Mandates, "Public Health," & the Natural Law

“The natural liberty of man is…not to be under the will or legislative authority of man.” - Samuel Adams, American Patriot

I start with this quote to provide some context for what I wanted to share with you in this post. I actually had an intriguing exchange on another social media platform with someone I’ll call “Steve.”

It started over a post related to the recent 9th Circuit decision to remand to the lower court for further adjudication (Legalese for “Do over. You screwed up.”) a case involving a “vaccine” “mandate.” The case involves Health Freedom Defense v. Alberto Carvalho, Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“Steve” commented on the post, erroneously stating that the Plaintiffs (Health Freedom Defense, et al.) had moved for dismissal.

Nope. That’s not what happened, so yours truly stepped in. That’s where the discussion I’m about to share started. Aside from keeping my counterpart’s identity confidential, the following is the back-and-forth we had word for word. “Steve” does pretty well, but ends up making my argument for me.

N.B. I use lower and upper case “v” to stand for you-know-what. It is social media, after all. Here goes:

---

Me: The Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their case against the Los Angeles Unified School District? This is the first I'm hearing this; where did you hear this? The Defendants moved to dismiss the case.

The case got to the 9th Circuit because the Plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision. The lower court ruled the case "moot." The Plaintiffs disagreed and got the case to the 9th Circuit for appeal.

The 9th Circuit declared the case not moot at all; Judge Hawkins dissented, saying that he thought it was, that the case should go back to the lower court, which should then dismiss it without prejudice.

Nope.

Justices Nelson and Collins said not moot -- and sent it back to the lower court for re-argument. This opens the door for much more evidence by the Plaintiffs.

Thanks to Justice Collins, a discussion ensued about the classification of this modRNA junk (Gave myself away.) as a "vaccine." Beautifully weaving in Jacobson, which so many seem to think gave the State carte blanche to inject anyone at any time, Judge Collins showed us all it did not.

The importance of reviewing Jacobson in this case and its remand to the lower court cannot be overstated.

“Steve’s” reply:

“Thanks for the catch, I misspoke about which party moved to dismiss.

The discussion around vaccine vs. medical treatment is interesting from the standpoint of refusing one over the other. It would appear that the general direction in the U.S. is that targeted vaccine mandates may be allowable in certain circumstances, but blanket mandates may not be. I thought this was a useful explainer:

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-mandates

To give myself away 😉 I am a strong proponent of vaccination. However, I recognize the subject of vaccine mandates is contentious and complex.”

Me: It surprised me when I saw that! I thought, "Did I miss something?" :)

Interesting that you see the country moving toward "targeted" forced medical interventions. I see it moving in the exact opposite direction. We shall see, but I think the debacle of the COVID operation has changed everything. This includes a turning away from forced medical interventions of any kind -- injections or otherwise.

I am a strong proponent of acknowledging the right of the individual to choose the means by which they maintain their health & restore it should they become sick.

For those in fear of becoming ill, I am a strong proponent of their right to choose -- of their own free will -- to cloister themselves or take whatever other steps for themselves they deem appropriate. That is their right and I would never interfere with it.

I also recognize that I have no right to demand or expect others to restrict their lives or freedoms to accommodate my fears -- of bungee jumping, flying, or respiratory infections.

Most importantly, I recognize that I have no right to demand or expect others to undergo medical interventions -- injections or otherwise -- to keep me from getting sick.

All of this, simply put, is the natural law. (Bold/Italics added here.)

“Steve’s” response:

I blame under-caffeination 😊

Re: my comment about moving towards a targeted vaccination policy, I was referring to the courts' opinions - the SC has allowed for vaccine mandates in certain circumstances and contexts.

I recognize the personal liberty argument for vaccination. I personally view it through the public health lens. I suspect those viewpoints may be unreconcilable, (sic) but I appreciate the civil discourse.

Me: 1.     I appreciate it, too, “Steve.” Thank you.

Re the SC, do you to refer to Jacobson as its "allowing" of "vaccine" mandates? In that case, the Court recognized the right of the State of MA to fine Mr. Jacobson for declining the small pox "vaccine." He refused even that and thus ended up with a criminal record for refusing to pay the fine.

As I indicated, if individuals decide that the best way to avoid an illness is to stay inside -- or whatever -- then they have the (natural) right to choose that course. What they are prohibited from doing is making me or you choose it, as well.

As for "public health," IMO there is no such thing as "public health." There is only individual health. There is public sanitation, which includes water and sewer, but when it comes to health, there is only individual health.

The last four years prove that in spades. No mask, distancing, staying inside or the experimental modRNA injectable concoctions. I remained healthy the entire time -- as I do every cold & flu season as I've done for decades. Oh, & no flu shot. Ever.

I agree the viewpoints may be irreconcilable, but I hope it's comforting to know, “Steve,” that I would never force you to my way of thinking -- or acting.

“Steve:”

“I think contagious diseases would beg to differ that there's no such thing as public health 🙂. Aggregate (vs. anecdotal) data showing outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations seen to support that.

My view is that it's a small thing for me to get a safe and effective vaccine to help protect my (proverbial) neighbor who perhaps can't due to being immunocompromised, etc. (Bold added) I recognize that's a personal decision. As I stated earlier, I understand that vaccine mandates are controversial and I can see both sides of the argument.”

Me: If contagious diseases are contagious to all equally, what explains the absence of disease/illness in people? People — who stay well — in the midst of the symptomatically ill with that contagious disease? What explains that?

I mean too, of course, those who stay well without the thing that you submit keeps them from getting said disease. What explains that? How does "public health" explain that?

That is actually a thing, “Steve.” 😉 Individuals remaining healthy or getting sick & recovering -- in the midst of those who get sick — and don't.

As we know, people also get sick -- sometimes very sick -- despite getting v'd against the thing that subsequently makes them very sick. What explains that?

As I said, you have the (natural) right to inject or pop whatever it is you think you must for whatever reasons you think you must or 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅. The converse of this is true, too, for me and anyone else.

If getting injected with something…to keep you from getting sick from something you may not get sick from…to keep others from getting sick with it -- or not -- makes sense to you and helps you feel better about yourself? By all means, “Steve.” I would never support the use of force to prevent you from doing so.

But I shall take my own road, OK?

“Steve:”

“never (sic) said you shouldn't. (Take my own road, he meant.) And the explanation of why different diseases affect different people differently is due to a variety of factors: genetics, immune status, comorbidities, etc.”

Me: Exactly. You have made one of the arguments against Vs (and one-size-fits-all medical treatments) right there. I appreciate that you come across as someone who would not force me or others to undergo these unwanted medical interventions.

Yet as we have just seen, we have many, many others who support the use of force -- almost reveling in it. Friends, colleagues, "public health" "officials," corporate America, "doctors," the political class, and family members revealed this hidden perversity, this vice, to us all.

Your statement also highlights the criminality and immorality of mass v campaigns, forced or "strongly suggested." This includes the target all of the junk on the childhood v schedule -- children whose immune systems have yet to develop and who have no defense against "adults" shoving needles into them.

You have also defended my argument. "...why different diseases affect different people differently is due to a variety of factors: genetics, immune status, comorbidities, etc." Indeed. You have stated my argument using different language, but saying the same thing: There 𝒊𝒔 no such thing as "public health." There is only individual health.”

---

“Steve:”

Mixed Media by Geraldine Myszenski

That was the last I heard from “Steve.”

Credit where it’s due, though. He hung in there. He remained polite throughout, refrained from name calling and other deflections. I appreciated the back-and-forth…and how he kinda sorta walked right into making my argument for me. (He might deny this, but we’ll never know, will we? 😂)

But, seriously, folks. All I did was rely throughout this exchange on…the natural law. (Hubs tells me most people have no idea what I mean when I say that. I say, well, read the Declaration of Independence. That is many things, among them an exposition of the natural law and Georgy Boy’s repeated usurpation of it.)

I also relied on logic and lived experience — by me and zillions of others. Dressed for winter, stuffed into an overheated subway car with coughing, sneezing, nose-blowing fellow travelers — and staying well. My Irish ancestors who survived Yellow Fever outbreaks. Europeans who survived the Plague. How did some survive with illness and death all around them — and no sanitation? And no Vs, of course.

Most importantly, though, was the “Exit Stage Left” when I pointed out that he’d made an argument in favor of my position — and against his own. While we all share our humanity and human features, we’re all unique when it comes to our own unique individual health:

"...why different diseases affect different people differently is due to a variety of factors: genetics, immune status, comorbidities, etc." - “Steve”

While all humans share the same vulnerability to toxins (like cyanide, for example, or untreated poop), we each have our own individual health. This is due to the very things that “Steve” himself identified as individual, but in the same breath argues fall under the purview of “‘public’ health.” If these factors play a role, then how does one concoction work for all?

We all know the answer.

“Public Health” “Emergencies”

What has been and is so dangerous about this is what we’ve just been through. We continue to reel from it, and the same criminals will use this ruse to steal other natural rights. Yes…we do actually have one left, but it’s hanging by a thread:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, they’ve infringed already and they’ll continue to do so. Their next ruse will be a “public health” emergency stemming from “gun violence.” This goober already has…

So, when I say — and others, too — that there ain’t no such thing as “public health,” I mean it. It is not for the purposes of being a smart aleck. It’s to highlight its illogic and its use as a weapon against free people. They’ve already done it! They’ll do it again — unless, we, the people, internalize this reality and pound it into public consciousness:

There is no such thing as “public health.” There is ONLY individual health.

Stay well. And free, my friends.