It doesn’t take long to be criticized for asking questions about Covid-19. While classic definitions of science and logical principle always involve such investigation, blindly parroting the narratives of state-embedded mass communication outlets and desperately shaming others does not. “We have a responsibility to society” is a common retort to Covid skeptics, leveraged by the rising class of ‘social distance warriors’ so afraid of this new disease they’d happily crush the individual rights and livelihoods of everyone else. Well, *they* wouldn’t. They’re not bold or brave enough for that. Their weapon is the state, and a phone call or text tip to the agents thereof.

Before demonizing this crowd too much, it is critical to point out that their desire to see more state force leveraged against individuals not aligned with official narratives often comes from a place of real fear, and not outright malice. In short, many of these folks believe they are actually doing good by compromising the freedom of others. That makes the mistaken and dangerous faith they hold all the more scary: it is now accompanied by a feeling of moral superiority and ‘righteous indignation.’ In light of this, it’s important to lay out clearly and logically why the ‘responsibility to society’ narrative, which is absent of a foundational and primary respect for individual self-ownership, is bullshit.

There Is No Society Without the Individual

The individual is more or less a concrete matter. Society is not. I can touch my body, feel my needs, and move around to alter reality in various ways to help myself and others survive and thrive. Society, however, is an amorphous abstraction. It comprises individuals, and does not exist without them. So when my critic tells me I must #stayhome because I have a responsibility to this abstraction, what does that mean, specifically? Those individuals who support taking sensible precaution against disease, but disagree on what constitutes such precaution — should their voices be considered ‘not society’ as they lose their jobs and the ability to care for themselves or their families and dependents? I should like to reply: ‘Am I not part of society, then? What of your responsibility to my rights?’ Of course such pleas are rejected on the grounds that one man does not equate to all of society. But if one individual is not integral to society, the question then becomes how many it takes, and the whole sophist ruse unravels shortly thereafter.

Voluntary responsibility to one’s society and community can of course be a great and wonderful thing. Indispensable, actually. The problem starts when forced collectivism enters. To demonstrate this, a thought exercise might help.

Imagine that your neighbors get together and decide everyone in the area must contribute to a defense fund for buying weapons and hiring defense personnel. There’s a religious cult on the area that has radicalized. Many, many people begin to fear the cult may even become violent. What’s more, the mainstream news in the area says the cult has plans to begin attacking houses. When the knocking for support comes to your door, however, you politely decline. You’ve known of the local group for years, and while wacky and suspicious, don’t see them as an actual violent threat to your life or safety. You give your reasons and calmly explain your rationale to the donation seeker. They look at you as if you’ve got two heads, and slowly back away as you close the door. As word spreads, one by one your neighbors become absolutely incensed you ‘refuse to support’ the cause and begin formulating ways to take physical action. Another knock on the door.

Now the request for support has turned into a vaguely defined, yet obviously clear, ultimatum. Either put forth the money, or the surrounding individuals may have to take more ‘serious action.’ When pressed for details on this, the collector alludes to forfeiting one’s house for the safety of the greater community. You detail that you have your own gun, are equipped enough to protect yourself, and even the houses around you, should anything happen. The donation seeker reiterates that ‘we are all in this together’ and cannot understand why you want to ‘risk the lives of the community.’ You politely but firmly decline again. The collector leaves. Early the next morning, police are at your door, and you are arrested for your irresponsible act of endangering society.

The Individual is the Crux, and the Answer

The problem with the neighbors’ logic in the above scenario is the same problem with that of the radicalized Covid-19 stay-at-homers. Your house is your house. Not theirs. This is because your body is your body, and that body is what was used to acquire the house legitimately (in non-violence). A direct, objective connection of property. Your body is proper to you. When it comes to another individual’s body, only that individual has the biological, naturally occurring, direct executive capacity for deciding how it will be used, locomoted, treated, cared for, and leveraged. Claiming ownership over the bodies of others is, of course, making oneself a literal slave master. Further, insofar as someone threatens the safety of your body or property by aggressing against you, they have forfeited their own right to demand you respect their self-ownership, and self-defense is opened as a legitimate option.

A fearful Covid-19 warrior might object that my leaving home to work a “non-essential” job or watch the sunset at the beach violates their body by adding to the likelihood a deadly virus may spread. And I could argue back that I need to make money to eat or I could die, that the statistics are overblown, or that without that sunset my PTSD might just become too much to bear, and I don’t want to commit suicide. Who is right? Do you see the problem now? Whether or not the information about the virus is accurate, or I would actually commit suicide is not the problem. The problem is an anti-concept. Namely: “Public property.” If I am an owner of a public space, and so are you, a disagreement about its usage results in an impasse. I want to drive to work on that road. You don’t want me to. We both “own” it.

The reason the individual — and by extension private property based on individual self-ownership — is critical, crucial, to the peaceful function of society, is precisely because there are times humans simply cannot agree, and yet need to continue living in relative non-violence (civilized society). Statism and forced collectivism are the mistaken assumptions that everyone *must* agree on everything, otherwise centralized, legal threats of violence must be initiated. This is the simple and breathtaking flaw in evil concepts such as democracy, which when boiled down, is nothing more than a sanitized way to say ‘mob rule.’

The Tragic Results of Collectivist Thinking

Record high unemployment claims, MSM predictions of mass child starvation in developing countries, affirmation of a staggering recession and a coming Modern Great Depression, not to mention the starvation, poverty, suicide and misery that have already kicked off due to this ‘war’ against an invisible enemy, covid-19, show one thing. The social distance warriors don’t actually care too much about society or the greater good, themselves.

To add insult to injury, all this supposed preventative action has been done by force, instead of simply allowing individual self-owners to decide whether or not — and to what degree — they believe the threat is dangerous to them, and how to take action. If you don’t want me in your house or business, that is fine. I will of course respect your wish. It is your private property connected to the self-ownership of your body. I do not own you. The moment you try to control my body, however, and stop me from moving by calling in armed agents against me, you’ve signaled you have zero respect for civil society’s very foundations and also its smallest minority: the individual.

The individual asks you, social distance warriors and law enforcer: since you’ve now closed my libraries, public parks, and other facilities I am extorted by taxes to pay for, and have crushed my very means to livelihood and demanded control over my very movements, to please exempt me from your sociopathic system — even to exile me somewhere I can just be left alone. You laugh.

The individual cannot leave. I have to pay taxes. I was born into a ‘social contract.’ It is my responsibility to society, even in the absence of any service rendered, or any reciprocal civility, to remain and continue hemorrhaging value and quality of life, lifelessly playing along with the violent scam. If I do not comply, you will happily have me fined, caged or killed. Because ‘society’ agrees it should be so.  But that is incorrect, actually. Society does not agree, because I do not agree. You do not respect society, otherwise you would consider the rights of others in your society. No, you revere and neurotically fellate the *individuals* who control society by force, known as the state, because you haven’t found the courage, self-value, logic and resolve to lead and take responsibility for your own self, life and body. You wish to continue in a violent cowardice. Go ahead, do so. It is your right to choose. But leave the individual out of your  pathetic delusion, or prepare to face a forceful, formidable, and potentially lethal resistance.