With the needless panic over the latest coronavirus variant, the parasitic caste seem very much interested in repeating the previous administration’s blunders, despite many of those very same people characterizing the other guy’s actions as brazen assaults on civil liberties. Whether people are finally fed up with the tax-fed remains to be seen, but I’m not holding my breath. If the latest political edicts are just rebranded tricks from March 2020, I fear that an overwhelming majority will happily comply, so long as “safety” is the justification. If you accept that less than 10% of the population are brave enough to say, “no more,” which is easier, convincing 90% of the population to change their mind or showing them an easier path to their beloved safety?
If the electorate is becoming increasingly divided, then why, in “our democracy,” aren’t the predators among the political class paralleling said division? The more that the political left lurch leftward, the more that most on the political right seem only to indignantly drop anchor. Why aren’t one side’s political attacks on liberty met with equally potent attacks on coercion? Which has more bite, scolding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or writing a bill to abolish it? Amending the state’s malignant growth will do nothing to halt its trajectory. Only abolishment will provide meaningful reform, so why is that bill an anomaly rather than the norm? The vast majority of the electorate yearn for safety, so why won’t the liberty-loving cater to that desire in a manner that is antithetical to their opponents’ strategy? For example, getting mugged is just as unsafe as it sounds, so imagine the political points awarded to the party who get to claim responsibility for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service. After all, love of wealth isn’t partisan. Some might argue that “reform” is easier on the ears than “abolish” and, therefore, “abolish” lacks mass appeal, but what’s the alternative? Answer: the status quo. I’m as guilty as the next American for having a pathetically short memory, but my goodness, we’re talking about the 9/11 of 2020, not the original. It sure would be great to try something new because, as I wrote in June, “To say that the misery of the past 15 months can’t be repeated brings new meaning to ‘wishful thinking.’”
At best, the claim that liberty is better than safety falls on deaf ears; at worst, liberty is smeared, as are those who cherish it.
So how about telling the 90% something they might actually hear? Safety is liberty. Robert Barnes has always said, “You’re not safe if you’re not free.” The past 20+ months bolster Barnes’s claim and vivify how tragically determined are the lockdowners to repeat their liberty-crushing strategies for achieving safety. Donald Boudreaux recently repeated the oft ignored warning, “Beware of unintended consequences,” so perhaps the cast of characters this time around will be more receptive to the fact that unnatural interventions produce far more negative, unintended consequences than does natural, human action. With consent, one intends to produce something that inherently seeks to avoid negative, unintended consequences, but with politics, one intends to destroy something at the intended expense of a persecuted group.
From H.L. Mencken’s 1926 Notes on Democracy: “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” Again, the past 20+ months prove Mencken a sage as strongly as Barnes’s observation sagacious. Mencken implies that “the average man” can have one or the other, but Barnes makes it clear that one can have both. Isn’t it obvious that people flourish in actual safety? Are people flocking to Florida, Texas, and Idaho in order to feel unsafe? When safety is imposed, everyone is less safe. Safety is liberty; liberty is consent. Lockdowns violate consent. Mandates violate consent. Prohibitions violate consent. All are political, so all lack consent and safety. There’s nothing contractual about politics, but those who worship it regard liberty as an obstacle to safety, not as its foundation. The unintended consequences of unnatural interventions will likely be unsafe, as evidenced by the most restricted states, so highlighting the consequences of liberty is likely more effective than disparaging the consequences of coercion. Want to be safe? Then leave people alone. Want to jeopardize your safety? Don’t mind your own business.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m just as repulsed by the gleeful cowardice as the next guy—but I have to ask myself and the likeminded: other than the short-lived satisfaction gained from ridiculing the parasites and their sycophants, wouldn’t we rather sell them something? The idea we’re selling is mutually beneficial. Hating them is a dead end on their own street. Showing them of other ways that provide what they seek produces more intended consequences. Because safety is subjective, all but the paternalists seek similar ends but different means. When given the choice between mandating safety and actually being safe, will the perpetually paranoid pursue forced safety or will they embrace the safety to which is mutually consented—one that allows each individual to interpret safety to their own liking? I’d like to make it easier for them to choose the latter, not give them excuses to double down on the never-ending insanity. No need to stop hating the parentalists or the paternalists, but if our scathing rebuttals don’t conclude with an elevator pitch, what’s the point?
This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.