In a cheer-inspiring video, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich pleasantly, but forcefully, pointed out to a typically ignorant reporter the underlying tenets of human ethics that are missed by lockdowners, jab-mandaters, and their ilk who promote state commands at the expense of private property, free will, and voluntary association.
Those being key victims of the disease called government.
As Gregory Hoyt reports for Red Voice Media, Brnovich was finished with a press briefing and had stepped away from the podium, when he had to do what many of us who believe in freedom have had to do, over and over, during our lives. He had to try to teach a collectivist one of the most fundamental principles of human interaction:
During a November 22nd media briefing, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich shot back at a local reporter (Dennis Welsh, of “Arizona Family”) who’d inquired about AG Brnovich’s jab status, asking the reporter if they’ve ever had an STD.
Specifically, upon hearing Welsh’s question, Brnovich returned to the mic, and said:
I believe very strongly in the privacy of our medical health information. And so, my health information is my own information. So, I guess I would ask… Dennis, have you had an STD?
When Welsh challenged the validity of the analogy, Brnovich had to explain what he should not have had to explain in the first place: that in private places, human interaction is determined by God-given free will.
No. I mean, seriously. If we’re going to start talking about people’s personal health information. The point is that no government—
Interrupted by another reporter, he noted:
In the Seventies and Eighties, there WAS, there WAS an outbreak (of a sexually transmitted disease), and if you accept the notion that the federal government, for public health reasons, can mandate you to do something, or NOT do something, then does that mean that -- if there were an STD outbreak, or health outbreak in the Seventies and Eighties -- could they tell you that -- if you’re a government contractor or an employee that has a contract with the government -- that you can’t engage in intercourse with other human beings?
This is a more profound question than its immediate context might imply.
As noted, the only places where people are forced to interact - physically, or through non-physical means – are those areas that are not privately owned and controlled.
In other words, on any parcel of REAL private property, respect for human individualism and human rights dictates that each of us offers respect for the owner, and that respect is reciprocated. As a result, each owner of property – including the property of one’s own self – can decide the parameters on which he or she will allow another to enter, or which he or she will accept to enter. We don’t tell another person how to peacefully run his or her property, just as we don’t command another person on how to run his or her life.
But in government-controlled locales called “public places” – where tax cash is taken from everyone to let the government run them – everyone who has been forced to pay is able to claim a right to enter that space. This means that differing views on the rules for entrance and operation will conflict.
In private human “intercourse” (be it sexual or intercourse of other types, like conversation, debate, work, etc.) and on private property, each person is free to participate or not, and each person can maintain his or her standards about the level of safety. This holds true for every consensual adult interaction and every parcel of private property. Always.
The question should be: once you allow or cede this authority (over private, consensual contacts) to the federal government, where does it stop? And my health information is my own private health information, Dennis.
Spelled out. Even a toddler could understand it.
But, evidently, not Dennis, who seemed incapable of understanding (or unwilling to understand) the way private property, privacy, and free will allow people to ask for info and to offer it, then to make risk assessments based on that.
“It’s not an STD question…” he grumbled.
In fact, for those of us who have to suffer foolishness like that exhibited by “Dennis”, it seems as if there are larger questions.
Why so many “reporters” haven’t got the slightest interest in the essence of peaceful respect for others.
Why they haven’t come to grasp how self-ownership and private property control are inextricably bound together, and…
Whey so many “reporters” don’t understand how private property and free will are woven into the larger framework of risk assessment.
Even during a so-called “pandemic”, private property and free will mean that adult human contact is voluntary, in all instances, and risk reduction is a healthy, self-determined, interactive activity, that matches what each of us wants, and is reflected in the market.
Want to open a store? You decide what safety levels you want, and customers can check and decide.
Want to shop in a store, or go on a date, or visit a friend’s house? You can decide for yourself the level of “viral safety” that fits what you believe the risk-benefit ratio is.
But, do you want to go into a government-controlled building? Then enjoy fighting others for the level of “safety” you want. And when you lose, you’ll still pay for the building.
When politicians use the consequentialist term “public health” to start telling owners of PRIVATE property (shops, theatres, malls – anyplace that is not run through tax funds) how they should handle “medical safety” they destroy the three-stranded DNA of human rights.
Those strands should never be forgotten, and they are: the recognition of self-ownership, the private control of property, and the God-given ability to exercise free will.
By blathering about the fantasy term “public health,” collectivists imply that the individual can be sacrificed for the group. But, as I have noted for MRCTV, the word “group” is just a term applied to a certain number of individuals, and individuals who are near others never lose their individuality or free will; they don’t melt into one large “mass.”
If the government can invade the privacy or negate the individual rights of one, in order to facilitate what politicians (or Dennis) think is the soundness of the larger number, then all of those who comprise the “group” are potential targets, and their “soundness” is threatened, not reinforced. This is the wisdom of freedom.
It’s a lesson the AZ AG tried to offer.
Too bad yet another member of “the media” didn’t get it.