A Question for the ‘Willing’

The “hesitant” – as people who aren’t interested in trusting the pharmaceutical cartels or the government to “keep them safe” from a sickness that doesn’t meaningfully threaten them are being styled – have more than just that reason to eschew the “vaccine” that’s being hard-sold like a time-share condo.

It is a reason that goes beyond everything being discussed – and yet isn’t being discussed much. Hence the importance of discussing it.

That reason is, simply,: If they can do it this time they can do it the next time. And the time after that, ongoing.

Your “vaccine status” – plural – to become public business Maybe you are ok with this shot. How about the next one? And the one after that? Where does it end? It doesn’t end.

That’s what’s on the table.

Precedents are everything. Lawyers live by this motto because that is how you win or lose cases. It is the basis upon which laws are passed and expanded – and upon which appeals stand or fall. If it is decided in law that the government can force you to hand over 1 percent of whatever you earn the principle has been encoded that it can force you to hand over the other 99 percent. The precedent has been established. All that remains going forward is haggling over the degree. The fundamental, defining thing has been conceded.

Similarly, if the government can force people to submit to being injected with a “vaccine” by declaring it a public health necessity it can force people to submit to being injected with any vaccine, on the same basis.

The precedent will have been set and the principle underlying it codifed. Then it will be expanded.

That is how laws work in a legalistic system, where legal precedent – what is called case law – supplants the natural law, as imperfectly stated and reluctantly conceded by the tacking-on of  the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Not the Constitution, which is a lawyerly document written purposefully to establish a system of case law that would – in time – do away with the natural law conceptions articulated in the Bill of Rights. Which was literally tacked on to the Constitution to appease men like George Mason of Virginia and others mistrustful of the Constitution, which makes no mention of anyone’s rights but which is full of artful language about the powers the government shall have to modify, curtail and – ultimately – dispense with those rights altogether.

Lawyerly language about the general welfare, for instance – which can and has been construed by lawyers to erode natural rights to the point that they are becoming (if they have not already become) conditional privileges..

It is also not by accident that life, liberty and property became life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – which sounds wonderful precisely because it is poetry and not sense. How can one be “happy” when one’s property – including the property one has in oneself, as in the sanctity of their own body – may be violated, legally, anytime the law says so?

Such ugly things are no longer taught, precisely because of what it tells those who become aware of them about the nature of the system they are yoked to.

Read the Whole Article

The post A Question for the ‘Willing’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Share DeepPol