*Note: I've read "the science" on both sides of the issue, I am only arguing on an ethical perspective. I have no interest in "science" on this one and any refutation of this argument should be based on the ethics. The fact of the matter is that "the science" is ridiculously based on junk propaganda hailing from both sides of the aisle on "vaccines are bad" to "vaccines end the spread of illnesses". When governmental "scientists" are literally talking about how vaccinated people and unvaccinated people with the same illness have "different levels of virus", we have literally creeped into cuckoo-ville. Either I just slept through all the "asymptomatic" spread alerts from 2020 or somehow the virus decided to "settle" down when an infected person who has been vaccinated ends up with COVID and has symptoms.
The question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines is a multi-faceted ethical argument that is based on the question of freedom and the role of the monarch in preserving freedom and order in society, the question of tyranny, and the question of holding medicine as a bargaining chip for earning freedom. Obviously, there are many things that we do in life that can justifiably end up with us being stripped of our freedoms and having to earn it back. Deliberately infecting someone with an illness is also provably monstrous. However, in the case of an epidemic or a pandemic in which a person can be exposed unknowingly to a disease at a given moment and then unknowingly spread it to another person is of an entirely different merit. No one has any control over nature. Vaccines are generally used to trigger the immune system to responding to a particular disease in order to prepare the immune system for defense against the particular disease they've received vaccination for. But also, likewise, is exposure to the actual illness for which the vaccine is for to have the same effect, obviously. This exposure to the illness builds up the immune response which in turn allows the body to be better equipped to fighting the disease. The theory is that the immune people will then prevent disease transmission. This is called herd immunity which the Encyclopedia Britannica describes as follows:
Herd immunity, also called community immunity, state in which a large proportion of a population is able to repel an infectious disease, thereby limiting the extent to which the disease can spread from person to person. Herd immunity can be conferred through natural immunity, previous exposure to the disease, or vaccination. An entire population does not need to be immune to attain herd immunity. Rather, herd immunity can occur when the population density of persons who are susceptible to infection is sufficiently low so as to minimize the likelihood of an infected individual coming in contact with a susceptible individual.
Note the part I bold. If one is going for herd immunity, natural immunity and previous exposure are both sufficient alternatives to vaccination. Ergo, the question as to whether someone who has been around a certain group of infected people should be mandated to take a vaccine is, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica a "no". This will be elaborated even further when one considers corporate investment in medicines. I believe there is a strong need to be concerned given the socialization of medicine in recent years that we could see corporatist based medical tyranny.
What is freedom? According to H.J.A. Sire,
Freedom consists in the fulfilment of one's nature by the complete exercise of the human powers. Since its purpose is fulfilment, its proper objects are the things that truly fulfil man. In that, freedom may be compared to the commonplace function of eating, as a good and as a right. The good of eating embraces eating the things that we need to live on; it does not extend to an indiscriminate voracity for things that we should not be eating at all. ... [P]atriots rightly rebel against foreign domination; subjects do not rightly rebel against their legitimate king. To be free is to reject what is alien and to live under one's proper law, whether it is a political constitution or the moral law that defines human nature. (Phoenix From the Ashes, 349-350)
Freedom is not a right to excess but a basic need. Human interaction is not a right to excess but also a need. In fact, Solzhenitsyn also indicates that after the isolation that was imposed upon the enemies of the state in the Soviet Gulags that one would more than likely be begging to be put to death instead of putting up with the isolation (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, ch. 11). When God created man, he expressed that it was not good for the man to be alone. When someone disallows you a basic necessity and holds up another thing as a bargaining chip for you to get it back, that is called abuse. They are demanding that you place immediate trust that they will fulfill their word despite the fact that what has been taken away is a basic necessity. When someone refuses to feed you unless they first gain something in return from you, they are withholding your need to eat in order to gain something from you. That is not the behavior of a loving father but the behavior of an abusive father.
Plato describes his ideal ruler in The Republic. It is one who has the spirit of philosophy, a true lover of wisdom, control over his passions, and is reluctant to govern.
Until philosophers are kings, and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils. (Republic, Bk. 5)
The ideal ruler does not rule in order to rule. "The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him" (Bk. 6) The true ruler is not concerned with maintaining power because he has no self-interests. He is a servant by example and a ruler because he leads. This is the best State. "Whereas the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst." (Bk. 7)
On contrast, the tyrant is rules in order to rule. He emerges from a democratic State which has indulged in the excesses of freedom. Freedom is a need but here, we see freedom being taken as a license to indulge in immorality. The tyrant emerges in order to solve a problem. Thus, the tyrant comes into play during a crisis scenario, claiming he is the one who can fix the problems. After he has fixed the problems though, he still has an appetite for power. He gins up wars against his enemies and instills fears into his citizens. He must convince the public that they always need a leader. But when he runs out of enemies, he must stir up other wars.
And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war. (Bk. 8)
In Book 9, Plato describes the tyrant as someone always indulged in passions. He wants to entertain these passions to an excess but cannot find the funds. So he goes after his own subjects.
One thing clear about this pandemic from the beginning is that our leaders have always seen this as a war. They have routinely seen this issue in terms of martial concepts. Like the tyrant, they look to gin up fear in the populace and create an enemy. There is a convenience especially in a pandemic to gin up fear among the populace. Fear of death, fear of being infected with a disease one could die from, fear of neighbor who could likely infect them. The leaders have said they are the only ones who can resolve the problem, we must look to them without question as a quasi-Messianic figure leading us through darkness. They don't indicate when it will end or even if it is clear that it will end. This progresses toward an infinite loop where they are always creating a crisis. One moment, we could have basic liberties that we take for granted, attending church regularly, seeing our friends' faces, hanging out at the mall, etc. The next minute, all social interaction is cut off, we are locked in our houses, wearing masks, convinced to join our leaders in this war that has no mark on when it will end. Our leaders will give us a goal at one point and then a new one the next. This is the kind of behavior that Plato would more than likely see if he were alive today as tyrannical. The tyrant, in order to increase his power, must always be getting up a war so that he is continuously looked on as a leader.
St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite has the following to say about medical ethics:
[I]n such a time of famine, hunger, and sickness, or some other such calamity, you rich, you merchants, you buyers of wheat and other fruits, and likewise you physicians, for the love of God beware of selling your produce to the poor and needy at an exorbitant price; and you physicians, do not provide medical care for an excessive fee, and do not become bad doctors, as Job says—'But ye are all unjust physicians and healers of diseases'—finding time to be a helper in making a profit. (Christian Morality, Discourse VIII)
And what high price are the physicians of today's world placing us under? "No jab no job"? The day-to-day things you used to be able to do, you cannot do. Buy our medicine and inject it into yourself or you may not even be able to shop for food. But one might say that the government is paying for it. Well the government pays for it with our money which it taxes us for. The vaccine passport system that people are talking about is a license for governmental and major pharmaceutical company abuse. If it keeps going at this trend, we'll end up with a system of permanent corporatism, subject to the whims and research papers of medical companies that are more interested in making a profit for the medical care they offer. A vaccine passport currently expires after six months. Currently, only one booster shot is needful. But flu vaccines are distributed on a seasonal basis. Could we not assume that the COVID vaccine would also be the same? And then the big pharmaceutical companies price gouge and force us to buy their medicine whether directly or through taxation. They become the partners with the government. Is what we see here a wasteland or a monarchy?
But the true philosopher-king does not need to constantly stir up fear in order to keep his authority. He needs not beg his subjects to allow him to rule and continue to rule. He is not insensitive about his person. He governs himself. Unlike the tyrant. So the answer to the question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines, I would say, is no. The reason being that such mandates give leeway to tyrannical oppression and corrupt control over medicine, especially by the pharmaceutical companies that have manufactured the vaccine. Further, that control can easily be extended permanently, just by ginning up another crisis. As Plato states of the tyrant hoping to keep his power and prove that the people still need a leader to guide them, he is always looking to create a war. We are seeing an ongoing war against a virus which no one has control over. I emphasize this to stress that no one deliberately causes infection of another. The tyrant has insisted we are all too sick or might be too sick to even be with each other. At this point, one should ask with a clear and sober mind, do we fear a virus or do we fear each other?
No comments:
Post a Comment