonder why they are making you, the “nonessentials” enforce their regulations on their behalf, turning YOU into an agent of the state by threatening to take away your livelihood if you don’t comply. Perhaps you are starting to wonder why you should comply with these absurd and slavish rules that violate the trust and relationships you have developed with your customers, friends, and neighbors.
Here’s the reason why: Because they will harm you if you don’t. They will take your business license (permission slip) away. They will fine you. They will lock you down, and, eventually, they will lock you up.
Does this sound like a healthy relationship to you? Or does it sound like, perhaps, you are in an abusive relationship with a bully, and that you need space, and possibly a divorce?
At a minimum, I hope you will vote for me so that YOU can have a voice in the Senate, because if there is one thing that is truly, undoubtably essential, it is… liberty.
As I always say, Freedom is the answer, what’s the question?
You can find the text of this speech, together with 12 other essays about my liberty activism in my first book, The Ecstatic Pessimist, now available on Amazon. BUY YOURS TODAY.
I recently joined Carter of Unsafe Space for a freewheeling discussion about the Free State Project, my landmark court case, police reform, my Senate race, and more! Like what you hear? PLEASE show your support by:
Giving your most generous donation to my Senate race: Live free and thrive!
Buying my book, The Ecstatic Pessimist, now on Amazon.
Donating to the Free State Project. Now our last chance for Liberty in Our Lifetimes!