It has surprised me in 2020 how easily Americans surrendered personal liberty because of a virus. From this time forward, any time politicians or bureaucrats want greater control over the populace, should we expect to hear about a new deadly disease to scare the people into giving up more liberty?

There tend to be two camps with regard to the coronavirus.  There is one camp of people who think the virus is incredibly serious and much more dangerous than anything we have dealt with in the last hundred years.  They tend to believe most of what the establishment media tells them. This group also tends to favor government lockdowns and mask mandates.

The other camp thinks the hype over the virus is vastly overblown.  They don’t believe everything the so-called mainstream media tells them.  There are widely varying opinions on the seriousness of the coronavirus, but this camp generally thinks it is not as serious as what is being told to them by the establishment media.  This group tends to oppose government lockdowns and mask mandates.

As with most things, there are nuances.  I know of a few people who thought the virus was incredibly serious and far more dangerous than a typical flu.  Yet, they opposed all government lockdowns or any other infringements on liberty in the name of fighting the virus.

I don’t know of anyone who thinks the coronavirus isn’t a big deal but favors government lockdowns and mask mandates.  I’m sure there are politicians and bureaucrats who fit in this category because they just want more power and control, but they are lying.  They are not publicly saying that the virus isn’t a big deal. They are saying it is a big deal so that they can implement their controls over people.

Trusting the Establishment Media

I believe the number one reason I have withstood much of the propaganda is because I don’t trust the establishment media.  Actually, it goes beyond that.  I tend to believe the opposite of what is said until I can verify otherwise.

These are the same people who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  These are the same people who said that our houses would be underwater due to climate change.  These are the same people who said that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.  These are the same people who said that Trump colluded with Russia and that Russia hacked the DNC email server.  These are the same people who are now telling us that the Russians paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers.

The establishment media continually lies.  Perhaps even worse, they often present facts without telling the whole story and presenting the whole picture.  They will also cite each other as sources after the original source is based on “an anonymous member of an intelligence agency” or something to that effect.  They also like to cite “studies” that favor their agenda while ignoring others that do not.

When the media started hyping up the virus in late February and early March, I knew not to believe anything said unless I could verify it otherwise.

Back in February, Trump said that the virus in China wasn’t that big of a deal and that Americans should go about their lives.  As soon as he said that, I think it was over.  The establishment that so dearly hates Trump was going to make sure to have him eat his words.  At that point, they were determined to make the coronavirus as bad as possible.

This was the first trick against Trump that really worked.  It took Trump down a few notches.  It also destroyed the economy, which was the main issue that Trump was going to promote in the 2020 election.  The coronavirus and the media’s hype of it did to Trump what Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and everything else failed to accomplish.

Statistics

There was another reason that I never bought into the propaganda about the coronavirus. I can read statistics.

I never believed the modeling.  The models were as reliable as the models used to tell us rising sea levels will put a large chunk of the U.S. underwater in the next few decades.  I don’t care about some hack who says that 2 million people in the U.S. could die of coronavirus based on his phony modeling.

But the statistics were faulty from the beginning.  They were saying that the mortality rate was probably between 2 and 4 percent.  I knew this was bogus. This isn’t how they measure the mortality rate of the flu each year.  With the flu, they make a projection of how many people had the flu.  It isn’t based on positive results.  You can’t just take the number of people who died with the coronavirus divided by the number of people who tested positive for it.

When the 2 to 4 percent mortality rate was being cited, it was based on what was happening in China. Aside from that, it is faulty statistics.  The people testing positive were the people who tended to be the most ill.  So of course the death rate will look high when the total sample of the population is very sick to begin with.

In a typical flu season in the U.S., you might only have a couple hundred thousand people actually test positive for the flu.  But they may project that, say, 30 million Americans actually had it because most people with the flu just stay home and never get tested.  That is how the mortality rate is calculated. In the case of the coronavirus, they were just taking the total deaths divided by those who tested positive.

I figured this out from the beginning.  Why were no other media outlets reporting it this way?  It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure this out.

What to Believe

It is hard to know what is true any longer.  We have been sold so many lies; I can’t even discount some of the seemingly more far-fetched theories out there.

I am quite certain that the death counts have been vastly overstated.  Just because you test positive for coronavirus and you die, it doesn’t mean you died due to the coronavirus.

I don’t trust the case numbers.  They are not counted consistently, and you don’t necessarily have to test positive for the virus to be considered a “case”.

There are theories out there that this virus was made in a lab.  It could have even come from the U.S. government.  I have even read people claiming the whole virus is fake.  In the case of some New York City hospitals, it looks like some people would feel sick and test positive for the virus, or even not test positive.  They would go into the hospital with a panic attack, and the doctors would drug them up and throw them on ventilators to die.  I strongly believe that regardless of the details, people were essentially being murdered in New York City, and likely elsewhere.

There are major questions surrounding testing.  How accurate are the tests for coronavirus?  What about the reliability of anti-body tests?

There are doctors who say that hydroxychloroquine has been very beneficial for coronavirus patients, while others say it is ineffective or even dangerous, especially since Trump has advocated its use.

In addition to all this, we are told to listen to the epidemiologists.  But really, they just want you to listen to the epidemiologists who will tell you the establishment-approved opinion. There are epidemiologists who don’t think the coronavirus is more serious than a regular flu.  There are epidemiologists who don’t think there should be government lockdowns.  But you don’t hear from these people, unless you search them out on your own.

“Expert” doctors give us conflicting information all the time.  That is the case in many fields.  So how is anyone supposed to know what is true?

Knowing Principles Without Knowing Facts

Although we can’t rely on “experts”, we can rely on a foundation of principles.  In this case, I refer to the non-aggression principle (the NAP).  Most libertarians should be familiar with it.

I have my own nuances with the NAP.  This is why I actually favor the Libertarian Party pledge.  Unfortunately, many members of the Libertarian Party don’t seem to follow it.

I believe there may be some rare circumstances where you could conceivably use aggression at least somewhat justifiably.  It isn’t to say it is moral or immoral.  I have used an example of where you are stuck in the middle of a desert and dying of thirst.  There is one person who has hundreds of bottles of water, but he won’t let you have any.  I would probably violate the non-aggression principle and take enough water to survive and be willing to face the consequences of violating someone else’s property rights.

Again, this is an extraordinary example that isn’t likely to ever happen.  In almost all cases, it is safe to stick by the NAP.

What has happened in 2020 is a good example of why it is important to have a foundation of principles – in this case, the NAP.

You don’t have to figure out which experts to trust.  You don’t have to figure out the seriousness of the virus and whether the testing is accurate.  You don’t have to figure out whether the death count is vastly overstated. You just have to understand the NAP.  From there, it is obvious that there should be no government lockdowns, or government mask mandates, or any other government orders.

Notice that the people who oppose lockdowns are almost never imposing their view on others.  I haven’t heard anybody say that a sick or elderly person has to go out shopping.  I haven’t heard anybody say that you are forbidden from wearing a mask (although this used to be the policy of most banks).  Anyone who thinks the virus is incredibly dangerous is free to self-quarantine and take any other measures necessary that don’t violate the rights of others.

To be sure, you still have to make assessments for yourself and your family.  You have to decide if you want to wear a mask. You have to decide if you want to socially distance from others.  You have to decide if you want to eat at a restaurant.  It would also be up to business owners to decide on any policies for their customers.  I may elect not to shop at a business that mandates a mask, but it would be the business’s right to implement such a policy for its customers.

If we had a free market without government interference with voluntary decisions, things would work so much better.  Even if I thought most people were paranoid for nothing, it would tend to resolve itself quickly.

Again, anyone who wants to stay at home is free to continue to do so.  In the meantime, allow people who are willing to bear more risk to go out and do what they want on a voluntary basis.  If anything, this would build up herd immunity faster, and it would be the people willing to take the risk who would lead the way.

The NAP is not a magic bullet that cures all problems in society.  We still have to make personal judgments.  We have to decide which “experts” we are going to listen to.  But with the NAP, it vastly reduces conflict, and it allows society to voluntarily find solutions to problems without imposing on everyone else.