Political Risk Avoidance Approach is a model (pattern of thinking and behaving) that has been developed organically by previous generations. It requires a brief risk assessment and balancing the amount of risks taken versus the benefits of taking the risks in each given situation. This way of thinking has been organically implemented in children’s education through natural parenting; sayings and proverbs have been for a long time now seeds of truth that were repeated to children by their parents throughout the day. Without knowing, through education, the parents were forming a strong foundation for a risk-avoidance approach to life. As a consequence, the actions that seemed to be risky were naturally avoided by the young ones. Sayings like “Don’t run with scissors!” or “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.” or “Actions speak louder than words.” or “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” have been laying the foundation for deeper truths and concepts for the young ones to build their lives on. These proverbs were passed on as universally true principles, rather than circumstantial approaches to life.
However, in the second half of the 20th century, the idea of “circumstantial morality” or “moral relativism” started to emerge as a new way of thinking. This way of thinking basically eliminates risk assessment from the process of taking a decision and it emphasizes the emotional response of a person to a particular situation as the sole compass for taking a decision. For instance, when it comes to running with scissors, a proverb impregnated by circumstantial morality would sound like along these lines: “Don’t run with scissors if you feel running with scissors will hurt you. If you don’t feel it will hurt you, do what you wish.” Or, “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush only if you feel like you really don’t stand a chance to catch the two in the bush.” – when in fact, a bird in the hand is definitely more valuable than two birds that are promised but not captured yet regardless how lucky one might *feel* – because feelings are not facts.
And now that we are facing a pandemic of large proportions, our circumstantial morality will lead us into a snare. What we fail to understand is that moral behavior cannot be legalized but it can be taught by popular wisdom. Likewise, immoral behavior cannot be criminalized – as much as we would hope it would become punishable one day. Whenever immoral behavior becomes the object of a law, it leads to tyranny because morality has to do with individual convictions and legislation has to do with control of the actions of the masses.
Morality is not circumstantial, it is built on moral absolutes that are immovable. Culture and legislation are not always related to morality and they cannot replace morality. For instance, it is perfectly legal (nowadays) for partners to cheat on each other in a marriage. However, it is not moral for them to do so. There are no legal consequences to cheating on a partner unless there is a prenuptial agreement – but there is no specific law prohibiting partners to cheat on each other. The culture seems to encourage it, not only to accept it.
What we see happening with this pandemic is that there is an increasing number of people and an outcry from the corrupted media to pursue different governors to force a lock-down on the U.S. citizens.
Morally speaking, in case of a pandemic, everyone should exercise common sense and refrain from attending public meetings or going to the shops for non-vital shopping. Amazon is still functioning and although online delivery time has been delayed with a few good days, online shopping is a great option for non-essential purchases.
A forced quarantine shouldn’t happen because it infringes on multiple rights of free people. People should be told the truth, explained the consequences and then allowed to take their own decisions. If they choose to be unwise about this whole situation, they need to be allowed to be unwise. – But the media sources don’t even agree on what the truth really is. It is really hard to inform people the truth if the truth is the only thing that is not being said in the news, isn’t it?
Do free people have the right to be unwise? Yes, they do. Freedom means that regardless what the consequence of one’s action is, it’s on them. The government and the society is not supposed to cater to those who deliberately expose themselves to risks, nor should the government ever try to legislate wisdom or morality. Wisdom and morality are personal rights and responsibilities, they should be taught but not imposed.
When an entire society is at the point where they are asking the government to force mandatory lock-down on another group of people, we are at the dawn of a very dangerous new political era. Every tyranny starts with the “good intentions” for safety, prosperity and well-being for all of us, and it always leads to the prosperity for a very few who are oppressing different groups for different reasons.
Even if such an immoral order for moral does come to be, we need to understand that the virus cannot be stopped. We WILL all get it sooner or later and no, there is no way of not catching it. Even the CDC says that. Butchering the economy and weakening personal freedom and rights even further will not prevent anyone from getting it. We need to accept the fact that we will all get it, we need to be brave, and live our lives as free people – however long or short they might be. The quality and value of life is more important than its length.
The current political and economical fallout swings the door wide open to future abuses of power. Footage from the 2005 Hurricane Katrina is still available online to observe. L.E. officers went door-to-door in Louisiana to forcibly relocate the unwilling and to confiscate their firearms. In retrospect, most officers are saying that they didn’t realize what they were actually doing when they were disarming citizens without due process.
Even though this virus cannot be stopped and there is no practical way to prevent the spread, people will chose – based on a set of circumstantial moral beliefs – to mandate vaccination. It will be a false sense of security and it will carry a lot of health risks to which many will not want to subject themselves to. The vaccine could be required in order for people to travel, work and participate in society. The WA state law has been already calibrated in such a way that vaccination cannot easily be refused any longer. Just as lock-downs have failed and keep failing at stopping the virus from spreading – yet they keep being used and pushed as trustworthy tools -, vaccines will be viewed as the next best option in spite of the fact that they will not have enough time to test them properly and purify them.
But it is not the virus that is leading the US into a snare like a bird. It is the lack of absolute moral values and the lack of risk avoidance thinking. It is a risk-reduction thinking. “Let’s reduce the risk of dying of Corona at any cost!” – and the government seems to be the one deciding what the right cost for not dying of Corona is, as if the government can actually control the virus. It is also the arrogance of a nation that has never been enslaved to dare to imagine that its slavery yoke would be way lighter than the slavery yoke that other nations have endured, that will lead America to collapse. “Not to us, nobody would dare to make US slaves. We are Americans, we are free!” – Well… not by default, we are not free. Freedom is not free – freedom is expensive. One of the prices that it requires is for people to be willing to draw the line and say “No.” – but it seems like the political and economical waters are so muddied that people are no longer willing – or able? – to say no.