Form: Argument

NATURAL LAW ON THE VACCINE

Natural Law: If you demand a vaccine against the individual’s will, the organization making that demand involuntarily insures the individual against any and all harms resulting from it: lifetime damages. This is the ONLY empirical test of the veracity of mandates.

This is the answer to all claims: due diligence, warranty, and liability. This is the answer to all concerns. If the organization will not issue this warranty, under this liability, then they have demonstrated their truthful judgment.

Then the opposite is true. (Smallpox, Measles, Polio) Because then by refusal you are warrantying others against the harm you cause them. And individual ability to issue such a warranty is (all but) impossible other than by self sequestration.

I’m not anti-vaxx. I’m just stating the Natural Law. And explaining why the natural law serves as the only epistemic means of testing someone’s or some group’s claims of the safety of a vaccine (or any other product, service, or idea).

The risks of harm from this set of vaccines is vanishingly small – down in the .02% range, and seemingly because it exposes existing but invisible conditions, and long term harms seem to be in single digits because of this. But it is vanishingly small for precisely those people least likely to suffer negative effects from Covid-19. And it is only terminal for those people whose trajectory is already terminal due to excessive comorbidities.

Under these conditions (which we have enough empirical evidence now to judge) the Natural Law solution is to sequester those who are high risk, and their care-takers, and not the entire economy and polity. (Which was what we recommended from the beginning).

However, the issue was politicized by (a) ‘positioning by the trump administration to limit economic harms (he was correct). (b) positioning by the left-opposition to dramatize the case in order to create economic harms to prevent trump’s re-election (c) the unpreparedness of the american and world health institutions because of their malincentives. (d) the demand by the neurotic, feminine, because they are terribly fearful (e) the demand to treat everyone equally despite this is an old-age, and unfit-comorbid people disease. (f) Failure to sequester the unfit, comorbid, and their caretaking hierarchy. and the list could go on forever.

By politiiczing theissue, they converted it from a scientific to a moral issue, and once that’s happened both sides double down on their moral panic.

This is bad government.

Be careful what you say.
It’s my body I can do what I want: Seduction.
It’s my polity I can do what I want: Force.
The only solution is suppression of our weapons of anti-social behavior. Men devote aggression to sport, biz, war.
Women devote aggression to beauty, family, society

The polity is the male means of reproductive control.
The body is the female means of reproductive control.
This reciprocity has made our evolution possible despite the vast differences in our reproductive interests and resulting cognitive, emotional, and instinctual differences.

In this sense, females are reproductively individualistic but socially egalitarian, and males are reproductively egalitarian and socially individualistic.

These are the necessary differences that require amelioration by reciprocity (Trade) rather than service of either exterme.

We are just ‘liberating’ sex differences in instincts by not making use of the period of malleability to compromise between the sexes that should and does maximize in the teens.

We are delaying our period of marriage to the point of exhaustion of our adaptability without recognizing that the utility of early marrage between supporting extended families maximizes our adaptation to one another with minimum ‘bait’ into selfishness.