Tag Archives: Quarantines

Image

Quarantine vs Tyranny, from The Western Rifle Shooters Association

This Is a Test: How Will the Constitution Fare During a Nationwide Lockdown? by John W. Whitehead

Civil liberties may be the coronavirus’s most significant victim. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“It takes a remarkable force to keep nearly a million people quietly indoors for an entire day, home from work and school, from neighborhood errands and out-of-town travel. It takes a remarkable force to keep businesses closed and cars off the road, to keep playgrounds empty and porches unused across a densely populated place 125 square miles in size. This happened … not because armed officers went door-to-door, or imposed a curfew, or threatened martial law. All around the region, for 13 hours, people locked up their businesses and ‘sheltered in place’ out of a kind of collective will. The force that kept them there wasn’t external – there was virtually no active enforcement across the city of the governor’s plea that people stay indoors. Rather, the pressure was an internal one – expressed as concern, or helpfulness, or in some cases, fear – felt in thousands of individual homes.”—Journalist Emily Badger, “The Psychology of a Citywide Lockdown”

This is a test.

This is not a test of our commitment to basic hygiene or disaster preparedness or our ability to come together as a nation in times of crisis, although we’re not doing so well on any of those fronts.

No, what is about to unfold over the next few weeks is a test to see how well we have assimilated the government’s lessons in compliance, fear and police state tactics; a test to see how quickly we’ll march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, no questions asked; and a test to see how little resistance we offer up to the government’s power grabs when made in the name of national security.

Most critically of all, this is a test to see whether the Constitution—and our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights—can survive a national crisis and true state of emergency.

Here’s what we know: whatever the so-called threat to the nation—whether it’s civil unrest, school shootings, alleged acts of terrorism, or the threat of a global pandemic in the case of COVID-19—the government has a tendency to capitalize on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear as a means of extending the reach of the police state.

Continue reading

What Would Murray Say About the Coronavirus? By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Murray Rothbard would be justifiably skeptical about the coronavirus narrative and critical of the steps governments and other organizations have taken it to try to stop it. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at lewrockwell.com:

Murray Rothbard died in January 1995, long before this year’s coronavirus scare. But the principles this great thinker taught us can help us answer questions about the coronavirus outbreak which trouble many of us. Would the US government be justified in imposing massive involuntary quarantines, in order to slow down the spread of disease? What about vaccines? If government scientists claim that they have discovered a vaccine for coronavirus, should we take it? If we refuse, can the government force us to do so? These are the sort of problems we can solve if we look to Murray for help.

The fundamental rule for deciding whether anyone, including the government, is justified in using force to make us do something we don’t want to do is the Nonaggression Principle (NAP). As Murray put in in “War, Peace, and the State,” “No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.”

You might at first think that you can use the NAP to justify forced quarantines against the coronavirus. Suppose someone had a deadly disease that would always spread to others if he came in contact with them. Probably the person would want to isolate himself and not infect others, but if he refused, wouldn’t the people in danger be justified in isolating him? He is a threat to others, even if he doesn’t intend to harm them.

Continue reading

Coronavirus vs. the Mass Surveillance State: Which Poses the Greater Threat? by John W. Whitehead

The risks posed by what governments do in response to the coronavirus is far greater than the risks posed by the coronavirus. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

f, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.”—Philip K. Dick

Emboldened by the citizenry’s inattention and willingness to tolerate its abuses, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expands its powers.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

It doesn’t even matter what the nature of the crisis might be—civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters”—as long as it allows the government to justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

Now we find ourselves on the brink of a possible coronavirus contagion.

I’ll leave the media and the medical community to speculate about the impact the coronavirus will have on the nation’s health, but how will the government’s War on the Coronavirus impact our freedoms?

For a hint of what’s in store, you can look to China—our role model for all things dystopian—where the contagion started.

Continue reading

The Pluses and Minuses of Perceived Slyness, Stuffed Sinuses, and Coronaviruses, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Doug “Uncola” Lynn casts a skeptical eye on what passes for reporting on the coronavirus. From Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

First of all, I am no doctor. Nor have I played one on TV. But, let’s be honest, we’ve all seen movies like Contagion, World War Z, Outbreak, 12 Monkeys, I Am Legend, and 28 Days Later.  They all contain certain similarities. It starts slowly with Patient Zero, either man or animal, and then momentum builds until realization rolls over the globe like a wave. People drop like flies in a fumigated room, as chaos delivers anarchy until only a small remnant survives – usually scientists or sometimes the most attractive members of a U.N. contingency team or, at the very least, average Joes and Janes are left to repopulate the earth.

Occasionally in the stories, the global pandemic occurs in real-time.  But, in other instances, the destruction, decimation and depopulation are set to fast-forward during the opening credits and exclaimed by increasingly horrified news reporters terrified at their particular plague’s acceleration – or –  the tale is sometimes told via flashbacks in the narrative to explain what happened.

One of my personal favorites of the contagiously post-apocalyptical genre is a book written by horror author, Stephen King, called “The Stand”.  The now-classic novel of good versus evil was also made into a television and comic book series.  The narrative depicted the breakdown of American society following the inadvertent airborne dispensation of a mutant flu virus from a military laboratory in Texas.  In a short time, the virus killed 99.4% of the global population.

Continue reading→