Vaccine Mandates Are an Unethical and Unlawful Violation of Human Rights

The Principle of Liberty

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” it is written in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is the founding principle of United States of America, that rights are inherent; rights may be violated but are never granted by the government, the sole legitimate purpose of which is to protect the rights of individuals with authority derived “from the consent of the governed”.

The Preamble to the US Constitution establishes the federal government’s chief purpose as being to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. The aim of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the government to those expressly delegated to it by “We the People”, who are the true sovereigns.

As an extra precaution against the threat of the government usurping powers not expressly delegated to it, the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution specifying numerous freedoms that the government cannot lawfully infringe upon.

Furthermore, to prevent the government from citing the inclusion of some rights to support its violations of others, the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Each state, of course, similarly derived its authority from the consent of the sovereign individuals comprising “the people”.

Despite these founding principles of the United States of America, many Americans today seem to cling to the archaic notion that our rights are derived from the government. You hear them use the phrase “Constitutional rights” as though we wouldn’t have any were it not for the Constitution’s existence, and there is frequent misuse of the word “rights” to instead mean “government-granted privilege”.

Another manifestation of the archaic idea that individual rights derive from the government is the absurd belief that “Constitutional” means whatever the US Supreme Court says it means.

The non sequitur fallacy underlying this belief is that if the Supreme Court rules that a government action does not violate the Constitution, then the government has not wrongly infringed upon any individual liberties.

One important right is the right to ownership of the fruits of your own labors. If you work hard to plant, nurture, and ultimately harvest an apple tree, and some other party with whom you have never entered a mutual agreement takes a portion of the harvest under threat of force, your right to the fruits of your own labor has been violated. This is called theft.

When such theft occurs systematically, it is called servitude. If you work eight hours to earn $100 and this other party routinely takes $20 of it while demanding your appreciation for the ostensible generosity of leaving you with $80, then you are not a free individual; you are enslaved.

It’s important to also recognize that legalized theft is still theft. Laws may exist that are unjust. Just because an act is deemed “legal” does not make it moral or just. An action deemed “legal” may still be unlawful. As French economist Frédéric Bastiat astutely observed in his book The Law, published in 1850, “legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways.”

Another extremely important fundamental human right is the right to choose what goes into your own body. After all, if some other party forces you to take some substance into your body against your will, then you are a victim of assault and rape. If you are not the master of your own body and, instead, your physical being is treated as the property of the other party, to be done with as the other party pleases, then you are similarly enslaved.

Naturally, this right to be free from bodily assault includes the right to decide whether to use any products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.

When it comes to most pharmaceutical drugs, Americans seem capable of recognizing the importance of informed consent. They don’t question that this right exists and is applicable to decisions regarding one’s own health.

Yet, there is one kind of pharmaceutical product that seems to cause most Americans to suffer from cognitive dissonance. Suddenly, when it comes to this particular product, the idea that individuals have a right to make their own informed choice about what goes into their own body is deemed inapplicable or non-existent.

These particular pharmaceutical products are treated as somehow sacrosanct, beyond question or reproach in terms of their utility and necessity for everyone. They are held upon an altar and worshipped, with anyone who doesn’t go along with the official dogma about these products being treated as a heretic.

The high priests of this cultish belief system proclaim that they are acting in the name of “science”, but that façade is easily enough seen through from how they respond to anyone who dares to start asking scientific questions and raising legitimate concerns by proclaiming that the blessedness of these hallowed products is not a matter for debate; how they demand that you cease your heretical questioning; and how they collude with Big Tech companies to enforce worshipfulness by preventing social media users from being exposed to any perspectives about these products that is outside of the narrow confines of official dogma.

Implicitly underlying this belief system is the premise that hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution somehow resulted in nature getting it terribly wrong, such that the human immune system offers inadequate protection against infectious diseases in the absence of pharmaceutical intervention.

The indoctrinating efforts of this cult are so powerfully effective that even many Christians who believe that God created us in His image, when it comes to these particular products, seem to reject the idea that He created us perfectly, and that our body is our temple; discarding these tenets of their own incompatible belief system, they readily accept the notion that government- and industry-funded scientists can improve upon God’s creation by injecting pharmaceutical products into our bodies for the industry’s profit.