Ideas about liberty have evolved, thankfully.
Egas Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, received a Nobel Prize for performing lobotomies on his vulnerable, unconsenting psychiatric patients—or victims. Today, he is the just recipient of the contempt of decent mental-health practitioners. (Those who do not hold him in contempt are not decent.)
The same fate may await Alan Dershowitz’s status as a constitutional scholar for his coronavirus jurisprudence. Dershowitz has stated that the State has the power of precedent to drag you to a doctor’s office and plunge a vaccine-filled syringe into your veins.
Inconvenienced Vs. Violated
Contra Dershowitz’s forced-vaccination violence, and contrary to the opinions of many of my friends on the Right, social distancing and masking are mere inconveniences. They are not rights-infringing. Being inconvenienced is not the same as being unfree.
That you are asked to sanitize, suite-up and give people space means only that you are inconvenienced. That you are being requested not to encroach upon others—not to rub-up against them, or expel sputum on them: This is but an inconvenience.
In the context of a pandemic, these are quotidian requests, to be associated with civility and comity. They crimp your style, not your rights. The thing that infringes on your natural rights to sustain life and liberty is the lockdown.
Sequestering you so that you cannot feed yourself and your dependents is a violation of both natural and constitutional rights.
But prevention? Please!
Prevention is about delayed gratification. When you go out on the town or to work, you have to make an effort to protect others.
After all, isn’t asking members of society to cover-up and keep a distance as non-invasive as a request can get? Give it some thought.
Real men use prophylactics: Remember that ad campaign? …