THE COVID PROBLEM IN A FREE SOCIETY.

  

As I said once (http://gzanotti.blogspot.com/2021/01/el-orden-espontaneo-y-el-covid-19.html) the debate on Covid-19 is not medical: it is a debate of political philosophy, which shows in a dramatic way to what extent the premises of a free society have been forgotten in the West.

 

Suppose I said that from the beginning there were alternative treatments against Covid 19, such as Ivermectin or Chlorine Hydroxide, and with that many inconveniences would have been avoided.

 

Then the usual would happen. Doctors turned into the experts of governments, and governments would say back that these treatments are ineffective, that they are almost prohibited and I have no right to spread false information.

 

So I would try to say no, that it is the opposite, that they are effective, and the falsehood is on the other side.

 

The point that is forgotten there is that in a free society, people should freely decide their medical treatment, because the freedoms of association, expression, conscience, etc., include the risk of being wrong. Governments are not there to protect us from our mistakes, but to protect freedoms [1].

 

And that is precisely what is denied in this paroxysm of statism that has been experienced throughout the world for many decades now: the immorality and inefficiency, at the same time, of the “protective State”.

 

But there are many more things denied or forgotten.

 

In a free society, everyone decides what they consider to be true or false. Freedom of expression is not the freedom to disseminate true information, it is the freedom to decide on it, fallibly, and express it without prior censorship by the State.

 

Therefore, in a free society, there are discussions about what is "false information".

 

In addition, that is the only way to increase the truth in the face of fallibility: free discussion, critical thinking. Even those of us who consider that God has revealed the truth for our salvation, consider it a grave sin to try to impose the truth by force.

 

Interestingly, the term salvation comes from Salus, salutis, this is health. Before, health was the salvation of the soul, and it was about imposing by force. Now health is that of the body, whose saving means are tried to impose by force. Feyerabend wonders: what has changed?

 

Same with quarantines. If some consider that not only the sick, but the healthy (this includes the free debate about what is health, disease, etc.) should quarantine, in a free society, each person and each institution, each legal entity, will decide, and we'll see what happens to free quarantine competition.

 

Same with vaccines. In a free society, there are free and voluntary arrangements on public goods and externalities (damages to third parties). In 1940, in Textas, if some owner of a bar decided that blacks did not enter, they did not enter. It was wrong, it was nonsense, but it was his property. Now the same. If any owner of a bar or whatever decides that the vaccinated do not enter, let him decide, but there should be free competition in this regard.

 

In a free society, moreover, negative externalities are not decided by an order from a State (https://feylibertad.org/2021/08/las-externalidades-no-son-una-buena-excusa-para- the-compulsory-vaccination /) There are many things that others do that can be potentially dangerous for us, from driving to going out without tasking a bath, and for this reason, there is no damage to the property of others: in any case, there must be a lawsuit and a judicial resolution. But, back, if various institutions want to demand compulsory vaccination, let them do it [2]. We will see what happens: they will be faced with lawsuits from their employees, with strikes, or with consumer boycotts. And we'll see it. The point is that there is no order from any State. This is how a free society works.

 

For the rest, in a free society, with a judicial system that works, a mandatory vaccination order can face various lawsuits: discrimination (which includes a debate on the property), violation of the right to medical secrecy, or violation of the right to not receive forced medical treatment. And we'll see it.

 

From the beginning, the management of this issue has implied the paroxysm of Soviet planning, from the state downwards, which is a political conception of health that has failed and is inexorably failing, because all centralized planning fails (Mises, Hayek, etc. .). Therefore, the WHO issuing orders and governments obeying and planning is not only a violation of freedoms but also a total inefficiency: because just as a free market is the only thing that guarantees a product with higher quality and lower price, a free medicine would have implied a trend towards the discovery of the best treatment, call it Ubiprofen, Ivermectin or Chinese medicine [3].

 

The interesting thing is that many doctors, especially those whose opinion becomes government mandates, are going to say: everything you are saying is nonsense, I do not agree. But for what biological reason do you disagree? What biological reasons do you have for opposing a free society? None. He is opposed because he is a supporter of a planned society with the elimination of individual freedoms. So, doctor, that's called political philosophy. Come on, have a peer-to-peer debate with me. No? Don't you come down to debate with non-doctors, and wants to shut up the doctor who thinks differently? Well, mister doctor, your problem is not medical. It is called acute Statism and the treatment is Hayekol1000 mg two per day.

 

Doctors, "experts", virologists, epidemiologists: the debate is not biological. It is political. Most of you are full-blooded totalitarians as well-intentioned as farm owners who treated their slaves well.

 

May History forgives them and may the banality of evil have mercy on their souls.

-------------------------------

[1] To protect ourselves from ourselves, in a non-coercive way, there is the friend, the priest, the psychologist, etc., whose advice we take freely. That is NOT the State.

 

[2] Of course, I consider it nonsense with no medical foundation whatsoever.

 

[3] Any doctor may disagree with the theory of the market as a process, developed by Mises, Hayek, and Israel Kirzner. Ok, but he/she´s debating economics, not medicine.