Is it ok to put innocent people in prison if you can afford to make the cell materially comfortable? That may seem like an absurd question, but many of those who pushed for lockdowns have used this argument.
Background
When the pandemic hit the West, almost everyone was on board with “15 days to slow the spread.” However, those 15 days quickly turned into 15 months, mask mandates, and vaccination passports.
As the incursions into liberty expanded, an increasing portion of the population voiced opposition. According to W.H.O., it was becoming increasingly clear that the dangers of COVID-19 for most people dwarfed in comparison to the Spanish flu in 1919, and even to other common causes of death around the world like neonatal conditions, diarrhea, malaria, tuberculosis, H.I.V., diabetes, and traffic accidents.
But for some reason, the liberties of the healthy majority were sacrificed for the safety of vulnerable groups. For the first time in history, the healthy had to be quarantined. Those who objected pointed to the Hong Kong pandemic in the late 1960s that killed between one and four million people. It was such a non-event and non-panic that in 1969, 400,000 youths were gathering in Woodstock. Barely anyone noticed the pandemic.
If we could keep society open then, and even during the Spanish flu, where more than 18 million people worldwide died, why should we treat COVID-19 as the black plague and lockdown society? The near-universal answer to this question has been: “because now we can afford it.”
Comfortable Prisons
Consider all the dangers of living in a free society: People die in car accidents, the seasonal flu kills tens of thousands of elderly every year, murders happen every day in America. Life is dangerous. We could save all those people by putting everyone in comfortable prison cells where they can’t harm anyone, including themselves. If we are rich enough to afford it, why not? Everyone would be safe. You don’t want people to die, do you?
While this is an extreme example, it highlights the absurdity of stripping people of their rights and liberties because one has wealth. Liberty is not a mere tool we use to create prosperity; it is an intrinsic human need. Just because the prison guard is rich, he does not have a right to curb the liberties of innocent people.
Materialism and Utilitarianism
The ideological cause of the lockdowns can be traced to materialism and its sister ideology, utilitarianism.
Materialism is the philosophical view that only matter exists. Spirit, and hereunder free will, is an illusion. Materialists are not interested in life quality. They only care about life quantity. Thus, they would gladly sacrifice freedom in favor of extending lifespans.
Utilitarianism is the collectivist belief that the individual does not matter. We can only judge morality quantitatively by the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, if someone somewhere in the world is suffering while you are relatively well off, the utilitarian feels entitled to chip away your freedom and wealth by force to improve the life of a total stranger. That is the ideology that underlies COVID-19 lockdowns. You do not have a right to be free and prosper if there is suffering anywhere on Earth. You must give up your sovereignty to experts who shall “fairly” redistribute the fruits of your life and your culture.
Nearly all governments worldwide, including the United States, have based their decisions on materialistic utilitarianism. It should concern anyone who values enlightenment. The Declaration of Independence says: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” not “the greatest material good for the greatest number.”
~
Read more from Caroline Adana.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
