Utilitarian Arguments Against Covid Mandates
Is the 'resistance' using counter arguments that miss the point?
In one of his recent videos, Russell Brand argues the same way that so many others do: masks don’t work, lockdowns harmed, jabs maimed, therefore restrictions are pointless and ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.
But these types of arguments employ a utilitarian logic that can easily be reversed, and then used to justify technocratic decisions that either strip us of liberty, or ‘grant’ us our liberty based on the outcomes.
But, as Bruce Pardy repeatedly argues, covid mandates are wrong because of the coercion they employ, and not simply because the outcomes were undesirable.
Below are two videos that explore this theme.
“Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another. Free action, in which a person pursues his own aims by the means indicated by his own knowledge, must be based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another.” -Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
A podcast that discusses this all in depth: Is There Such A Thing as Objective Morality? | Bruce Pardy & Kate Wand | Liberty Curious
Robert Malone says "where there is risk, there must be choice".
No, Bob, there must be choice regardless of risk. You can't consent to something if you can't say no.
I suppose you could argue that everything has some level of risk, of course.