I've been called a Covid Denier or Conspiracy theorist by many. God knows what else by others

I'd like to make clear that despite my opposition to both the response to the virus & basically all 3 letter organisations, I'm neither a covid denier or conspiracy simpleton

Thread

2/ There's evidently a virus. I got it in early 2020 after a flight from Bali. In fact, respiratory viruses have been with us since the dawn of time & we get novel versions every few years.

There's nothing strange or new about this, other than modern media & political hysteria

3/ The position I take is NOT that there is "no virus", nor that "it's some conspiracy", because they are simplistic views of the world which despite the tendency to want to apply Occam's razor, are not sufficient explanations for the madness & hysteria that's swept up the planet

4/ My opposition is toward the way media, politicians, pseudo-scientific epidemiologists, career bureaucrats & all manner of central planners have RESPONDED to said virus, completely disregarding any costs or trade offs, & deciding to play god with everyone's lives & livelihoods

5/ Whilst organisations, whether they be the WEF, WHO, UN, CDC or whatever other 3 letters they're using may have some sort of agenda (The Great Reset is a eery example), the reality is that they're bumbling fools who think they can somehow make better decisions for all of us

6/ from their altar in the centre, as opposed to all of us being able to make better decisions for ourselves at the local level.

They're incapable of understanding 2nd, 3rd or subsequent order effects, Streisand effects, or responses by complex systems trying to self correct

7/ I wrote a short piece recently, on why mandates from the centre, made especially by linear-thought-inclined central planners, are not only ineffectual, but fundamentally immoral.

Read it here: https://svetski.medium.com/the-moral-case-against-mask-mandates-ea26a879d4d4

8/ In order for us to have an honest discussion about this, we have to start from a place of objective truth. A position that applies to all of us equally.

So I start with a discussion on Natural Law & Emergent Order and compare it to the abomination that is fiat.

9/ A simple heuristic for Natural Law is something that is true and applicable to:

- Everyone
- Everywhere
- All the time.

You can also think about is as something that is;

- Always true
- Always consistent
- Applies to everyone, equally

Authority is similar...

10/ Natural authority is earned via competence, experience & observations of reality, and emerges through millions of years of evolution.

Fiat authority is awarded via relation, lobbying, politics, popularity contests or by some other means devoid of merit and competence.

11/ Natural order, being emergent has a critical, skin-in-the game property: "equality in randomness or probability".

Positivism on the other hand is that which “a few” enact as law for “the rest”, and most often applies arbitrarily to one group or another, in some jurisdiction

12/ or another, for some reason today and for another reason tomorrow. There is NO consistency.

Furthermore, it generally does NOT apply to those who decree the order, which is where it not only diverges from “equality in probability” but introduces “Moral Hazard”.

13/ This is what we’re seeing today. Worldwide & especially with the ridiculous mandates.

Autonomy is the cornerstone of individual sovereignty. Without it we’re just slaves to that which dictates our actions, whether that’s a stupid system, some institution, a master or a state

14/ Whilst Autonomy is sacrosanct, it is tempered by "The Silver Rule", and in this way it can scale.

“Do NOT do unto others as you do NOT wish them to do unto you”

- The Silver Rule, as termed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb>

(I still admire his work)

15/ The Silver Rule + Autonomy + Natural, emergent order lets us examine exactly why mask mandates (or any other mandates for the matter) are inconsistent & incompatible with basic morality.

Notwithstanding the fact that the mandates WILL ALWAYS FAIL, unless we're all in camps.

16/ “You have to keep others safe” and “we’re all this together” have been fed ad-nauseam to us over the past 12mths, as if they’re some grand virtues worth aspiring toward.

News flash:

- They're not virtues
- Another's safety is NOT ur responsibility
- We're not in it together

17/ Furthermore these dumb ass statements:

(a) do not scale,
(b) are inconsistent with the reality of natural order,
(c) are incompatible with the silver rule,
(d) ignore autonomy and the subjective nature of individual reality
(e) when mandated leave no room for nuance

18/ What these stupid statements suggest is that your protection, safety & defence is somebody else’s responsibility, and likewise everyone else’s is yours.

This is a ridiculous notion that is not only immoral, but doesn’t scale and completely disregards its very impossibility.

19/ Try extending that line logic to:

- Driving a car
- Riding a motorbike
- Eating McDonalds
- Drinking Soda
- Smoking
- Alcohol
- Working long hours
- Going on an adventure
- Getting a cold

Or anything else you do in life. Every action comes with a risk.

20/ You cannot be responsible for the choices and decisions others make, because they are NOT your slaves, and it is impossible for you to know what is right or wrong for them. You are not a dictator and likewise they have no right to dictate upon you.

21/ RE: Masks & Viruses, If you’re feeling fine, are a healthy, normal, functional, asymptomatic individual and you want to personally take the risk of not wearing a mask, by all means do so. You need to know that you may be at greater risk of contracting something...

22/ ... but hey, you may also get hit by a car next time you cross the road, or choke on some food the next time you eat — so you need to decide on the level of risk you’d like to take.

In b4 "asymptomatic spread": https://alachuachronicle.com/university-of-florida-researchers-find-no-asymptomatic-spread/

23/ Those who r worried about their own safety, r scared or may genuinely be unhealthy or immuno-compromised, they should by all means do 1 or all of the following:

- Isolate themselves
- Wear (multiple?) n95 masks (perhaps at all times?)
- Stay away from other humans in general

24/ That may sound bleak, but every decision has a cost.
You have not right to impose your cost on SOMEONE else.

The decision to venture out into the ‘unknown’ carries with it the cost of potential failure, injury, sickness and perhaps death, but therein lies freedom, growth..

25/ & discovery.

Staying isolated may give you safety and prevent you from injuring yourself, but it will definitely cost you some of your freedoms, perhaps your immune system and probably also your sanity.

The article covers the rest: https://svetski.medium.com/the-moral-case-against-mask-mandates-ea26a879d4d4

26/ My suggestions for practical solutions are in the article, but can be summed up with:

Get the fuck out of the way and let individuals decide for themselves.

Decentralised decision making is the only way to deal with any large scale problem, inc. pandemics or viral outbreaks

27/ The anthroposphere, as a system, will have an opportunity to deal with it faster, more effectively and correct as needed based on the reality that individuals face at the edge, instead of some imaginary scenario that some bureaucrats have run in an isolated war room.

28/ Does any of what I’ve said preclude a voluntary decision by anyone to:

- Wear a mask because they want or need to?
- Not venture out if they’re in contact with at-risk loved ones?
- Isolate themselves and work from home if they believe they’re at risk?

Absolutely not.

29/ A decentralised approach just means that individuals have a choice with respect to how much risk they want to take, and can decide for themselves.

In this way we can avoid shit & stupidity like these:

30/ I hope this long ass thread clarifies some things.

@normonics I would love comments & feedback (after reading the full article) from you, because I don't think our positions are opposed, but aligned & perhaps nuanced.