“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Abraham Lincoln
How is that the structures that we rely on to administer our democracies come into being? A codified law, courts to practice it, regulatory bodies and so forth? Is it the case that these structures arise organically in response to challenges and are they therefore necessary – a good thing, there to protect polite society from tyranny of whatever stripe? Or is there a point at which momentum takes over? Where laws and institutions continue to be created simply because a process, once begun, must run its course? And what is to stop a benign process from becoming malign?
We've probably all heard about the social contract, in function if not by name, the concept being that we give up a little of our personal sovereignty to government and in return we enjoy the fruits of a democratic society. And, in truth, the contract originally bore a similar resemblance throughout the Western world, whether through common law, continental jurisprudence or a written constitution. This only relatively recently, though.
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries witnessed a shift away from European monarchical rule and towards republics; the United States predated this trend by a century or so. Church and state increasingly became separate. In place of a somewhat secondary focus on the rights of subjects, came a move to define the rights of citizens. And, in pursuance of that end, the fundamental issue was a seemingly arcane, hair-splitting point about rights – whether we are born with them or whether they are granted to us by government. This is seldom thought of now, not least because governments don't want us to. But, if we believe the latter proposition, that we are granted our rights, then we cannot truly believe in democracy.
Democracy revolves around the premise that government is a structure put into place by the people, originally, and which serves the people. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if the people are the ones to institute democracy, to agree to a system of organisation that encompassed representatives of their interests, then they can also take it away. This places rights within their grasp; government serves at the pleasure of the people. Expressed in this fashion, how many people would disagree?
It we take a moment to think about where we are currently. The prevailing orthodoxy (with which we have been infected) makes no sense. This modern contention is that the government accords us rights, which makes it pre-eminent. We don't intrinsically have them; they are gifted to us by those that rule over us and, if they can be given, they can be taken away – by them. That is not the philosophy of a democracy. That is the rationale of a monarchy or a dictatorship and even in a dictatorship, it is doubtful that a large number of citizens believe that they don't have intrinsic rights. They just aren't being allowed to exercise them.
“The idea is elegantly simple: all men are by nature equally free and independent. Nature has not—as she has, for example, in the case of certain social insects— delineated some members of the human species as natural rulers and others as natural workers or slaves. (If you doubt this, ask yourself why... is it that no man—even of the meanest capacities—ever consents to slavery, which can be maintained only with frequent recourse to the lash?) No man may therefore justly rule any other without that other’s consent. And no man may injure any other or infringe on his rights, except in the just defense of his own rights. The existence of equal natural rights requires an equally natural and obligatory duty of all men to respect the identical rights of others.”(1)
So, are we, in the Western world, supposed to be dictated to by government? Ordinarily, no. Governments have reserved emergency powers for deployment in times of crisis, of course. Or rather, they have established an expectation that they will be allowed to do so. The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, placed no great emphasis on this idea and they lived through plague after plague both prior to and during the drafting of the Constitution, so it cannot be that the entire concept passed them by, especially as they took such care in balancing the separation of powers. There is, equally, no common law power in the UK, so specific laws have been created; proposed, seconded and passed into existence by the political class. Difficult to imagine, isn't it? Legislators voting to give themselves more power, because they themselves identified a need for it.
There are presumptions upon which all this is based and trust and expediency feature prominently. Emergency powers are, after all, a usurpation of democracy. They bypass normal democratic processes, they impose rather than (allegedly) represent. There should need to be a powerful argument in favor of their very existence, especially as there is a need to back these powers with the threat of force, or the actual exercise of it. It's a supposedly temporary detour into totalitarianism. And it's not just the fact that the government accords itself the ability to impose laws, regulations and conditions. It's also that they are the ones to dictate what those measures will be, too. It's not as if there is a list of options to select from. If there was, I don't suppose lock-downs, social distancing and mask wearing would have necessarily been on it. Perhaps for smallpox or Ebola; not for the equivalent of the flu.
It's easy to sneer at questions like these; to mock a desire to revisit first principles. We have come to accept a degree of government overreach. However, if a true emergency came upon us, how many people would need to be forced to stay at home? If Ebola, a disease with an 80% case fatality rate, was stalking our streets, do you truly believe that your fellow citizens would still be down the pub? You may find that even libertarians agree with an exercise of emergency powers in those circumstances, but it would hardly seem to be truly necessary, even then.
Democracies must, as a reflection of human nature, be a fragile thing. The hierarchies that exist in every facet of our existence, whether it be financial, social, sporting, even genetically have come about by a combination of luck and graft, an effort to move further up the pyramid, to live the best life. Annexing resources as part of this drive means that, while some people have them, others don't. Whether we like it or not, this unequal allocation of whatever assets we chose to measure is a major component of societal structure. We have official positions that reflect this truth; captains of teams, ranks in organisations, CEOs and the like; formalized hierarchies where the boss make the decisions, with no explicit requirement to consult anybody further down the food chain.
And yet, in the matter of the most important structure of all, the political and legal hierarchy that has the most impact over the broad outlines of our existence, we require and expect it to be different. We expect our elected officials, the very ones who are busy congratulating themselves on reaching the top of the pile, to listen to us and represent us. Do you think that it's just possible that these people, along with the 'experts' that hold their hands, may think that they know better than us? That they believe that they are privy to information and possessed of an elite ability to make decisions, an ability that is denied to us, or else we'd be the ones in their position? Which we're not.
And sometimes those decisions are ones that the proles may not appreciate, which is to be expected, even if the decisions are actually what is best for them. How long do you think it would take for that attitude to take root? Not very long, I believe. And the only thing hindering them is the need to appeal to the electorate every few years and the fact that there is at least one other party that rivals them and which is presenting different ideas and solutions.
Of course, this only works when there actually is genuine opposition. And when that opposition is genuinely representative of what at least some of the electorate actually want. But what if there is a political class that is just two versions of the same ideas, neither one of them truly representative of the people they serve? What if there is a lack of choice in politics? If the situation is akin to a business monopoly? A country can become a de facto dictatorship while still boasting a multi party system.
In ordinary times, this scenario can exist without ever becoming too intrusive; just the usual moderately incompetent, endemically corrupt politicians, held in the same esteem as lawyers and estate agents. The slow trudge away from wealth and freedoms that is barely noticeable because of the small incremental steps and the fact that most people have lives to lead, lives that don't revolve around political obsessions. But, when big decisions need to be taken, the truth is often revealed.
A good example would be the UK Brexit Referendum in 2016. In Britain, there are two main political parties and one lesser one. In the lead up to the referendum itself and in the aftermath, the official line of all the parties was that retaining membership of the EU was the best option. It was two mavericks, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, who ran the 'No' campaign and even they weren't always on the same page. And yet, the British public voted 52-48 to leave. Therefore, none of the parties which ostensibly give choice on matters political, provided an alternative to the status quo in the biggest referendum in the history of the UK. Indeed, 477 out of 650 Members of Parliament voted to Remain. They were unrepresentative and seemingly oblivious to it.
This attitude of the elites was brought into the public eye and they weren't ashamed of it. Politicians made the case, for at least two years after the Referendum, that they must be allowed to operate as to their conscience, rather than heeding the express wishes of the electorate – who they represented. There was little attempt to sugar coat it; they openly declared that they believed that the public had got it wrong. They advanced this argument as a valid and honorable position to adopt. Which, of course, it is if they believed that they knew better. Many advanced the theory that the public didn't understand the complex issues at play (always a favorite explanation for the elites when things don't go their way); as if over 40 years of membership of the EU wasn't sufficient time in which to make a judgement.
This phenomenon happens when the political elites become detached from the people they serve and, instead, incestuously involved with each other. This cannot be unusual, despite their alleged differences. We know that it is easier to maintain a dislike for someone when there is distance and often more problematic if we actually meet them. Members of Congress or parliament spend far more time with each other than they do with the actual voters. The ideas that they are infused with frequently come from each other, not from the grass roots. The risks are obvious. A shift to humoring the public and ploughing their own furrows rather than listening to the electorate and providing representation is not only possible, but likely. The voters could rapidly come to be seen as an encumbrance, an obstacle to be maneuvered around.
Is it predominantly the case that political parties espouse views that have their roots in the populace? In fact, how much of a manifesto is about making it more appealing than the opposition rather than being truly representative of a majority (hopefully)? What happens when politicians, and increasingly the 'experts', believe that they know best and the public are ignorant of the correct way forward? And by that, I don't mean a minority of the public, but perhaps a decent majority. How will it then be possible to appeal to a cohort large enough to ensure election to office? If they intend to be honest about their intentions, anyway. It must be galling, especially when they know that they have the answers, when they are convinced that they must do what's 'right'. And what if this attitude is prevalent across political divides? If it's something that has infused politicians on both sides of the aisle? What if they all truly believe that they have reached a higher level of consciousness? That they have the prescription for what ails society?
Think about the situation wherever you are. In the past two years, has there been any unified political opposition to lock-downs, mask mandates, 'vaccine' passports and all the other measures? I don't mean the usual posturing – I mean genuine, consistent, ongoing opposition. Because, no matter what you feel about the pandemic, facts are a more reliable guide. There is a reason why lock-downs have never previously been mandated; because there was (there is) no evidence that they work and plenty of evidence that they don't. There is a reason why social distancing has never previously been a policy; contrary to popular belief, there is only a one in seven chance of passing on a coronavirus to someone you live with,(2) never mind a stranger in the open air. And that's without mandating something that isn't a vaccine and isn't approved, among other illegalities. And yet, politicians of every stripe have been in lock-step. There is no outlet for anybody who holds different beliefs, ones based on actual facts.
Just for the sake of clarity, this is not a paean for oppositional politics at all costs. For instance, if a government held that all people have intrinsic individual rights, there is no pressing need for an opposition party which believes that only certain races do. But, once fundamentals have been agreed upon, a functioning democracy must have room for the discussion of all mainstream views, at minimum. And, before you even think that a person who opposes the Covid 'vaccines' themselves or the mandates that accompany them is not mainstream because the majority have been vaccinated, consider this. How many of the vaccinated took the jabs because they genuinely feared for their own safety? And how many, by contrast, took them because they succumbed to some form of coercion, whether a mild version or a more structured one; whether via societal pressure or through a desire to keep their job, ability to travel etc. Because, despite the apocalyptic scenarios constantly projected at us, only a clear minority had opted to 'vaccinate' before persuasion was deployed. Even then, how many who genuinely feared for their health would have done so had they been told the true lethality of the virus and that early treatment would reduce the risk still further?
So much for the general principles by which Western countries operate, which have been fudged and unacknowledged. By way of shorthand, let's look at one European nation, one Commonwealth one and the US. That way we cover all three systems; the continental theories of jurisprudence, common law and the Constitutional requirements of America.
Austria (soon to be followed by Italy, Germany and France) is the first country in the EU to make 'vaccines' compulsory. Not just to coerce populations, to make the 'unvaccinated' second class citizens, but to instruct all citizens to get the jab, no matter what. No religious exceptions, no medical exceptions (there may be provision for them, but good luck with actually getting one) and a large fine if citizens fail to take heed. It's not just the 'unvaccinated' either; the government is also taking aim at those with two shots who are reluctant to chance a third.(3) This mere days after the previous effort to intimidate the 'hesitant':
“I don’t see why two-thirds should lose their freedom because one-third is dithering,” Schallenberg said. “For me, it is clear that there should be no lockdown for the vaccinated out of solidarity for the unvaccinated.”(4)
Austria was already some distance down the authoritarian road, with an existing lock-down to mid December, where citizens will only be able to leave home for work, essential shopping and exercise. As part of the lock-down, restaurants and most shops will be shut, along with the traditional Christmas markets. Museums, gyms, symphony halls and operas have also closed. Grocery and some food stores will remain open. Aside from the epic stupidity of repeating, for the third additional time, a strategy that has never worked, the new Chancellor has chosen to double down on the existing discrimination against a quarter of the population.
One would think, therefore, that Austria was particularly hard hit by the 'pandemic'. Undoubtedly, they would say that they are and talk about numbers of 'cases' quadrupling, as though the rest of us have never heard of PCR testing, cycle rates and false positives. However, in terms of alleged deaths per million, Austria ranks 62nd in the world. By their own metrics, while they claim to have 151,000 odd infected, only 578 are said to be critical.(5) Over 99% of 'cases' have recovered, despite having no access to early treatment. Incredibly, the average tests per citizen is just under 12, behind only Gibraltar and Denmark in enthusiasm, which undoubtedly has an impact on the number of 'positives'. Nonetheless, these are not the statistics of a nation in crisis. They do look suspiciously like the numbers of one trying to pretend they are, though.
Australia has rivaled Canada and NZ as the most repressive regime in the Western world since January 2020, but it is managing to eke out a small lead at present. This is because they have been imposing hard lock-down after hard lock-down in state after state, policing compliance with the military and fining citizens extensively for breaches of guidelines (the state is currently attempting to recover A$54 million directly from bank accounts).(6)
Australia has a deaths per million rate of 76, which places it in a heady 167th place in terms of severity. The cases per million are 7,800 (160th). They have tested the entire population nearly twice over and have still failed to detect 1% positive tests. And it's no use saying that it's the policies of lock-downs, mask wearing and so forth that are responsible, because they haven't had a positive effect anywhere else and there's no evidential basis for believing Down Under to be any different. They've had five new deaths this week (from a population of 25 million). Again, does that sound like a crisis?(7)
Astonishingly, after nine new 'cases' were discovered in a small township in Northern Territories, the Australian Army started forcibly removing residents to quarantine camps; both those who tested 'positive' and close contacts. There has been no mention of whether anyone is actually exhibiting symptoms, nor any acknowledgement that the PCR test is only supposed to be used to confirm a diagnosis, not to make one. Fortunately, these camps had already been built, as Australians returning from abroad have been obliged to consent to confinement at their own expense for some time.(8)
If the authorities are already using force, how long before compulsory vaccination mandates? This is on top of blatant discrimination against the 'unvaccinated' and rumors that the military are training in door to door forced vaccination techniques, rumors apparently confirmed by the leader of the political party, Australia One.(9) He might be expected to know, as a former military man and, given the military's current role in the state's Covid response, it doesn't sound outlandish.
And the USA? Well, who actually knows? The figures say that America has been one of the worst affected countries in the world, with the most cases, the 17th highest 'cases' per million and the 20th highest deaths per million. They have, on the other hand, administered the most tests of any country in the world, an average of well over two per citizen.(10) As a general rule, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the data, all things being equal. An exception needs to be made for America; the regime has engaged in blatant intimidation of the medical establishment and corruption of data.
What we do know is that Biden has been throwing mandates around like confetti; the military, federal employees, private companies with over 100 staff, with more to come no doubt. He is attempting to railroad states into compliance, claiming federal authority. The Food and Drug Agency (FDA) is playing its part by authorising the 'vaccines'' emergency use in everyone over 5 years old, despite the fact that no proper trials were done first time around nor subsequently and with complete disregard for any request for religious or medical exemptions or previous infection, even though natural immunity is known to be more effective than vaccine induced immunity.
All three countries are mandating compliance with measures that would not be contemplated normally and which have been justified by an insistence that emergency situations require emergency solutions. It really has been that superficial; simply government by proclamation. As already documented, none of these countries has demonstrated that a state of emergency exists. And the emergency solution? The 'vaccine'? How effective is that?
To examine that question and because they are heavily vaccinated countries with plentiful published data, I have chosen data from Israel and the UK as well as the US. Whilst the obfuscations and mischaracterizations by officials and the media alike have rendered public perception inaccurate, the underlying data is reliable and tells the true story.
Where to begin. Well, how about 11 months ago, with Pfizer's CEO. When asked whether the 'vaccine' prevented transmission, he wasn't sure, apparently.(11) Wasn't sure? Even if we believe that (which we can't, because the publicly available data for the clinical trials and the known operation of mRNA technology make it perfectly clear that the 'vaccines' weren't designed to prevent transmission), how would Austria's Schallenberg be justified in singling out the non-vaccinated? But that's not all. The narrative has only changed gradually, but even the CDC now admit (presumably in order to promote boosters and more general fear) that fully vaccinated people can spread Covid, even if not symptomatic; that old chestnut.(12) Strange how it's taken them six months to acknowledge publicly what was known before clinical trials began, eighteen months previously. So a stay at home order, for the 'unvaccinated' only, makes no sense, as both categories can transmit disease.
If that was all the evidence showed, it would be bad enough, as it would demonstrate the the 'vaccines' weren't vaccines. However, this report shows that 40-79 year olds have now lost 50% of their entire immune system capability, not just their immunity to Covid, and are losing the remainder at a rate of 4-5% a week. It also shows that 30-49 years olds will have zero Covid immune defense (at best) by the beginning of January 2022. These are the UK government's own figures.(13)
The latest official Public Health data shows that the fully vaccinated accounted for 83% of Covid-19 deaths in the past four weeks, whilst also accounting for 72% of Covid-19 hospitalisations and 56% of alleged Covid-19 cases from September 18th through to October 15th.(14)
There is also an Israeli study, which demonstrates that the 'vaccinated' are thirteen times more likely to get a 'breakthrough' infection than naturally immune and are also more likely to be hospitalized.(15) As long ago as August 2021, by which time 85% of the eligible population was fully vaccinated, they were accounting for 85% of hospitalizations, and 95% of the severe ones. So, even the alleged benefits of the 'vaccine' aren't real. When officialdom admitted that the 'vaccinated' could still transmit Covid, they were still at pains to point out that the true benefits of the jab were that they prevented severe disease, hospitalizations and death. The next graph, from the Centre for Disease Control in the States, deals with the 'vaccine' injured. Is there any real likelihood that, in this instance, correlation does not show causation? There are reams of data showing the same effects, from territories the size of Gibraltar, through Israel and Austria (pretty much the same number of citizens) to the US. The prevalence of 'vaccination' is the deciding factor, not the size of population. (16)
In coercing their citizens, these countries are relying on the law, heavily. They insist that they have it on their side, that they are allowed to issue mandates, without taking the trouble to inform their people of the underlying data that the mandates are predicated on, or even the constitutionality of them. They are not relying on a sense that the law should be damned, that it's inadequate, that they really need to do this anyway. I have already addressed the issue of the data. What do their constitutions, or equivalent thereof, have to say about it?
Public international law recognizes, through a range of international human rights treaties, that governments may suspend ordinary rule of law provisions in times of emergency. What it does not do is allow the suspension of what are referred to as non-derogable rights. The following is from the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from ... medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude… the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.(17)
Additionally, the preamble to United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.(18)
And, just in case there is any further doubt, the principle of common law (upon which Australia's constitution is based):
“The rule of law is both a political ideal and a constitutional doctrine. In English law, the rule of law expresses a general principle of constitutionalism, associated not only with procedural fairness and the impartial administration of law but also with ideas of human dignity and respect for persons.”(19)
That seems pretty straightforward which, of course it is, unless a government wants to try to circumvent these principles; then a certain cloudiness becomes apparent. For the Australian state, the duty to respect citizens' fundamental rights is made even more explicit by the High Court, which has decreed that what cannot be done directly, cannot be achieved indirectly without violating section 51 of the Constitution. This point is addressed in a comment of Justice Webb in British Medical Association v Commonwealth:
If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance.(20)
This creates a situation where,without a further need to pore into common law or other parts of the constitution, the rights of the individual and the state, whether federal or local, are clearly delineated. Any action which interferes with non-derogable rights, whether directly or via indirect pressure, is unconstitutional. Period. Therefore, mandates and two-tier citizenship are domestically illegal and also constitute a violation of Australia’s obligations under public international law.
Austria's constitution is augmented by a Bill of Rights that was created separately and earlier. Constitutional values are drawn from German jurisprudence and the principle of Rechtsstaat:
“Rechtsstaat means primarily recognition of the fundamental rights such as civil liberty (protection of personal freedom, freedom of belief and conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom of contract, and freedom of occupation), equality before the law, and the guarantee of (acquired) property.”(21)
Austria's constitution contains no provision for 'a state of emergency', but rather for 'times of distress'. The distinction seems to be of little consequence, as the constitution talks of “serious, irreparable harm”and utilizes the phrases that subsequently feature prominently in the European Charter of Human Rights; words like necessary, applicable and proportionate which may seem to have weight but are, in fact, wholly subjective if enough people want them to be.
The Austrian constitution is not robust; for instance, a two thirds majority parliamentary vote can change its provisions, something which has occurred with a degree of frequency, encompassing some alterations that the Austrian Constitutional Court had already deemed unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Austria is committed to the same international obligations as Australia and, additionally, the domestic principles explicitly expressed in Rechtsstaat. Therefore, the imposition of compulsory vaccination and lock-downs for one class of citizen and not another are, as with Australia, flagrant breaches of domestic and international obligations.
The United States is no different. Whilst the utilization of Presidential emergency powers was originally only allowable during times of war, this standard has slipped over the past two centuries, as with many other constitutional safeguards limiting federal overreach. Nonetheless, the long held view is that the Constitution includes sufficient provisions for dealing with any and all emergencies without the need to grant government more:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."'(22)
Thus spoke the Supreme Court, which also decreed:
“an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived,” but “emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.”(23)
Therefore, the Constitution was held to be applicable under all circumstances; the natural rights delineated therein were not to be suspended, no matter what. Additionally, government could not allot itself a power which it had never previously enjoyed. It should be noted that the US is also subject to the majority of international human rights agreements that constrain Australia and Austria, too.
Emergency powers are frequently exercised at the state level, instead. Indeed, all fifty governors declared a state of emergency due to the 'pandemic'. States have their own individual provisions, although they are variations on a theme, concerned with time frames and the interplay between state legislatures and governors. Clearly, in the ordinary course of events, state senators and house members go about their business in much the same way as their federal colleagues. They are the lawmakers and the Governor is the state level equivalent of the President. In fast moving emergencies, there may not be time for legislative deliberations, nor the ability to rapidly reach consensus. Hence, gubernatorial emergency powers.
This is as it should be in the short term; it makes sense. What does not make sense is the fact that twenty five of them are still exercising those same powers, over 600 days later, thus ruling by personal fiat, in the manner of a dictator. Legislatures have not been suspended for this entire period, but still haven't been consulted by governors. The temporary change in the balance of power is intended to ensure that public safety is not compromised, rather than to signal a permanent relegation of constitutional government. It is not intended to be a mutation of emergency power into one person control, seeking expediency over the rule of law. As a result, a total of over 300 bills have been filed nationally in various attempts to limit the powers that various governors enjoy.
Further, these emergency powers, which are provided for by state level constitutions, cannot be legitimate if they are brought into being in breach of the federal Constitution, which is silent on the entire subject. This being so, the courts cannot grant them to the Executive. At the federal level, Congress has allowed itself discretion in these matters. Quite how this came about is unclear; possibly a need was identified and Congress was the logical (or only) choice. As such:
“a scale of presidential power in relation to Congress: at its fullest when acting, under Congressional authorization, still substantial when relying on independent powers absent Congressional authority, and "at its lowest ebb" when acting contrary to the will of Congress.”(24)
However, Congress delegated the responsibility of invoking emergency powers directly to the President, thus forgoing any initial oversight. They are supposed to meet every six months, in order that they may vote yea or nay to the continuation of powers (according to the National Emergencies Act 1976), but have never done so. Inevitably, if there is zero oversight, there is zero incentive for a sitting President, or a subsequent one, to dispense with these powers as they allow for the imposition of actions that are otherwise unlawful and/or unconstitutional.
Indeed, prior to Covid, the US had been under a permanent state of national emergency since 1979, with over 30 such emergencies still current, as declared by Executive Order. Once declared, they need only be renewed yearly by the President himself and the mechanism for overturning them is unfit for purpose; whilst Congress can overturn an emergency via a resolution passed in both Houses, the President can simply veto it and keep the emergency in place.
The problems are obvious. As Congress has wholly failed to perform its duty of oversight and hold the Executive branch to account, it is all too easy for a President to declare an emergency simply to gain access to emergency powers, when no such emergency truly exists. This Biden has done and the federal declaration gave the states authority to follow suit. Nonetheless, as the Supreme Court made clear, this does not give authority for either to encroach upon individual rights.
Indeed, as previously noted, federal government is limited to enumerated rights, powers expressly granted by the Constitution and policed by Congress; if Congress did its job. And states, while they possess 'police power' are limited in the exercise of these powers by the federal Constitution which, once again, makes no provision for the states to suspend citizens' rights, either. A temporary restriction of said rights would almost certainly be allowable in modern times, even if there is no actual justification for same.
So how have we arrived at a position where the general population has accepted these impositions, until relatively recently, without demur? It's only in the past six months that protests have become commonplace. And how has a fundamental transformation taken place, one that shows no sign of being temporary? Permanence has already been signposted – how else can the requirement to submit to ongoing booster shots be interpreted? If that future imposition is to be viable, there will need to be an ongoing exercise of 'emergency powers'; otherwise, how could it be insisted upon?
Were we already softened up, preprogrammed to accept authoritarianism? I believe so. How else to explain the lack of push-back by the majority. The answer may be explicable through an examination of two modes of operation, one seemingly abandoned and one run rampant.
Chesterton's Fence
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”(25)
The Precautionary Principle
“The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.”(26)
These two principles serve as useful signposts for the opposite sides of the debate. They are not as far apart as they may appear, at least in theory. On the one hand, Chesterton is espousing a modified version of a conservative outlook. Conserve what is already there, understand why it is there and only then may you contemplate replacing it. The precautionary principle also emphasizes caution over a bolder approach; both acknowledge the harm that can come from a poorly thought out course of action. Neither principle is at its most potent when a quick response is needed, but neither are they silent.
The precautionary principle has the broader applicability, as it is potentially relevant to all decisions, not just ones that may involve dismantling something that already exists and in this, its original incarnation, it has the obvious virtue of reducing unnecessary mistakes. It has a place at the risk/reward table, provided that the exhortation to prevent harm is also balanced with the need for fairness and proportionality. These must be the three active elements in this area of decision making; care, fairness and proportionality. As Jonathan Haidt has it in The Righteous Mind, there are other elements that serve as something of a corrective, particularly the weight given to authority or tradition. A liberal type will, in all probability, place very little store by what might be conserved, as liberal is now code for Progressive and, as the label makes clear, moving on from what has previously existed is the ambition.
And this is why, despite their initial similarities, the two philosophies have come to occupy opposite ends of the debate. The precautionary principle has been corrupted by an extreme fixation with the prevention of harm at any cost and any concern with fairness and proportionality has been jettisoned, as it is always one obsession that has been accorded ascendancy over others, according to political whim. And the wholesale obliteration of our rights and privileges has occurred in pursuit of these obsessions. It didn't have to be this way; a proper interpretation of the principle would have included all the factors in a particular scenario and cautioned against moving forward until their interplay was fully understood.
The Leftists pay no heed to the overall picture; in the case of Covid, this manifests itself in an extremely narrow focus on preventing harm from a disease with a survival rate of 99.6% (without treatment and likely a lot less lethal than that as millions have been infected but were never tested) whilst paying no heed to the collateral damage that comes with lock-downs, such as mental health crises and other health outcomes that have been exacerbated by lack of access to medical care, not to mention economic hardship and the terrible toll being taken by 'vaccines'. And so, the precautionary principle now only cares about some things to the exclusion of others and this leads to a complete disregard of the Fence; reforms that are conducted demonstrate a lack of respect for the reasons that certain structures were in place to begin with; such as our individual rights.
On the other hand, if Chesterton's Fence was still accorded any weight, there would have been a proper appraisal of what was being swept away with unseemly haste. Rights and privileges have been consigned to history and for what? What reforms, what precautions trump the right to assemble, the right to medical autonomy, the rights of a full citizen of a state? That should have been a very high fence; one that, unless in extreme circumstances, could not be surmounted. And yet, the fence has been kicked down with a recklessness and malign intent that is hard to credit.
There have always been people who have a burning desire to tell other people what to do and, frequently, their ideas have been a little extreme. They have to destroy any and all opposition. Partly because that is what they are like and partly because they know that they are in a minority. The true zealots always are. But nobody must be allowed to activate the non believing masses. An effective method is to create a panic and then roll out a solution that nobody would have agreed to otherwise. Traditionally, they were kept in their boxes by the adults in the room.
“The monomaniacs win almost every time because their advocacy is passionate and continual, while everyone else's opposition is only lukewarm and intermittent because they have so much else to do and think about.”(27)
Conservatives may think that the concept of self autonomy is self evident and it seems possible, if not probable, that the current crop of Leftists might agree with them, if the circumstances were different and it suited their agenda. By this I mean to infer that today's Progressives aren't committed to anything as quaint as a coherent political philosophy, but rather an expedient exploitation of whatever is at hand. So, were a libertarian administration to be in power, one which advocated small government and individuality, the Leftists would immediately lose their fondness for the authority of the state. If the 'experts', of whom they are currently so fond, started disagreeing with them (instead of toeing the funding line), they would likewise reject their testimony. Everything is a means to an end; if it's no longer serving its purpose, it's not only cast aside but defamed and shut down. The quest for ever increasing gobbets of power and control presses on.
But conservatives need to be careful. There is a widespread misconception that everybody wants to be free, but that the majority are just sleep walking into a totalitarian dystopia. Neither should we assume that we are the only ones who can see what's coming. This isn't so. There are a substantial number of people who view what is coming in a positive light, or at the least in a neutral fashion, as if it's fated to be.
The whole debate has been framed as the selfish individualists versus the unselfish collectivists. This intentionally misses the entire point. This is not the London Blitz in 1940. This is not an argument about someone switching their house lights on and refusing to draw the curtains, thus offering a clear target to the fleets of Luftwaffe bombers; nobody but a tiny minority of sociopaths would argue that individual rights trump societal responsibilities in circumstances like that.
But, as I have demonstrated and as the literature conclusively proves, this is a virus that, to the over 60s is slightly more dangerous than the annual flu and to the under 60s , less so. This without any form of early treatments which, when administered in other more enlightened jurisdictions, have demonstrated a powerful prophylactic value as well as a clear up rate in excess of 85%. There is no comparison with the Blitz and anybody who attempts to leverage a justification for mandates is producing evidence of their own character flaws, nothing more. Fairness and proportionality are entirely absent.
There may be those among you who will read all this and dismiss it with a “yes, but...”, because you are seduced by the notion that, while a discussion of political philosophy is all well and good, it cannot be a substitute for real world decisions that have to be more pragmatic. If that is your belief, then you have been assimilated. You're believing what you've been programmed to believe. You have failed to understand that there is nothing new under the sun; that the “but” doesn't exist. That we've been here before, many times and that each time there were siren calls proclaiming that the old principles were no match for the present.
But the basics don't change. You are either a subject with rights granted to you by a higher authority which rules over you by dint of some justification that can't actually be defined, or you have intrinsic rights and the government works for you. It's never been any different and the reason you cannot see that is because the state is doing its level best to obscure it.
It'd be one thing if we were where we are because society has undergone a seismic shift towards undue risk aversion in all things, were that possible. But it clearly isn't, logically. If that were to be the case, we would have become paralyzed into inaction. It's just some things and those things are specific and targeted.
We are living through a transition between representative democracies and totalitarian states, where the politicians and experts know better than us. Where we can no longer be allowed to make our own decisions, without a nudge or a shove in the 'right' direction. How else to explain the mandates?
In that light, what are to make of the following? This is not of my construction, I'm as surprised as you probably are and I don't draw attention to it in the expectation that we will progress any further along the continuum. Nonetheless, here's the list:
Classification – people are divided into them and us.
Symbolization – people are forced to identify themselves.
Discrimination – people begin to face systematic discrimination.
Dehumanization – people equated with animals, vermin or disease.
Organization – the government creates specific groups of police or military to enforce policies.
Polarization – the government broadcasts propaganda to turn the populace against the group.
Preparation – official action to remove/relocate people.
Persecution – beginning of murders, theft of property, trial massacres.
Extermination – wholesale elimination of the group.
Denial – government denies that it has committed any crimes.(28)
In case you haven't guessed by now, it's the ten stages of genocide. Going by the evidence, Australia is already at stage 7. Austria and the US are around stage 5 or 6. It's not good.
The truth of the matter is that, in the three countries examined in detail here (as with all other western countries), there is no justification for the actions governments have taken and which they continue to take. It is far from clear that the authority to circumscribe natural rights, rights which these countries have acknowledged in their separate constitutions (or in international law), explicitly exists, even in temporary form. However, even if we were to allow that, in extreme circumstances, the state should have the right to temporarily constrain us, those circumstances are emphatically not present and, had truth rather than intentional hype played a role from the beginning, have never been present. Countries are sliding into totalitarianism; the state has no mandate to do as they are doing and yet no effective political opposition exists to oppose these transitions. This is where we should be at:
“the three pillars of the founders’ political theory are consent (the social compact), the securing of equal natural rights (government’s sole just function), and “safety and happiness,” the ends for which government exists. In other words, to protect the people from dangers, foreign and domestic, so that they may freely and happily enjoy their equal natural rights.”(29)
But we're not. Not only are natural rights unacknowledged, what rights we are accorded are granted unequally. As a result, there is imminent danger, one way or the other. For instance, it is entirely possible that governments have miscalculated badly, especially if they are basing their assessment of their own perceived on a metric like vaccination rates. The evidence suggests that a high vaccination rate, far from demonstrating willing compliance, is equally likely to be a measure of the effectiveness of state intimidation, both soft and explicit, and that a majority would otherwise remain unjabbed.
Further, the incremental ramping up of pressure on the 'unvaccinated' and the demonisation and ostracisation of a sizeable minority of citizens leaves them nowhere to go and may not be as popular as the government believes. When people believe they have a legitimate grievance but have no legitimate outlet for it, they are left with only two options; submit or resist.
It's unlikely that states haven't foreseen these possibilities,unless they are totally blind to the effect of their actions. Australia has already involved the military. It's possible that the likes of Austria and the US are attempting to provoke enough of a reaction that forceful intervention can be justified and supported by the 'vaccinated' majority. After all, what is the Austrian government going to do if 2.5 million citizens refuse to comply, along with at least some of the double jabbed who decline the booster? Fine them all thousands of euros? How will they even administer that?
Either way, these are very dangerous times. Countries are moving against millions of their own citizens and, in doing so, are relying on propaganda rather than facts as justification. They are denying fundamental rights and usurping the relationship between the citizen and the state. Compromise solutions are not on the table, nor will they be. It may be a huge game of chicken, to see who will blink first; or it may be that these states will follow through with their threats, in the way that Australia is already doing. Peaceful outcomes are highly unlikely, in the long term if not immediately.
Citations
(1) Michael Anton https://newcriterion.com/issues/2018/6/founding- philosophy-9855
(2) BMJ 2020;370:m3563http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3563
(4) https://hamodia.com/2021/11/12/austrian-leader-says-lockdown-for-the-unvaccinated-is-likely/
(5) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/austria/
(7) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
(9) https://australiaoneparty.com/
(10) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
(13) https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/10/30/gov-reports-show-fully-vaccinated-and-children-developing-ade/
(14) https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/10/21/83-percent-covid-19-deaths-among-fully-vaccinated/
(15) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
(16)
(18) https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/09/australias-vaccine-mandates-a-violation-of-international-law/
(19) Trevor Allen https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/09/australias-vaccine-mandates-a-violation-of-international-law/
(20) Justice Webb, British Medical Association v Commonwealth
(21) Mortimer Sellers https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/09/australias-vaccine-mandates-a-violation-of-international-law/
(22) https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=facpubs
(23) Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 348 (1917).
(24) Justice Jackson, Steel Seizure Cases
(25) G K Chesterton, The Thing.
(26) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
(27) Theodore Dalrymple, https://www.theepochtimes.com/surrendering-freedom-of-expression-to-the-monomaniacs-among-us_3544852.html
(28) http://genocide.mhmc.ca/en/genocide-stages
(29) Michael Anton https://newcriterion.com/issues/2018/6/founding-philosophy-9855