Posted on 02/16/2022 6:51:49 AM PST by Heartlander
Governments across the globe have taken extreme measures over the past two years to combat COVID-19. The rationale is always the same: This is an emergency. But do governments understand the implications of this claim? A perpetual state of crisis cannot be a stable basis for civil government. Politicians who continually appeal to this justification may soon find they have unleashed forces beyond their control.
It is hard to live in a state of emergency for two years or more, especially when it affects everything from the air in front of your face to your ability to travel. Throughout the pandemic, many have repeated Milton Friedman’s quip that “there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” They were warning that the “exceptional circumstances” justifying emergency measures might prove enduring. Unfortunately, this warning has become our reality. Governments that were quick to impose restrictions have been reticent to rescind them, and many measures may not be rescinded at all. Leaders have learned that they can mandate masks, confine citizens to their homes, and limit public life to those who have had a certain medical procedure. Once leaders taste such powers, it is tempting to cling to them.
And even where some restrictions are loosening, governments are not relinquishing the right to impose such restrictions. This month, Scotland is set to renew the Coronavirus Act, which granted the Scottish government emergency powers earlier in the pandemic. If this happens, by the time the powers expire, the government will have had emergency powers for two and half years. Never mind that in 2020, the rate of age-adjusted all-cause mortality in Scotland was lower than in 2009. In Scotland, as in many other countries, vaccine passports, mask mandates, school closures, and lockdowns appear to have become part of the magistrates’ governing repertoire—ready to be implemented again the moment the opportunity arises.
In an interview for Le Monde in March 2020, Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben said, “The epidemic has made clear that the state of exception to which our governments have actually accustomed us for quite some time, has become the normal condition…. A society that exists in a perennial state of emergency cannot be free.” Agamben had written previously about the concept of “the state of exception” in reference to the “war on terror” and the way that the threat of terrorism served to justify the suspension of civil liberties for a certain group of people. For Agamben, the novel coronavirus was simply a fresh occasion for a similar approach. Leaders used the threat of impending death and catastrophe to give the government extraordinary powers in order to defeat the enemy.
Nearly two years after Agamben spoke to Le Monde, we remain in this state of exception. It is easy to be pessimistic about the future. However, in the foreword to Where Are We Now? (2021), a collection of pandemic reflections, Agamben strikes a different note.
What accounts for the strength of the current transformation is also…its weakness….For decades now, institutional powers have been suffering a gradual loss of legitimacy. These powers could mitigate this loss only through the constant evocation of states of emergency….For how long…can the present state of exception be prolonged?
Agamben’s question is a good one. A state of emergency is unstable by definition.
The current protests against vaccine mandates in Canada reveal that government authority and legitimacy are more fragile than we ordinarily suppose. For in emergencies, it is not only governments who respond. The Canadians who are protesting vaccine restrictions also appeal to extraordinary circumstances to justify their actions. After Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau complained that the protesters “are trying to blockade our economy, our democracy, and our fellow citizens' daily lives,” the Babylon Bee published an apt headline: “Trudeau Demands Protesters Stop Shutting Down City So That He Can Shut Down City.” Governments who claim that circumstances require extraordinary measures may find that their citizens also take extraordinary measures.
Governments cannot have it both ways: Ordinary times carry with them ordinary constitutional constraints on government action and ordinary obligations to obey and comply. If governments appeal to a permanent state of exception to elude the former, it will find that more and more people consider themselves free of the latter.
That is why, for the sake of constitutional order and legitimacy, government claims for extraordinary powers must cease. Now that the deadliest phase of the pandemic has passed, the real emergency, at this point, is the permanent appeal to emergency. The urgent need is for governments to abandon urgency and return to the slow, steady business of governance. Good jurisprudence and government depend on a return to precedented times. As it is, too many governments are paying the mortgage on their extraordinary powers with the capital of their legitimacy. If they persist for much longer, some may begin to find that both have been spent.
Why do you think we have a 2nd amendment.
Government needs to be put on notice.
Look at whats happened in Canada. Habeas Corpus suspended, Trudeau getting ready to jail his political opponents and seize their assets as if they were terrorists. That will not end well. Trudeau is earning the wages of assassination. DO not let this happen in our USA.
That’s what ny did when it passed their unconstitutional ‘safe act, the essentially declared a “gun emergency” cou he’d in the term “imminent need” in order to ram through the bill middle of the night while folks weren’t watching.
Once,someone decalr3s something an “emergency” they think it grants them “emergency powers” that can override the constitution. This is why the left are desperately trying,to,declare 2 “emergencies” one for ‘gun violence’, (i haven’t met a gun yet that was violent, but have met many violent people) and another for climate change
Just like Hitler.
Remember New Orleans when the gov confiscated guns? That was an “emergency.”
Remember Cyprus?
In other news, the Great Leaders of the formally free world have reached an agreement with Covid to end the infectations on March 4th.
Emergency powers are only legitimate in situations so dire that the legislature can’t meet to pass appropriate measures. Beyond that, they are tyranny.
Hi.
What could happen? Who knows?
Maybe the battle of Athens, TN in 1946.
5.56mm
Yup. Hitler through brainwashing and gaslighting Convinced the people that Foreigners were evil and should be punished, and that it was an emergency. He whipped them into a frenzy, just like,the,libs have done over covid- they have turned citizen agaisnt citizen over it. Hitler woild be jealous at how fast they achieved that, and they are trying to,turn citizen agaisnt citizen regarding guns too
After the Reichstag fire in 1933, Germany’s Nazi government declared a “temporary” state of emergency. It lasted until 1945.
In stark, everyday terms, the most obvious problem with a permanent state of emergency is that people simply get used to it and never bother going back to "normal" even when this brings serious economic and financial consequences.
A perfect example of this is the endless conundrum employers and big city governments face when employees who used to work in those cities accept the "emergency" conditions at face value. In simple terms:
GOVERNMENT: "There's a pandemic! Everyone must stay home for 15 days to 'flatten the curve.'"
EMPLOYER: "OK. We're giving our staff two weeks off with pay."
GOVERNMENT (3+ months later): "Sorry -- it's not 15 days. It's 15 weeks."
EMPLOYER: "That's OK. We have everyone working from home anyway. Our costs our down and our employees love it."
GOVERNMENT (2 years later): "We need all you employers to bring your people back to work because our economy is in ruins and half the businesses in this city are closed. Oh, and by the way -- all your employees need to have proof of vaccines that don't work, and wear plastic bags over their heads at all times."
EMPLOYER: "Why would we do that? That sounds crazy."
GOVERNMENT: "We'll give you lots of financial incentives to do this.
EMPLOYER (to GOVERNMENT): "OK."
EMPLOYER (to EMPLOYEES): "You must come back into the office every day, starting next week. Oh, and by the way -- everyone must have proof that you've taken a vaccine that doesn't work, and wear plastic bags over your heads at all times."
EMPLOYEES: "Why would we do that? That sounds crazy."
EMPLOYER: "You will do whatever we tell you to do."
EMPLOYEES: "F#&% you. Here's my resignation. I'm going to work for this company's biggest competitor because they'll let me work from home 100% of the time. And they're paying me a lot more, too -- because that company closed all its offices and reduced its overhead expenses in a big way."
EMPLOYER: "We apologize for the misunderstanding. We didn't mean our 'mandatory' policy of returning to the office actually meant 'mandatory' for employees we actually want to keep. Please stay -- and here's a big retention bonus to help you understand what it means to be a team player here."
EMPLOYEE: "F#&% you again. I'm leaving because I can't imagine working another 48 hours for a company whose leadership is as retarded as you are."
Look for resident Biden to declare a “Climate Change” emergency as soon as the COVID “emergency” ends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.