It was as inevitable as it was predictable. The implant microchip is here, and it will be mandatory in Mexico effective this March.
Why was this predictable and inevitable? Because of our lack of principles as society. Let us see this example: we need to control immigration? Let us use technology. People resist technology? Let us use the force of the state to make them accept the technology “for their own good” – a “good” that they have not chosen, but which has been chosen by “experts” and bureaucrats.
It is a fatal error to assimilate the grand principle of control to a single issue; one could even “agree” to the practical, specific use of this chip to control immigration (certainly not us!), but that would be irrelevant. Reality will be that implant chips will be used to control our behaviour – directly or indirectly – by monitoring and relaying to the “authorities” our vital signs, our location and our actions. Of course, all that will not be called control, but “protection”.
The ONLY limitations are pragmatic: costs, infrastructure and general practicality; for the rest, the sky is the limit – and the mandatory will always replace the voluntary in due time. It follows that the rate at which we will be forced to become totally controlled cyborgs loaded with implants will not be limited by moral and ethical considerations, but exclusively by costs. The cheaper the technology, the more the “authorities” will modify society and jurisprudence to fit their social control policies. Why? Because, once again, there are no principles.
The notion that “authorities”, in order to govern and "improve" society, must know what we do, control our health, force our choices and activities, is a pernicious idea. It must be refused in totum as a concept – regardless of the more or less “noble” applications. If that is not done, the applications will become universal, as the circumstances will be fabricated to justify the applications.
Look at what happened with smoking “restrictions”: voluntary at first and well-accepted even by naïve smokers, then in a historical blink of an eye they turned into total smoking bans, which in turn will result in the de-legalization of tobacco. That is because the principle that personal liberty is more important than junk science-driven “public health” was violated the minute mandatory smoking sections were accepted. Blinded by the false dangers of smoking, people did not refute the perverse notion, as stated by healthists, that “when personal liberty comes in conflict with public health, personal liberty is to yield”.
By the same token, the mandatory implant of microchips has a tragic precedent in the mandatory wearing of safety belts in cars. The sanctity of the personal freedom of choice (even when it is harmless to others, as it is the case of safety belts) was breached in favour of a “collective need” established not by individuals but by “authorities” (in this case, the motor vehicle authorities).
More and more as time goes by, people are implicitly told that more safety and more health can be achieved only by limiting freedom; indeed, by redefining freedom to fit “health and safety” – to the point of stating the contradiction in terms that coerced behaviour (such us the prohibition to smoke or the obligation to wear safety belts) is liberty.
The inescapable reality is that total safety and health “prevention” can be achieved only with total control. It follows that the price of safety and health “prevention” is freedom. Do not stand for this. It is past time to fight back and regain what has been lost.