Originally published via Armageddon Prose:“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and [nanny-state techno-twinks].”
-Thomas JeffersonI reported recently on the ongoing drama surrounding the erection of 100,000+ Flock cameras across America and the valiant, if ultimately futile, Whac-A-Mole efforts by patriot vigilantes to fell them one by one like rotten, dying trees.What often goes unremarked upon, which I noted in passing in the last report, is that Flock’s full company name is actually “Flock Safety,” and that the provision of “public safety” is the primary elevator pitch the purveyors of this product have used to pimp their wares — to the extent they’ve felt compelled at all to convince the public of their merit. (Their preferred method is simply to game the approval process in local government and skip the whole pesky “public debate” farce. Like defense contractors, their client, after all, is the state and not the general public — a niche market that only necessitates passive buy-in from the populace.)In the same motif, Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley’s X bio leads with the nebulous and audacious motto: “Safety is a fundamental right.”“Safety,” as defined by tech entrepreneurs, isn’t just a right; it’s a fundamental right.As far as I’ve seen, Langley has never exposited how he determined safety to be a “fundamental right”; it’s apparently just meant to be taken axiomatically as self-evidently true.But whatever could “safety is a fundamental right” — assuming it is meant to mean anything beyond “give me public money to spy on the public for profit because I’m a literal fascist” — actually mean?The implication of safety as a “fundamental right,” as rights are things the government is obliged by the social contract to ensure, is that any instance in which the government is not guaranteeing safety is a failure to fulfill its duty.If it is obliged to ensure safety at all times, safety being a “fundamental right,” there is virtually no human activity the government could not regulate or outright ban, as risk is inherent in almost everything:· Consensual sex would be banned because there is some unavoidable risk of STD transmission· Guns? Wave goodbye to those, obviously· Nicotine is off the table· All-American alcohol-fueled fireworks fun is clearly a non-starter· Everyone, not just the developmentally challenged, might just need to wear a helmet at all times in public because head injuries can unexpectedly strike at any moment· Peanuts will be forever banned from any public space because some kid with a vaccine-induced allergy downwind might catch a whiff and die (the “vaccine-induced” part would go unmentioned by the authorities, obviously)· Since words can be violence, according to the progressive left and, increasingly, elements of the censorious right — some nonsense called “stochastic terrorism” — and as violence is inherently unsafe, we can just go ahead and trash the First Amendment along with the Second and Fourth. Just to be safe, let’s nuke the whole Bill of Rights.Related: EU to Begin Censoring Emojis on Social Media — For ‘Safety’Imagine literally any human behavior at random, and it’s guaranteed the state could come up with a rationale to outlaw in on the basis of its intrinsic unsafety.And what can we surmise is going to happen when the time comes for the Pandemic 2.0 lockdown regime in the name of “safety” now that the government, more and more with time, has the ability to track the peasants’ movements in real time?Perhaps the difference between a suggestion and an enforceable order is merely the ability to monitor compliance.“Imagine the compliance!”Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla salivates over "the compliance" achieved by nanochips in drugs that emit signals to confirm when the patient takes the pill pic.twitter.com/EeDDbXpfBa
