AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

Because if we stop dying from the things that kill us naturally, the species lose the natural capacity to fight those things. Because participating on hysteria increases hysteria. Anyways, the person did the equivalent of wearing a mask - they social distanced. But on their own terms.

We cannot prevent the existence of virii without destroying the ecosystem that gives rise to them. If we destroy virii altogether as a threat, we still need to fill the natural role virii, like any predator, play in overall species well-being. If you want to step out of that ecosystem, so be it - if you try to force others out of it, you will have a deep, instinctually ingrained fight on your hands. And for the most part, the arguments you get won't make sense, because it's from instinct, and instinct is composed of drives that make things happen, regardless of whether or not you can justify them. But the underlying niches and necessities exist regardless of whether or not you know them, or can cohesively advocate for them.

Like anything that exists - the niche is needed. And the irony is that the path that is best for the species is that which is most diverse -- it's better to have vaxxers and antivaxxers than to just have one or the other. Vaxxers gain an immediate advantage. Antivaxxers keep facing the conflicts that strengthen the gene pool long-term. Yes, I just said that they benefit the species by taking a course of action that may kill them. You don't want to take care of them, medically? Then don't. But they are not the creators of the virus, and cultural diversity is such a basic part of being human that if you eradicate it to fight the virus, the species would be objectively worse off for it.

As soon as people start forcing things down each others' throats - well, you're no different than the virus, at that point. You have a niche, bounded by your particular brand of power, and you'll push that as far as you can. And when you push it as far as you can, you'll generate a reaction that is sociopolitically incomprehensible to you, and that forces you right back. It's a natural way to avoid monoculture.

Sovereignty is the best middle ground. Everyone has a right to be who they are, and to change as they see fit. Where we don't agree, we separate. You want to go to a business that requires masks? Wear a mask. You want to go to one that bans masks? Don't wear a mask. Otherwise, don't use either of their services.

There is a massive difference between permitting things to occur and participating in or (possibly tacitly) supporting things. There are a lot of people out there who believe that, pain and all, facing virii on a biological level is the right choice. But that's not the same as attempting to spread it. And there is solid reason for facing things biologically, long-term, just as there is, short-term, for vaccines.

If we have a cause we champion, it is up to us to actually champion that. And a societal framework of sovereignty best permits that. But with sovereignty, the only time you get to enforce things on others is when they overstep and try to enforce them on you - and even then, only to the degree that they have overstepped. Beyond that, your vote is what you participate in.

And, like or it or not, sovereignty is axiomatically the underlying framework - and living in accordance with that works better.