If microeconomics is human action, then think of macroeconomics as collective action. The former considers personal preferences and incorporates the fact that some things are unknowable, and the latter merely observes the herd and disregards the data points that don’t neatly conform to a chart. As Jeff Deist has said, macroeconomics is truly an “incoherent nonfield,” as is anything else under the umbrella of collectivism. Macroeconomics is “the what, when we need the how and why.” But with macroeconomics, writes William Anderson, “there are no ‘whys,’ just things that happen… There is no causality, nothing.” There can be no progress without understanding the “why.” Ayn Rand wrote, “An inventor is a man who asks ‘Why?’… and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.” The greater the number of inventors, the more that standards of living will rise, which brings me to another “incoherent nonfield”—public health.
Public health has degenerated into the application of force to macroeconomics.
It has become the process of decivilization. Though many wish to reform public health, to bring its glory days to the present, should public health be resurrected or should the death of its credibility be celebrated? Dr. Donald A. Henderson—credited with ridding the world of smallpox—is the primary author of Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, wherein he concludes: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” The past 21+ months of nonsensical and destructive disruptions make clear that Henderson’s wisdom was brutally beaten and left for dead, but I disagree with his very next sentence: “Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements.” No, people don’t need to be led to do something that they would have otherwise done of their own volition. It is the “leadership” itself that has most disrupted “the normal social functioning of the community.”
In macroeconomics, as with public health, the “why” has, at best, been ignored. Worse, with public health, it’s acceptable for only the elites to discover the “why,” while everyone else must accept either their “why” or the consequences for not accepting it. Potential answers that contradict the prevailing narrative are either silenced or discredited, which brings me to another “incoherent nonfield”—politics. Those wishing to reform public health have much in common with those who believe that all would be well if only their guy is elected. “The experts are failing to manage the pandemic” is no different from “the experts are failing to manage the economy.” The notion that either can be managed is absurd, and Dr. Henderson admitted as much. Economies—people—“respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” It’s as if Henderson unwittingly acknowledged that public health is superfluous, at best, just like economic regulations. Political interventions in the economy—impositions on livelihoods—are just as catastrophic as political interventions are to people’s health because they’re the same thing. If minimizing disruptions benefits both health and wellbeing, then let Henderson’s public health rest in peace with him.
A managed economy is a failed economy, so apply that reasoning to the health that is managed not by the individual but by a self-serving bureaucrat. Imagine believing that one who traffics in parasitism is qualified to dictate your health! “But the economy was successfully mobilized for World War II!” Yes, but did it yield Rand’s inventors or death and destruction? Public health is war on its own people, and macroeconomics provides the meaningless “case” counts. With macroeconomics, Deist explains, “the wholly observable ‘what’ is presumed to provide both explanatory and predictive value,” and public health is the violent hubris that acts on those presumptions. It’s not only that Anthony Fauci is ghoulish, it’s that his role exists. The next Fauci, as with the next president, is already obsolete. If the best both can do is nothing, then why should either exist? Same question for macroeconomics, public health, and all of their arrogant regulations, prohibitions, and mandates.
This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.