It’s interesting that the Surgeon General has claimed that all vaccine mandates, including ones involving legitimate vaccines that pass Constitutional muster, are immoral and wrong. In his speech, he appears to be discussing governmental authority in general, which is unheard of in retail politics, and a pleasant surprise.
To be clear, The Supreme Court has made it plain that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” It instructed courts to balance an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate. Nevertheless, government authorities and massa media have remixed the definition of “vaccine” to make it interchangeable in the public’s mind with “medical treatments,” which are just therapeutic remedies taken solely for the recipient’s benefit, a private health matter that doesn’t involve the general public. For instance, during the plandemic authorities and their media sold COVID injections as vaccines but they clearly were not. COVID shots absolutely do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity to COVID. As such, COVID injections were simply individual medical treatments, not vaccines, and no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness. While the Court has made it plain that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others, the government may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ Therefore, an individual has a constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, such as COVID “vaccines,” because they are not vaccines in that they fail to meet the legal standard for a vaccine. Thus, they could not be lawfully mandated.
Here however, Ladapo was talking about authority on another level – specifically, he condemned government authority to compel people to take even legitimate vaccines (BW is not stating that such vaccines actually exist). He stated that government authority to mandate vaccines is simply based on “our belief” that a government has the power to mandate vaccines. He said, “They Want to You to Believe They Have That Right [to mandate vaccines] and unfortunately They’ve been successful [in leading you to believe they have legitimate authority to do so]. It’s wrong. It’s immoral They do not have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Do not give it to them [your belief]. Take it away from them.” In other words, there is no actual, substantive or legitimate basis for governmental authority to impose vaccines in the first place. Ladapo stated that “no man or government can tell another person what to put in their body. Every last [mandate] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery! Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and God."
Its axiomatic that all government power comes from the people. If no man has the power to impose a vaccine on another man then no man could possibly delegate his power to a government representative, such as a governor or president or a legislature, to impose a vaccine on others. People have no such individual power to grant their government representatives such power. Ladapo’s position is that due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for government authority to impose vaccines then vaccine mandates are slavery imposed by the government. Persons who disobey mandates will be punished however the government deems fit.
His position is far reaching and may be applied to all government authority. Where did the government acquire its power to compel people to do anything? As stated, allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not themselves possess. An agent or government representative can only be authorized to hold the power of the principal or the citizen. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her - so it is impossible for an agent/representative to possess more power than the principal/citizen. You can’t give something you don’t have.For instance, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. If you stopped, searched, detained and put your neighbor into handcuffs and locked him in a basement for failing to comply with one your commands eventually you would be convicted of several crimes. Does math change anything (majority rule)? Could a group of neighbors authorize their government representative to do something that they couldn’t do themselves? Could the group transfer powers it doesn’t have to the representative? No. The government’s power to forcibly control others didn’t come from individuals under the delegation doctrine or any natural, rational source. In the case of government, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do.
Importantly, when government authority engages in such activity it is exempt from law and morality and ‘its citizens’ are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey all its orders and laws. This hypothesized moral property (authority) believed to be possessed by all governments is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs.
The question of “authority” is the question of whether any government has the right to rule over or govern people in the first place. Said question is not a theoretical one. Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. If government authority is not legitimate, having no valid source and is a mere belief in our minds then it is slavery and all who are subject to it are slaves. As such, the inquiry is important to anyone who values freedom and life.
To be clear, political “authority” is the so-called governmental right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral, legal and content neutral obligation to obey.’ Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government. We are born into this involuntary arrangement.
Unfortunately, in addition to the delegation theory discussed above, all other theories that purport to account for the legitimacy of authority, have been thoroughly debunked. The following theories as laid out by Michael Huemer also fail to legitimize or provide a rational basis for authority:
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. The idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws and do so in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes. That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract actually exists.
At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. Decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police or fire protection, to any particular individual citizen. It means for instance that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for its failure to protect citizens, as it has no legal obligation to do in reality. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties. [MORE] and[MORE].
Pursuant to the social contract, citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and authoritites and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?” There is no contract between the individual and the state. It is device or trick to control the populace.
IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. Under an implicit agreement to obey authority we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter; you must obey authority, government services are mandatory. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out of the plantation and no way to avoid being a slave subject to another plantation owner.
AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” Government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.
CONSENT BY PRESENCE. Does an individual consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means that governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic, as stated by Michael Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.”
It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such a statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. [MORE]
CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Does consent through participation with government or voting make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not and still must obey regardless of participation or non-participation [MORE]
MAGIC WORDS, CAPES & CEREMONIES. It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, special costumes to put on, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over other people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.
As such, there appears to be no valid basis for authority. “Authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any rational or natural source. Authority is merely a belief in the minds of people. Consequently it is only an implied right to rule over people.
In reality, authority is based on force and mind control. As stated by the Florida Surgeon General with regard to forced vaccinations, the authority to compel vaccinations under the threat of punishment is immoral and wrong. However, authority is immoral and evil in all human affairs - not just with mandates. Due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for authority, then authority is slavery and all who are subject to authority (all of humanity) are slaves. As explained, there is no other kind of government in the world other than government based on authority. Thus, governmental rule is slavery. As stated by Dr. Blynd, ‘Despite all rationalizations by statists (people who believe in government), “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. ‘The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.’ FUNKTIONARY further states, governments are transitory mental contrivances (repressive fictions) established by elites as a covenant (belief system) to live off the masses.
Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement. All government “Laws” in actuality are threats backed by the ability and willingness of authorities to use violence/force against those who disobey. Of course, an individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. Michael Huemer states, “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be detained. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’
Once it is overstood that authority is only a belief in our minds, it is easy to see that ruling over other people by force and coercion is irrational and barbaric. [MORE]
It should be understood that slavery is not a concept of totality. As explained by Jeremy Locke, “Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. Theft and bullying are slavery. In history, many people throughout the world have experienced lifelong slavery. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” FUNKTIONARY states, “citizens can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery” - “like free-range cattle.”
