In a stateless society, individual freedom and non-aggression come first. Strengthening one’s own immune system would be the main way to fight the impact of the virus. The course of the pandemic has not corroborated the claim that a government is needed to protect our health.
Protection though immunity
Studies of the origins of disease from infections confirm the overriding importance of a person’s individual immune system. People with immunodeficiency are the primary victims of COVID-19 the disease related to the Coronavirus. Yet governments have installed an array of harsh measures on a scientifically weak basis of facts and data that actually weaken the peoples’ personal defense system against the consequences of infection.
A person’s immune system depends on many factors including mental wellbeing and the degree of personal autonomy. When judged from this angle, the governments of many U.S. states, as well as those of many European countries, impose the opposite of what would be required. The bundle of measures is like a heavy hammer intended to destroy a person’s immune system. Locked-up at home with deep worries about jobs and money is a disaster for immunity.
Either governments are ignorant, or they act like criminals when they concentrate on slowing down the infection rate while at the time their measures “to flatten the curve” makes the population more vulnerable to get ill when they catch the virus.
If we had had already a private law society where there is no state and government in the conventional sense at the outbreak of the epidemic, society would have taken a different path in the face of such a health threat as currently governments proclaim to exist.
In a stateless society, based on the principles of individual liberty and non-aggression, confronting COVID-19 would not require a lockdown of the economy. Social life could and should go on as before. There would be no economic collapse and no panic of fear and desperation. In fact, people would get healthier confronting the pandemic because they would strive to strengthen their individual immunity.
While a stateless society would favor individual protection, the government policies focus on the speed of the dissemination of the crisis. By trying to slow down the contagion rate, they lock-up people and create mass unemployment and impoverishment.
While it is dubious whether these policies decelerate the rate of contagion — some sources say that the virus has already passed through the population — the quarantine measures lower the strength of the individual immune system. This way, government policies make people more vulnerable to the risk that an infection becomes a disease. In the end, lockdowns provoke more fatalities than the virus itself.
In order to strengthen immunity, one must do the opposite of what governments recommend or force upon us. We must get out of the home and get fresh air. We should take walks and expose our bodies to the sunlight, the rain, and the wind. Most of all, we should not have to worry about employment and money. We should sleep well without anxiety and panic. Those who are religious must have the right to join their community for service.
Even months after the outbreak of the epidemic, the true dimension of the threat remains unclear. Yet while it is too early to know the exact quantitative dimension of the disease called a “pandemic”, its socio-economic and political effects are clearly visible.
Recent mortality data from Europe show that those countries, regions, and cities with the most severe lockdowns did not achieve a flattening of the curve. Those with softer restrictions avoided not only the massive damage to the economy but also registered milder effects of the pandemic itself.
Governments that follow the hard line of control like the United States and many European countries installed a medical dictatorship from one day to the next that only the tyrants of the past century could have desired. The result is a further erosion of private property rights due to declarations of national emergencies. Neither constitutions nor courts provided protection against the erosion of human rights.
Governments intervene in the private life of the people in a way the exceeds dictatorships of the past. It comes in handy for governments to take away the right to assemble for a political demonstration and combine it with the prohibition of meetings for religious services. While the government and their obedient mass media heat up the panic with a systemic barrage of falsities, social media come under attack when a few fake news begins to circulate.
Governments have put the economy into anesthetic sleep with the promise that after the wake- up call, the economy will flourish again as before. This is the greatest lie of the many lies that governments in many countries pronounce in unison. The damage is already done. People will awake in a different economy and society, at least when the flow of government subsidies of unemployment will stop.
Trust is easy to destroy and difficult to re-establish. Several limbs of the economy will remain numb and only recover after a long period of convalescence, while other portions of the economy are lost forever and, like amputated body parts, will never grow back. Empty shelves may become a reality.
As if the destruction of the economy would not be enough, governments also promise to take care of the patient with a monetary avalanche. This way, a financial crisis will follow the current economic crisis.
The stooped public praises government for taking care and but people seem to ignore that what they get with this state-sponsored money creation is hyperinflation along with the depression. First, you lose your job because of the economic depression, then you lose your savings, in case you have any left, because of the inflation.
Governments have produced destruction so wide and so deep that the survival of many people around the world is at risk. Even if the rate of lethality COVID-19 should be in the upper range of what is (probably wrongly) expected by the official and semi-official bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO), the number of persons who will die because of the governmental measures will get much higher.
By implementing measures that weaken the immunity of the people, governments are producing the disaster they claim to prevent. In a free society, people would not rely on the state to fight infection but strengthen their individual immune system. This way, infections would become rarer and for those who become ill, the chance of survival would increase.
With months into the crisis, governments are still unwilling or unable to justify their deeds with trustworthy facts and data. Politicians know that to hang on to wrong decisions is better than to admit errors. In their ruthless way, politicians ignore the damage done by the control measures but act like hard-nosed criminals and refuse to confess and correct their wrongdoing even as the harm of their actions becomes obvious.
The handling of the pandemic was not a triumph of politics. On the contrary, the policy of lockdowns was one its darkest hours. There was no flattening of the curve as promised and several of the places with the most severe restrictions were also those with the highest rates of casualties. A free society would have done better. There would have been no lockdowns or quarantines. In a free society, with the emphasis on strengthening immunity, the number of infections would have been lower and the disease milder.