Note: Presented here is the third in a series of articles on the current corona crisis afflicting our nation; a crisis that has been used to justify the crashing of our economy and the suspension of our First Amendment Rights. In this article I take a deeper look at why the “stay at home , non-essential worker and social distancing” orders being enforced on us are, in my opinion, so oppressive and should be revoked immediately. Please read on…MA

______________________________

A while back I stumbled across a short video on You Tube in which popular television personality Mike Rowe was asked for his take on the Covid 19 lockdown in his home state of California. His response was illuminating: “Exploring the unintended consequences of ‘safety first culture’ through the lens of the quarantine,“ Rowe said, “was to me a very interesting rumination; because we can be a safety-first country, but only for very, very short periods of time; and then we’re reminded that the chief goal of living is not to merely stay alive, at least not for most people.”

Mr. Rowe, I realized on watching the video, is a much wiser man than I thought he was; for his observation is profound. Not the same as merely existing or being alive, “living” is a dynamic activity, best grasped and understood when one is involved in the pursuit of a goal or purpose. I know of no one, except maybe a hypochondriac, whose purpose is to avoid being ill, or to simply exist. Having a purpose in life gives one a reason to wake up in the morning, to engage and co-act with one’s fellow beings, and to produce something worthwhile; and if you’d care to inspect those factors, you will see that happiness and satisfaction from and with life are so derived. Having something to do, and a reason to do it, is what “living” is all about, and when you understand that you can grasp two things: first, how oppressive these Covid 19 “stay at home-non essential worker” orders are to people; and second, the importance of having a government and political system that secures and protects our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In my earlier blog posts on this Covid crisis I made the point that, in my opinion, our Federal and state governmental leaders made a huge mistake in ordering the shutdowns in the effort to control this virus. The paragraphs above describe why I believe this. I am still investigating why our elected officials chose the “shutdown” handling; but it is apparent that for some reason they allowed the bad advice they were getting from their “experts” to supersede their obligation to support and defend the Constitution, as they are sworn to do. If you put yourself in the position of President Trump or Governor Inslee, and you are being told millions of people will die because of this virus, as was the case with the initial contagion models that were created and used at the outset of this pandemic (which turned out to be wrong), you can see the problem they were faced with. Nevertheless, the steps they took based on that advice were grievously misguided. Trump, Inslee and the rest of the governors aren’t the first leaders to be ill-advised in a time of crisis. During his short time in office as President, at the peak of the Cold War, John Kennedy faced a number of situations in which he was continually told by the best of his military and cabinet advisors that he needed to take the nation to war—the most obvious example being the Cuban Missile crisis. But, he never did. Each time he managed to listen to what he was being told, yet keep his own counsel; and so could steer a way through that did not involve all-out war. Because he could do that, we still have a nation and a world today. Because our current leaders could not and did not, we have a gutted economy, trashed First Amendment rights and an increasingly disaffected citizenry.

There is a bit more to my views on this that I would like to share. Underlying the concept of Human Rights, is a principle known as “natural rights” or “natural law”. Philosophers and religious scholars, such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, all the way up to Martin Luther King and Pope John the XXIII, have all commented on and reaffirmed this. From this is derived the concept of “inalienable” rights, meaning simply that the possessor can neither give them away nor have them taken away; they are his by virtue of the fact that he or she exists. A problem is encountered, then, whenever a “man-made” law does not square with the more senior natural law. Recent examples of this are the “Jim Crow” laws that existed in the American south for the 100 years after the Civil War; the Apartheid conditions that prevailed in South Africa for nearly 50 years in the second half of the twentieth century; and the “legal” second class status of the people of India during the British colonial rule of the 18^th, 19^th and early 20^th centuries. In each of these examples you can see that the “man made” laws were eventually dispensed with at the insistence of the subjugated yet courageous peoples who demanded change and social justice.

At the heart of these natural laws lies a major concept that I have recently been reacquainting myself with through re-studying a book I originally read nearly 50 years ago. That book is “Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health,” by American philosopher, writer and founder of the Scientology religion, L. Ron Hubbard. In Dianetics Hubbard refers to what he calls, the Dynamic Principle of Existence, which is expressed in the observation that all life forms hold in common that they are primarily engaged in the urge, effort and goal to SURVIVE. Stemming from this is what Hubbard calls the “Law of Affinity”, which is simply stated as the observation that human beings survive best when they are in affinity with their fellow human beings. Out of this derives the observable inclination of man to form family units and groups, whether they be small or large; religious or civic; for business or play; political or social; humans survive best in association with other humans. Somehow I didn’t get the importance of this when I first read the book, but I really get it now. Our First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, to our religious practices, and to speak what is on our minds, emanate from these statements of natural law, intrinsic to our nature as beings.

In the case of the Bill of Rights, we have an example of a man-made code that DOES square with natural law. In the case of these executive orders from Washington governor Jay Inslee, for example, to stay at home, don’t go to work, don’t go to Church, and so on, we have examples of “laws” that do not so square. In fact, they strike at the very heart of the “Law of Affinity.” It is predictable and inevitable, then, just as occurred in India, South Africa and the American south in the last century, that problems, social unrest and protests will arise, as observably is happening in our country now. Indeed, if the politicians continue to try and enforce their arbitrary orders, it’s inevitable.

That is why it is so important that “we the people” have a government that is designed and run for ALL the people; one that is in alignment with our natural rights as beings. Our Founders realized this, as did philosophers of ages past and on up to the present. Getting back to the example at the top of this article, even Mike Rowe seems to intuitively realize it.

I can only hope our political leaders come to that realization too—and soon!

Copyright © 2020

By Mark Arnold

All Rights Reserved