avirus. In both cases. And Naomi Wolf, Dr. Naomi Wolf, also a skeptic.

Now here is my problem with skeptics. Once you are known as the famous skeptic and you are getting a lot of attention and reward for being that famous skeptic, you kind of need to be right. Meaning that even if you are wrong you need to be right. Whereas somebody who has not committed that forcefully to the position — and I would argue that I have not. I have been all over the place on different coronavirus stuff, so I do not feel like I would be labeled as a skeptic or labeled as a believer. I am somewhere in the middle. So I would argue that if you are somewhere in the middle you are less likely to be influenced by the bias of needing to be right about something big. But if you are out there all the time being the skeptic, you kind of have that really big bias. And just be aware of that. Now does that mean that any of them are wrong? No, no. I am not telling you that any of them are wrong on anything. I am not sure I would know. But just have that little bit of knowledge in the back of your head that once you are the skeptic person you have got a little extra bias there. All right, so just be careful about that. And I am sure that that same concept would apply to me whenever I have committed to a position. So be aware of it.

Here are some comments about people who are against the vaccine passport. I will not read their names. I will just talk about the comment itself. All right, it is discrimination against the free will of the people who do not want to get vaccinated. Is that true? Would it be discriminating against — well, say that the freedom, I think, is the point. The freedom of the people who do not want to get vaccinated. That is true. It definitely discriminates against their freedom. But is that not true of a driver’s license? Is that not true of getting a loan? People who do not have tax returns cannot get one. Is it true of travel? You cannot travel anywhere unless you have a passport. So this is a true statement. It discriminates against your freedom. But that is not a reason, because we do it all the time. So society, all of civilization, the entire civilization is built on restricting your freedom. That is what it is. You do not build a civilization to give people freedom. All of civilization is a restriction of freedom. But it is designed to be a wise restriction. It restricts the things that you would want to restrict. This is just another one of them. So I do not think you can — I do not think it is reasonable to disagree with it in concept as a reduction of freedom, because all of civilization is a reduction of freedom. You cannot drive your car on the sidewalk. They built a road to restrict where you drive the car. It is all restrictions.

All right, let us do some more reasons. The U.S. government could not execute this in a way that — so there is a practical element to it. So somebody says it might be impractical. That is a good point. If your argument is that we cannot get it up in time, somebody else argued that a lot of people got vaccinated without showing ID. So what do those people do if you got vaccinated but you did not show ID at the time but your name is still in the system, right? If you got vaccinated or not. So there might be some practical limitations to it, which are perfectly — that would be a good skeptical comment. If you just cannot do it, that is a reason not to do it. It just cannot be done. So if it is not accurate, then yeah, of course it is a problem. But I do not know that for sure. And the argument about it is usually not on the practical level. There are some arguments.

Once the system and the precedent exists, factions within the government can take them and bend them to their own purposes. Ah, now we are getting to the real good stuff. So the problem is that once you have a platform — and this is Dr. Naomi Wolf’s argument — that once you have a platform where there is something about you, in this case the vaccination or not, is in the database, and that is going to restrict you from let us say businesses or travel or government things, once you have that system they can add anything to that system, cannot they? They can add anything to that. Next thing you know maybe the next thing they add to it you do not like so much, even if you think the vaccination thing is a good idea. Slippery slope, is it not?

Do you know what else is a slippery slope? Computers. If we allow ourselves to have computers, somebody is going to put some information in those databases. Now we are not going to like it. Or how about driver’s licenses? There is a database of your driver’s license that has your weight, your address, your height, your eye color, your hair color, I think. Could not they use it? And then it is also used to restrict what you can and cannot do. So if you do not have ID of some sort you cannot fly. You cannot do a lot of stuff. So could not they take the driver’s license platform, because it is just a database, and add stuff to it? See where I am going? I do not think we should have driver’s licenses because that database could be expanded into a social credit system, could not it? Do you know what else could be expanded into a social credit system? Any database. It is just the database. Yes, you can put bad things in the database. You could put good things in the database. But you do not get rid of databases because somebody could misuse it. So could somebody misuse this system? Yes, they could misuse every system. That is not a reason not to do it. You have to weigh the risk against the benefits, right?

So here is my best argument of why I am not worried. Number one, it might be impractical. Like once they roll it out, the odds of it working, I do not know. Might be impractical. So it might never even be a problem. Number two, I believe that transparency and market competition is all you need to make sure that it does not go too far. Now everything goes too far before it gets pulled back, right? So things do go too far and then get pulled back. So we might find that this will go too far and get pulled back. But as long as — let us work it through. Let us say the government says you cannot travel unless you have a vaccination, same as now. I traveled recently and I could not do it without getting a test that goes in the database that the airline can see that says I got a negative COVID test. What is the difference between that, the current situation that I am in a database saying I got a COVID test, or one that says I got a vaccination? It is the same damn thing. I mean it is the same process, right? Once you are in the system. So were people complaining that the airlines required you to get a test? Because once you have that platform that allows the airlines to know if you got a test, they could add things to the platform. So when you are talking about the vaccination platform, you already have one. The platform already was built. It was for the tests, whether you got tested or not. So I do not think the flight thing is anything, because it is just the current situation that seems to be no big deal.

What about individual businesses? Let us say you need a vaccination to go to a basketball game where the seats are filled. Let us say that is the case. And let us say that the public says, hey, I am going to boycott your basketball game because of this rule. If enough people boycott it, what is going to happen? Well they either will not have the game or they will change the rule, or some time will pass and we do not need the vaccinations, right? So the public response and market competition is going to kind of take care of this, I think, as long as you have lots of visibility. The problem I think would be a lack of visibility.

Now in America, do you think that we could take this to the next level of social — what is it that China has, the social credit system, where you have to do a whole bunch of things right or else you get in their database as a bad person? We are not too far from that now, are we? We have a social credit database. Did you know that? Did you know you are already in a social credit database in the United States? Well one of them is your credit score. Literally your credit score, right? That is a social credit. How trustworthy are you? Do you pay back your debts? We have that. It already exists. That is just one form of it. We also have this thing called the internet, which you have probably heard of. You can go on the internet, on social media, and you can find out quite a bit about people, and you can find out how good or bad they are fairly reliably by looking at their social media background. So I would argue that the woke-ism is a social credit system. I do not even know if it would be worse if we turned it into a database. Now I am not in favor of that turning into a database, but the current system is pretty damn bad. The wokeness stuff is pretty bad, I would say. We do have a social credit system. So you are worried about the thing that is already here. I suppose it could get worse, but it is here. You already have it.

All right, so let me read a couple more reasons here just to show you the types of objections. All right, I want to see some good comments here from David. So here is somebody I know to be a higher-level thinker and commentator on Twitter. So this would be a better quality of objection. Says my objection is not even really related to the vaccine. The passport infrastructure will encourage private companies of every kind to engage in an emerging social credit system. Right now. Again that could be. I suppose you could see it going that way. But what would be the next thing that got added? What exactly would be the next thing in the progression?

Somebody says poison is bad for your health. Thank you. Somebody is saying I am framing travel by international standards, not domestic. That is right, but the point stays the same that because international travel is a big enough thing, that is a fair example. How long is immunity? Yeah, somebody is asking a good question. How long does immunity last? So if you got vaccinated, does that really mean anything? I suppose there should be a date on there.

So here is what I feel like a lot of people are saying. That this feels like a slippery slope and it reminds you of Nazi Germany. Every time you see yourself saying, wait a minute, that reminds me of Nazi Germany, there should be a flag that goes off in your head. Wait a minute, why am I always reminded of Nazi Germany every time there is a political conversation? It is because it is the weird extreme that is in all of our minds. It is not because everything is like that. So just being reminded of something else is not a reason. If you are reminded of Nazi Germany, you are probably looking at this with fright as opposed to reason.

Now let me say as carefully as I can, you could all be right and I could be wrong. Nothing rules that out, right? So if you are hearing me say I am right, right, right, and you are all wrong, you should not be hearing that. And what I am saying is that I am not seeing any reason to be afraid because it looks like normal business to me. It just does not seem that extreme as long as you have market competition, as long as you have visibility, as long as the public can get its way and it can if it pushes hard enough. I am not especially afraid of it. So yes, I would not worry about Nuremberg and Nazis and Hitler every time you look around a corner. Hitler is not under the bed. Hitler is not under the bed.

Do you remember when the coronavirus was first hitting and a lot of people thought that it would be the end of our supply chains and civilization would crumble? And I was telling you no, no, no. Do not be operating on fear. Logically we will adjust and we will figure out how to get you food. And then we did just that. We figured out how to adjust. We took the risks we needed to take. We got everybody fed for the most part. So just keep in mind that when you have been the most frightened is when you have made the worst decisions. So if there is somebody that you think has been right before and they are not frightened by the current topic, maybe you should give them a little bit more credibility than you should even give yourself if you are operating from fear. Does not mean you are wrong, by the way. Fear is a good thing. But just play the statistics.

All right. The ex-CDC chief says he does think that the COVID-19 came, or the coronavirus came, from some lab. Now his argument I had not heard before, and it goes like this. That it is actually hard to get an animal virus to be compatible with a human. And even if it gets to a human it tends not to be very viral because it is not a very effective virus. But I guess the way that you can make an animal virus really, really bad for humans is to expose it to human cells in a lab, and you get the virus basically trained, or to evolve if you will, or to mutate I guess, until it is really, really bad for humans. And the speculation here — and I think you would have to call it sort of educated statistical reasoning — is that it is unlikely that this thing could have as quickly become so viral unless there was some weaponization happened. Now the weaponization does not mean that they intended anything to get out. So that is a separate question. But the statistics of it according to Dr. Redfield, CDC head, is that it is unlikely that in the time frames we are talking about a natural thing could have become this viral. It would have had to be stepped up, they say, and added a little bit of zing in a human way. But I would add to that that does not make it impossible. It just makes it unlikely. Okay, so just know that we live in a world where unlikely things do happen fairly regularly, more than you would expect. But that is a good argument. I am going to say that is a solid argument.

I love this story about Ted Cruz going to visit the Biden cages and all the kids that are in there. And there is the video of the worker who is trying to stop him from filming. I think that is sort of a rubber video. And here is why. What you are watching is — you know, I think Ted Cruz is probably using his phone camera. He is talking to somebody who is trying to stand in front of him and stop him from filming the people who are in the cages or the boxes, the Biden boxes. And the part that is left out is the reason that she is trying to stop it, right? And I feel like there should have been two reasons. One of the reasons I believe is valid, which is there is a privacy reason. And I believe that if you are just filming people and you can see their faces in a world of facial recognition, that does sort of put those people in a more vulnerable spot if their faces get into a database because somebody took a picture of it. So I am going to say that that part was actually reasonably responsible. But then the other part is, are they just trying to stop embarrassment? And that is not valid, because we do get to see this, right? We should be able to see this. We cannot fix it unless the public gets excited about it.

So A-plus to Senator Cruz for excellent theatrics and politics as well. I think that was exactly the right thing to do, what he did. Bring a bunch of senators in. Elbow your way in there. Do not take no for an answer. Do not let anybody stop yo