Legislative bodies set rules to help people live together in the same area, and these rules can change fairly quickly with the advent of new technologies, forms of ownership, or political goals. But human nature remains unchanged. A man still has to breathe, eat, move, and so on. The eternal principles of the universe also do not change due in accordance with innovations in society — the celestial mechanics continues its course and does not react to them.

Can social law interfere, for example, in the life of an individual family? In extreme cases, yes — when it comes to violence. After all, society cannot tolerate when someone commits violent crime against one of its members, to prevent which, in fact, part of the taxpayer funds is allocated and the work of the police is paid. But is violence on the part of the state itself in relation to its citizens who do not commit any offenses acceptable? Of course not. ​​The state cannot use the taxpayers money to commit violence against them, if their guilt before other citizens is not proven. Violation of the physical integrity of a person, restriction of his living space, freedom of movement and the ability to ensure his life by the state cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

Requiring a person to wear a mask and undergo unwanted medical treatment in order to keep others safe is similar to the rule requiring citizens to keep their hands in their pockets in public places, with the justification that many people would fear they might otherwise be beaten. Such innovations in social law make citizens guilty from the very beginning, simply by the fact of their existence, even when their guilt is not proven, and put a person in a position to justify himself and prove that he did not intend to hit anyone. Just as absurd would be the introduction of the opposite rule, which prohibits you from keeping your hands in your pockets in public places, since many citizens are supposedly afraid that you will pull out a knife or a gun. On the example of such rules, pure manipulation becomes obvious. Any demands to wear a mask, not because we are infected, but so that others are not afraid that we will infect them, open a Pandora's box both for psychological manipulation and for provoking phobias in people with a weak and unhealthy psyche and are incompatible with norms even of the social life of people, not to mention their natural right to refuse to wear anything that is detrimental for their health.

It is worth noting here a sheer, but unnoticed by many, contradiction, when a person, on the one hand, is forced to get an injection against his will and without proper arguments and at the same time is required to sign a so called voluntary informed consent to take responsibility for both this decision and for the burden of any negative consequences resulting from it.

So, we see that if an individual does not keep the focus on his higher rights, then he can easily be drawn into petty demagogic disputes — based on lofty phrases and substitution of cause and effect — and despite the fact that it is he who is subjected to violence, be made guilty of towards his own abusers.

Failure to distinguish between the three planes of human existence and the corresponding levels of law, as well as a misunderstanding of the significance of their hierarchy leads to the ambiguity of legal norms, the involvement in the discussion of completely unfounded, unverified rules proposed by unaccountable people and the interpretation of the concept of “social responsibility” as the need to subject innocent people to violence. At the same time, not only the basic rights of a free citizen to use public places without restrictions and move around at least in their own country are violated. Even their inherent natural right, as living beings, to fight for their survival and against the threat of annihilation, is violated, as well as a their right as spiritual beings to uphold universal human eternal laws that protect their honour, dignity and reason.

Considering from this point of view the modern discussion about mandatory vaccination, it should be especially noted that it takes place only in the social plane — the most variable of the three — while the two more stable, more important and more accurate planes of human existence — natural and spiritual — are either not mentioned, belittled, or denied altogether. Thus, an individual is confined to the lowest of the three planes, within which even the obvious norms of the life of a free citizen are already easily violated and he is forced to voluntarily destroy himself as a living and conscious personality and as a soul.

It should also be noted that even from the point of view of social law, it is unacceptable to use experimental drugs in medical treatments, the effectiveness of which has not been proven, and the risk of adverse reactions, up to death, is quite high.

Thus, in any drafted documents, petitions and oral presentations, it is important to pay primary attention to the inherent human rights — not just social, but, above all, spiritual and natural. It is necessary to start and end each discussion by mentioning them, as that what is said at the beginning and repeated at the end is remembered the best. In any discussion or by any opportunity to speak to an audience, these rights need to be proclaimed over and over again.

The urgent need to defend our rights as souls and as natural beings will force us to turn to a higher sphere than the sphere of social law, and re-evaluate our worldview — whether we have precise gauges to formulate the key aspects of our worldview and gain strength and stability in a social environment in the current state of turmoil and split. And even if someone is prone to inertia and infantilism, the situation will push him to ponder over his highest values.

Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay.com