I'm sure each of us, at one point or another, have read, heard or may have even said words similar to those found in the title of this post.
"At least you have your health," is another common way of putting it.
Well, while there's a lot to be said about quality of life, and not much to live for if you can't enjoy it, being healthy, at the expense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for a short period of time, holds dire consequences, and ultimately will lead to undesired results.
However, as this post is being written, in many parts of the world, leaders at different levels of authority and jurisdiction are in fact mortgaging the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (or property) in the short term for what they claim is for the long term betterment of the general welfare.
In other words, the ends justify the means.
Well, for anyone who might think government and other power wielding entities are justified in what they're doing, I need to ask, where's the limit?
Is there a limit?
I've been thinking about this for months now, and feel I need to throw out just a few scenarios (not meant to be all-inclusive by any stretch) because I feel like we could lose every last right and liberty under the guise of health for the common good.
Before I get too far into this, I need to lay down some ground work.
So that you know, I come from a general position that big, for the most part, is bad. There is definitely such a thing as too big.
Governments, corporations, unions, banks, political parties, you name it, any entity which is designed for wealth and power gathering of any kind—virtually all, somewhere along the line, get to the point where their main reason for being shifts from whatever they were founded on to perpetuating self-existence and little else.
In the process, they eliminate healthy competition or anything that they might consider a danger to their continual growth, and their roots eventually entangle everything within their reach, influencing everyone and everything they touch.
Eventually, those big things become unsustainable because they're not built on sustainability, but on greed and power and their perpetuity for those few who are able to grasp and hold on.
Well, what happens when such entities, and their generational puppet masters, finally have it all? Say, a worldwide economy and global governance? A new world order? The Great Reset?
Freedom of the people is no longer a luxury these entities can afford to allow, even the semblance of. Eventually, they must take and maintain absolute control. The best way to do it, the tried and true way to do it, is incrementally. And play to people's sensibilities and common decency.
In other words, use the good things of humanity against it.
Greater evil can be perpetrated all in the name of the common good.
Okay, now that I've got you all feeling dismal on that dreary thought, let's start picking at the potential bones of this health-based takeover I think has been in the works and is currently being rolled out and knitted together under one overarching umbrella.
Why not go straight for the jugular right out of the chute?
In the United States, the second amendment, at the moment, protects the private ownership of guns. Over the years, that protection has been asterisked and caveated in many ways. Responsible and safe gun ownership have become buzz words and part of the lexicon, as background checks and mandatory safety courses are justified for gun ownership.
Those few who have inflicted horrific atrocities in public schools and on college campuses, in work places, malls, crowded streets and even on army bases, have been lumped in with the law abiding gun owner whose main objective is to safeguard person and property, along with perhaps sportsmanship, providing sustenance for them and their families, and oh yeah, helping to maintain "...the security of a free State."
According to the logic that all gun owners are like the mass shooter, if you own a gun, or just believe in the people's right to keep and bear arms, you're a potential threat. In recent years, the police, deservedly so or not, have been thrown into the mix, along with the military. If you hold a gun, you hold power.
So, is the following, given our current state of affairs, very far afield?
Getting shot, after all, regardless of how it happens, is a health issue, is it not? Accidental or purposeful, a bullet entering the body can do any level of harm.
People who are afraid for their lives because of all of the gun toting vigilantes running around can't be healthy if they're living in constant fear. There's not just a mental aspect of the gun owner to consider, but that of everyone else, too.
One death, we're learning as a part of this pandemic, is too many. All COVID related deaths, only a little more subtly insinuated, are preventable.
So, regardless of the statistics, regardless if the overwhelming majority act responsibly, the general welfare and the common good of the people trump the individual right to keep and bear arms.
This is a no-brainer, and therefore not even a stretch. If a climate becomes uninhabitable, by definition, it's unable to sustain life, including humanity. Man isn't designed to live underwater, to breathe carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide, for that matter), and whatever other greenhouse gases might be melting the polar ice caps and thus causing the sea levels to rise.
Alternative energy sources can no longer be an alternative. Never mind that such a jolting pivot from traditional energy sources will thrust the intricately entwined global economy into the greatest depression ever known. It's a health risk! If a pandemic with an eventual cure is cause enough to halt commerce in its myriad forms and throw all kinds of industries and livelihoods into uncertainty, how much more are drastic measures needed to even attempt to head off such pending global disaster?
Especially one that can't be cured with a man made vaccine.
Carbon creation must be reduced to Jurassic era levels. All in the name of health!
The ability to own and drive a gas powered vehicle? Gone. Eventually, it will come out that all of those previously okayed electric cars, even the ones that self-drive (because, after all human drivers cause accidents, so are also a health hazard), must go too, because the cost of creating and then disposing of those great big batteries, well, they're not all that environmentally friendly either, and thus, you guessed it, a health hazard!
Want to own a big house with a big yard, maybe a pool, and so forth. Forget about it! Ownership of private property is a waste of resources. If the population is to continue to grow and stay healthy, individuals will have to learn how to do more with less. As it is, people are too wasteful, and in order to keep humanity healthy, Earth needs to be healthy.
I kind of started down this road in that last paragraph, so why not expand on it in greater specificity?
All life, in one way or another, needs something to sustain it. In Man's case, this is primarily achieved through food and drink. However, some food and drink that Man has managed to concoct over time (mainly because it tastes awesome or maybe leads to different pleasurable mind altering states), are not healthy.
What?!?
I know! Mind blowing.
Over the years, in some jurisdictions, New York City is the first to come to mind, limits on things such as soda sizes have been enacted, because, yes, soda is basically sugar water, with few if any redeeming qualities, and sugar, particularly the refined variety, is known to lead to all kinds of diseases, all of which can eventually lower quality of life, if not shorten lifespans.
And since Man is also inherently compulsive, lazy, hard-headed, undisciplined, ignorant, easily addicted, or all of the above, the puppet masters must ensure that Man prolongs their lives by sipping less soda per cup, or else feels it in the pocket book because they need to buy more cups of soda, say four, to get their requisite 64 ounces.
In such places, it's not a leap for other things to be downsized, too. Fancy restaurants have been doing it for years—you pay an arm and a leg for the caloric equivalent of a bedtime snack, albeit perhaps, more nutritious.
So, those 10-16 ounce steaks? Poof. You might be lucky to find any sized piece of red meat, wedged in between your cauliflower, broccoli or kale. Or whatever other power vegetable exists at the time.
Oh, but don't expect to get much of those leafy greens, either. Those will eventually be said to waste too many resources to produce, too. Still hungry? Breathe a little more deeply, since the air around you will be cleaner and more oxygen-rich anyway.
And since cows have been linked to holes in the ozone layer, you have just produced a double dose of good health! Fewer cows means healthier you and healthier Earth. Two pesky health hazards (cancer and climate change) picked off with one proverbial stone.
Actually, we'll need to come up with words other than "picked off" and "stone" because those terms are unhealthy.
Speaking of which...
Words matter.
Some speech, or most, is hurtful, if not hateful.
Hate and hurt are unhealthy.
So, effective immediately, for the sake of good health among all good citizens, speech will be limited to the following phrases in all languages:
Have a good day.
Live long and prosper.
Don't worry. Be happy.
Smile!
Everything is awesome.
Be excellent to one another.
Happy days are here again!
We can do this together.
In other words, the free for all on Twitter? That's gotta end.
Come to think of it, it's okay. No one will miss it.
Just the trolls.
Quite frankly, they need to get out from in front of their multiple computer screens, out of their mothers' basements, and get outside more, anyway. Get more exercise. Get a job. Meet someone in real life. Create a meaningful relationship. You know, become a productive member of society.
Happy.
Healthy.
Hunh.
Maybe this whole health at the expense of every last right and liberty won't be half bad after all.
Live long and prosper.
All images source—Pixabay
