Does This (Still) Trip You Up?

False premises. Making comparisons that sound good, but fail the logic test. Or that old canard about where liberties end..? You know, the "greater good" and all that?

Here is that canard, repeated once again just the other day. The one we heard over and over, as justification for so many atrocities, including the greatest crime in world history launched in March 2020:

“I mean, so OK…In public health, there is always going to be a tension between individual liberties and what's best for the group.” - Dr. Leana Wen

A native of a communist country talking about that “greater good” stuff. And the “tension” between individual liberties (that barely exist in her native country) and “what’s best for the group,” which supersedes all where she comes from.

Shocking? No. Annoying.

You can hear her babble her BS here: Wen clip The full interview is over on “The Bulwark.” Never heard of it.

What I found shocking — and annoying — is that the post had more than 2,100 “likes.”

The clip got reposted by Jennifer Sey. Ms. Sey rightly stated the following in response to Little Leana’s lame claim about “tension:”

In response, a fellow “American” had this to say to Ms. Sey,

“So you have the right to - rooted in your individual liberty - to go into public while infected with an easily transmitted disease? No, you don’t.”

To which I said, “Yes, I do.” I continued:

“And you? You have the freedom to wrap your head in plastic, crap your pants, hide in the basement, and do whatever else you feel you must if you think it'll protect you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will face the world.” - STL

And so began a back-and-forth with this person. He, too, used the same old, same old boring stuff like this:

“Your liberties stop where the rights of others begin. That’s why we don’t allow drunk driving. You don’t get to go out and recklessly endanger others.”

Boring!

I defended his right to stay home if an illness scared him. I defended his right to use whatever means he wished to stay safe. I just made it clear, “To whit, I could no more force you to go out into the world than you could force me to hide from it.”

He was having none of it. He asserted that I needed to defend my stance…

“…so if you accept that people should be forced not to drive while drunk, you accept that individual rights have limits, and need to argue why exposing others to a dangerous respiratory illness you are infected with is different.”

I LOVED this! Oh, my goodness.

So I took the time to reply. That reply appears below. I hope you find value in what I said. Poke holes in it, too, if you think it warrants it. Here, in italics, is my response to this demand, using his premise:

Impairment vs. Illness

“Your argument is to compare acute impairment -- and the limits it imposes, such as prevention of driving or use of heavy equipment -- with an infection? Correct?

Let's discuss.

Individuals impaired by alcohol or other intoxicants like cough medicine or cocaine 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 the thing that impairs them. To excess. To the point of 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 -- and it's usually highly visible that they are so. In the case of alcohol, the smell often gives them away -- in addition to impaired motor skills and slurred speech.

You believe that people can become "infected" without knowing it — that is, without symptoms — and then potentially kill people. Thus, their natural right to move about -- go to work, shop, meet people -- you would limit based on their being "infected." Correct?

How would you know? How would you know they’re “infected?” They wouldn't smell, necessarily.

So. Testing? Rely on visible symptoms? Or just being suspected of being infected because "something's going around?"

Sidebar: Of course, your whole premise depends upon the disputed theory of contagion, but that's for another day...

If the individual is without symptoms -- just suspected of being infected with a dangerous illness (like women accused of being witches) -- what steps do you propose to confirm their infection?

If the individual has symptoms, i.e., sneezing, a runny or stuffy nose, itchy, watery eyes, and a scratchy throat, what do you propose to do with that individual? Test them? Order them confined until tested? Keep them out of places of public accommodation? (You, of course, would have every right to keep them out of your home if the symptoms scare you.)

Since the symptoms I listed above are those for hay fever, do you seriously wish to live in a world where the coughs or sneezes or scratchy throats of our fellow humans are sufficient to cast them off? Or subject them to "testing?" Confinement? Denial of their natural right to work or eat? Or the same for NO SYMPTOMS at all?? Until some test declares them “safe?”

Your fear, which leads to a very unattractive insistence upon controlling the world and those in it, needs addressing. That is something only you can do. Of course, I would never force you to conduct this self-examination, only recommend that you do so.

I hope this clarifies the limits imposed by self-induced impairment with the broad rights of the individual. It is the common law — based on the Natural Law — that protects individuals from the horrors and misery that superstition, fear, and the will to power have imposed. Again and again, and over again.”

I was honestly excited to hear back. (My husband thinks I’m a little bonkers for going back and forth on these topics with “tahds,” as he so ungraciously calls them with his New England accent. 🤣)

Can you guess how my digital “friend” responded?

I really wanted him to come back and tell me where I’d gone wrong. That limiting someone’s normal right to operate a motor vehicle or heavy equipment when intoxicated does compare with you and me just walking around living our lives despite having the sniffles. Or just being “infected” without knowing it.

But he is now gone. I even waited overnight for a response. Nothing.

The Natural Law Wins Every Time

Hubs said I blew the guy out of the water; that’s why he disappeared. I don’t know. What I tried to do within the limits of a digital conversation was confirm his right to do as he saw fit while reminding him that that was all he had a right to do…

I tried to convey how his argument for appropriate limitations during intoxication are incomparable to — and in violation of — natural rights when applied to the perceived infectiousness or potential illnesses of others.

I gave the example of hay fever symptoms to drive home this point. Symptoms of an allergy that could be mistaken for a cold…And this guy wants to do what?

Seriously, is this how we want to live? In America?

In Ms. Wen’s home country, China, there is no “tension” between the individual and “the group.” Do they even have the concept of individual liberty and the Natural Law? In her home country, the group comes first…Even if it means this:

I’m sure Ms. Wen — and my “disappeared” man — would never, ever take this “tension” this far in America…

Or would they? What did the last five years reveal about many of our fellow “Americans?” In this opinion piece the dimwitted Ms. Wen argued the exact same as my “X” friend — Being “unvaccinated” is the same as drunk driving. Many wanted those who made different choices…dead.

I write that…and I can’t believe it, but there it is.

Apparently lost to so many — or never learned — is the fact that this country was founded upon the individual as sovereign, endowed by his Creator, etc., etc. There is no “tension” between “individual liberties and what’s best for the group.”

EVER.

As Ms. Sey said, “Individual liberties come first.”

Always.

Remember that.

Always.