The COVID 19 Biosecurity State vs Inalienable Rights

COVID 19 has created the fledgling biosecurity state. Your inalienable rights are being ignored. In order to understand this we need to define these terms.

According to the philosopher Giorgio Agamben the biosecurity state is one based upon your behavioural obligation. In the biosecurity state the individual can no longer reasonably expect public health protection from the state. This part of the so called “social contract” has been removed.

Instead, public health is your obligation and you must follow your orders to ”stay safe”. You can no longer be a healthy person but are rather a potential bio-hazard. Everyone is seen as a lethal threat to everyone else. Therefore, you must do as the state commands for the good of all. If you don’t, you are an unacceptable risk and a possible bio-terrorist.

This concept is perfect for tyrants and megalomaniacs. It allows them to claim legitimacy for ignoring your inalienable rights. You have to follow the orders, that they decide upon, for the good of all. Dictatorships usually start with a claim that the individual must change their behaviour for the public good.

Who can argue that the policy response to COVID 19 has not created exactly this kind of biosecurity state? It has fundamentally changed your relationship with government. They no longer serve you but rather you serve their agenda. They determine what you must do for the good of all. That is a considerable degree of trust to place in politicians.

There is often a lot of confusion about inalienable rights and how they differ from human rights. Human rights are determined by politicians and written down on paper. As human beings wrote them, human beings can change them.

Human rights determine what you are allowed to do. They are essentially permits.

Inalienable rights were not created by human beings and human beings cannot rescind them. All politicians can do is ignore them and abuse you in contravention of your inalienable rights. Unlike human rights (permits) they are real rights.

Rights are nothing but inalienable rights. Everything else called a right is simply a government allowance. Allowances afforded to us by the authorities. The history of human rights is the history of permits.

Rights do not come from humans. They come from Natural Law. Some might choose to call this God’s Law, but worshipping a deity isn’t necessary. Though if it causes no harm, worshipping deities is a right.

Inalienable rights (all rights) come from Natural Law, which is the truth. Natural law defines the universe and all things in it, including all of us. It is the the law of creation and of destruction.

Natural Law is universal order. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the law of consequences. Just as the planets and atoms obey this law, so do our actions.

Whatever we do has consequences. As the universe seeks balance between forces so it dictates biological balance on a micro and macro scale. Biological order (consequences) are inherent to everything we do on an individual and societal level.

The only conscious acts that are unlawful, under Natural Law, are to cause harm, loss, or act dishonourably in a contract with another human being (or to cause unnecessary harm to any conscious being). This is disorderly and unbalances the natural order. The consequences may be severe.

This defines what is right and what is wrong.

Everything that is right is A Right. Everything which is wrong is Not A Right. Morality has nothing to do with it. Natural Law is not moral. It doesn’t care about us. It is not compassionate. It just is.

If a child wanders in front of a bus, Natural Law will dictate if the child lives or dies. It doesn’t care what happens to the child it only defines the laws of consequence. We have absolutely no say in it at all. It just is. It is the undeniable truth.

If the bus drivers was drunk and could otherwise have avoided the child, but didn’t, then a wrong has been committed. The bus driver is wrong. They have no right to consciously cause harm (even by negligence.)

I can stick a needle in my arm because I am not harming anyone but myself. This is my right because I have a right of sovereignty over my own body. It is right.

I cannot stick a needle in someone else’s arm (without their consent) because that is wrong, and it is not my right. If I forcibly injected them I would have not only caused harm but also loss via theft of their right.

The only responsibilities or “obligations” we have are to cause neither harm nor loss nor act dishonourably. There are no other responsibilities or obligations.

Under the law of the universe (Natural Law) the imposition by government of obligations is wrong. Their demands that we must obey their rules is wrong. Their claim that they have authority over us is wrong. They have no right at all.

Speak soon.