We are told the seasonal flu almost disappeared due to people following COVID-19 lockdown policies, yet COVID-19 remains a threat over a year after "two weeks to flatten the curve" because people did not follow the COVID-19 lockdown policies. Which is it? Studies continue to suggest lockdowns do not control this coronavirus, but the general population is wedded to the idea that these experts need to control society even more for our safety.
There is a similar display of doublethink in the debate over gun control. My cursory overview of the available data already brings into question the premise of bans resulting in safety, but there is another disconnect in current discourse. On one hand, we are told the threat of mass shootings looms around every corner. After all, there have been massacres in grocery stores, theaters, schools, and other everyday public places. That is why legislation, registration, and confiscation should be our absolute highest priorities! On the other hand, it is simultaneously asserted that these are such rare scenarios that anyone who would carry a gun in public for self-defense is a paranoid lunatic with delusions of grandeur and a small penis.
Compiled from various Pixabay images
It is not just the left making this kind of flawed argument. For example, I recently saw a remark which spotlighted the Right's stereotypical xenophobia. A photo of ICE agents asked if illegal immigrants are just lazy welfare moochers, why is ICE always raiding workplaces? The Right is supposedly for freedom of association, economic liberty, and free markets, but they sure revert to nationalist authoritarianism fast when brown people from too far south enter the picture.
Can you not see the cognitive dissonance in these arguments for further expansion of state power? Can you grasp the flawed arguments against liberty? "Do as you are told" is the mantra of the unthinkingly obedient, and the dictates of self-professed authority figures have become the gospel of the modern day. This is a bipartisan fault, an inter-generational flaw, and an international phenomenon.
In an odd sentiment from a paternalistic Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw wrote,
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Is it so unreasonable to challenge the status quo, though? I doubt Shaw appoved of those who in turn resisted his idealistic schemes.
If there is merit to tradition and established institutions, they can withstand such scrutiny. If merit is lacking, we need to be open to change. If there is disagreement on the proper path forward, we need freedom to choose and experiment.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable...”
―H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series
Maybe I have some unexamined cognitive dissonance I need to address, too. Who knows? This kind of nonsense was something I have constantly had to unlearn in my own path toward liberty, and I don't claim my journey is anywhere near complete. We need honest discourse on these divisive subjects along with serious self-examination so we can arrive at a consistent, moral, rational conclusion.
Do you accept the challenge to ask hard questions of others and yourself? Are you willing to take dissent as an opportunity to discover truth instead of a personal insult? Can you even clearly articulate the ideas you want to argue against? We live in an age of unprecedented access to information, so take the time to dig deeper than the patchwork of prejudice and posturing we see in social media and politics every day.
