So do we use the One Ring when we know the science and others are ignorant of real facts that can kill them and others?
Ahh, the One Ring. That's always an option. An interesting thing about it is that it always provided ability proportional to the one who bore it. In the hands of Frodo it could not destroy Middle Earth, but with Galadriel or Gandalf? Neither took it although it would have been an easy matter. Certainly if the Steward of Gondor had it he could have used it to protect his land. How would that have worked out? Not well I think.
Here's the thing. The One Ring represents power to rule over others, but it does not require that rule be be good or to the benefit of those who live under it. It does not need permission, nor will it heed counsel. It has all authority in itself.
Gondor needed the Ring. Aragorn needed to use it to defeat Sauron. Gandalf would have used it only for good. It was wanted, needed, it was required. Precious.
But it wasn't, was it? Ultimately Middle Earth withstood, not because it relied on the One Ring, but because it refused it. Here's the important thing. Because all hope was not invested in it did not mean there wasn't hope. Because its authority was not recognized does not mean authority was not present. Because its power was shunned does not mean power was not exercised.
So what is the difference? It's two paths. One is broad and easy, and the other narrow and difficult. The first leads to destruction, the second to salvation. That second is hard due to the very nature of what is required. Thought, wisdom, discernment. It requires awareness, requires participation beyond appeals to another authority, eternal vigilance.
Translating that into the modern world, the One Ring represents the surrender of ourselves to others without much required in return.
Those who think inside of the "government is good" box aren't any different from "the free market is good" one. Neither is good or bad. They are amoral entities. WE provide that moral compass, WE are (or ought to be) the masters of both.
Getting around to the point and how it relates to things like vaccination, there is a clear and present danger, determined by people who understand the subject intimately. The science isn't in doubt, and even that is subject to revision and inspection. Dogma isn't acceptable. We as a people have established authorities with powers over us and I recognize those as being valid
so long as they are the servants and not the masters of our people AND they use their vast compelling resources with prudence and restraint to accomplish the necessary goals. That's a far cry from the One Ring, who slashes through to achieve what it wants.
So... what?
The threat has been determined to be real by those who have a clear understanding if the situation and it has been framed in proper context.
We have created a government to enable ourselves to function as a society, and part of that is to settle matters of competing rights. A person ought to have control over their actions but not to the point where those actions pose a serious threat to others. Turning oneself into what is effectively a bioweapon IMO is a significant hazard, therefore we must regrettably compel others to submit to the authority of government to protect ourselves from a far greater threat than the vaccination represents to the individuals sensibilities.
Note what we have here. We have a threat assessed by rational, competent and scientific minds which has been communicated to the public. We then use the tool of government to use it's power for a clear purpose based on that determined threat, then apply it in a positive way which is verifiable by those with the ability and means to monitor progress.
This IMO is an example of the proper use of our system and what I think is less like the One Ring than what ultimately was used in Tolkien's universe.
Facebook
Twitter