There’s a reason I keep coming back to two themes. One is the non-aggression principle and the other is Bastiat’s seen vs. the unseen. Here’s a good example of why I’m so obsessed with these two ideas. Watching this is, quite frankly, infuriating. 

If you don’t have time to watch the entire video, just watch it from 53:45 thru 55:22. Francis Collins admits that they didn’t even consider the negative consequences of their actions. It is truly pathetic. Even if their actions created massive collateral damage, they didn’t consider it and didn’t care.

When you combine a violation of the non-aggression principle with someone who’s completely ignorant about the seen vs. unseen, you get some truly horrific results. The entire Covid-19 debacle is as good of a case study as you’re ever likely to see. And the outcome was entirely predictable from day one. Covid-19 was actually a good test to see if people understood either of these two ideas. Anyone who was in favor of lockdowns, at any time, clearly failed the test.

When this entire Covid-19 debacle began, it was completely obvious to me, and anyone else who understands the non-aggression principle, that the government was going to do way more harm than good. The reason was obvious: there was no possible way that anyone, no how matter how intelligent or well-intentioned they were, could possibly have enough information, not so much about the virus, but more importantly, about the infinitely complex circumstances of eight billion people in the universe, to create a net positive outcome with the initiation of aggression. 

There was no possible way that anyone, especially the government, could know what the second, third, and fourth order effects were going to be from their initiation of aggression. And make no mistake about it, the government clearly violated the only legitimate function of government: the prevention of the initiation of aggression. They became the very thing they were supposed to protect against. They became a monster, initiating aggression on a massive scale.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, most of these people refuse to accept that they were wrong for supporting lockdowns and the censorship of people opposed to them. This is not complicated. If you were ever in favor of lockdowns you were wrong. If you were ever in favor of censorship and violating free speech, you were wrong. History could not be any more clear on this. You didn’t understand the complexities of human action and you can’t be trusted to ever again be in a position of authority.

People in favor of censorship were the bad guys. Just like every other time for thousands of years. Whenever someone wants to censor free speech, they are, by definition, the bad guys. I mean, can we at least agree on this? How pathetic is it that this is even up for debate?

How far have we strayed from the advice of the Founders regarding the importance of free speech?

For example, Thomas Jefferson concludes his Religious Freedom Bill with words expressing his unshakeable faith in the power of reasoned debate to distinguish truth from error, words that are inscribed in marble on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington: “truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.”

Thank goodness we still have a Bill of Rights in this country. It is shocking how few people actually believe in these rights, especially people in government.