What works...and what doesn't

I recently responded to a blogger—with whom I am well acquainted— on lewrockwell. com. Here is the blogger’s pivotal statement.

Virtually all mandatory policies related to health and ability need to have exemptions in order to not be discriminatory. That is federal law. (my emphasis)

My response:

“Allan, in your LRC post that includes the quotation, above, you continue to push string, at the least. At worst, you persist in an assumption that, once the lawlessness of a policy is exposed and called out, the resister has a potential remedy. That assumption is flawed and—more often than not—without leverage.

“In order to go forward with your noble (I mean that) crusade, you need to internalize this salient reality: all ‘authorities’, bureaucracies and organizations promulgating and enforcing ‘emergency’-based COVID-related policies are acting outside the law. They are all lawbreakers, acting lawlessly. Criminals, in a word. So far, mostly getting away with their crimes.

“Ergo, invoking the law is a non-starter. Moreover, researching the wording of policies is an exercise in time-wasting and futility, given the demonstrably-low ROI. (E.g.: tried flying commercially—bare-faced—lately?)

“What the ‘law’ or any ‘constitution’ says does not matter to the evil COVIDian policy-makers and -enforcers. Nor do court decisions that enjoin their agendae. Not yet, anyway.

“There is a super-legal/constitutional solution: a critical mass of people who resist with utter commitment and consistency, simply say ‘No’ and never comply. This takes no time or research; merely courage and willingness to take a risk of some degree. At the very least, such resistance incurs inevitable inconvenience from simply showing one's ‘six’ and walking away. ‘Critical mass’ is the operative phrase.

“Do ‘successful’--and exceptional--workarounds serve to reinforce the mandates matrix? I can't help but wonder.

“Please take my analysis and opinion as respectful to you. In this good fight, the good are the only ones in it together. Just noodle over how some things may work better than others. And how still other things might not work at all.”