In 1696, the legislature of Britain implemented a window-tax. The more windows you had, the more you had to pay. If you were wealthy enough to own a home in London that had a lot of windows then you can pay your fair share (for the common good, of course). Some variation of this law existed for about 150 years. This (even if well-meaning) tax was a swing at the rich but these laws rarely hit their targets. Those with the means just boarded up their windows with bricks leaving a legacy of absurdity making both air and light a government service to pay for. When the law is used to target the rich, it rarely hits the target. In this case, a large tenant building full of middle and lower-class renters would get taxed heavily. The owner would pass the cost down to the tenants. A swing and a miss.

One absurd law played out requires another absurdity to fix it. A similar tax was placed on the number of fireplaces and the number of bricks used to build a home. This, in turn resulted in bricked up hearths, cold residents, and building houses with over-sized bricks. It is not that all laws are absurd. Undeniable laws exist naturally and organically. These natural laws govern all human activity. Natural laws are based on the responsibilities of the individual to bear the image of God. This requires certain rights in order to execute those responsibilities. These rights include the right to your own life. Not being killed. They include the right to your freedom. Not being enslaved. They include the right to property. Property is what you did with your right to life and freedom in the past. Not being robbed or plundered.

Metacognition changed my life, or I should say that it changed my way of thinking and my worldview. Like most people I had grown up to become a product of the various environments I lived in. Most of my beliefs on religion, politics, ethics, etc., were simply reflections of pop rhetoric--sound bites and talking points that I had heard others say on television or in a barbershop or things that my parents had instilled in me that were passed down to them or that they had adopted. They made sense and there wasn't much push-back, so I adopted them as well. I lived in a world where these beliefs were bought wholesale and accepted, so they rarely faced a challenge. The few times they did face challenges, it was often easy to be dismissive. After all, this person was arguing against the well-accepted and well-established truth of my position; they had the burden of proof on their shoulders. Because they were the only crazy person to see things that way, that must mean that they are wrong, right? At least that was my justification for dismissing them.

Politicians have told us that we must follow the science. Models were presented that caused us to brace for impact for up to 2 million dead from this virus. We complied. We submitted. The Executive Branch of our states have the legal authority to curtail rights in the face of an attack or national emergency. The emergency was originally the risk of overwhelming our healthcare infrastructure with too many infections. We shored up hospitals, erected tent hospitals, and boats to care for the sick. We were called upon to not assemble, to stay at home, to flatten the curve so that we are not all sick at once. The curve was flattened. The hospitals were not flooded, the tents are empty, and the boats have sailed away. The estimates were overblown, the models flawed, and the science trumped by politics.