From my personal perspective I found the law installed by almost all governments within the course of the past time, was a call for explicit morals, a call for having the many take up a fight, they most likely wouldn't have given into, if not the law has "made" them ("motivated", "initiated" - place in a term) doing so.
Of course, in the moment I speak this out loud, at the same time I think: It was not the law, nor the governments alone which and who "made them doing so" but they themselves (we, ourselves), too.
How quick am I supposed to accept a law, which the upper hierarchies have chosen to bring into the lives of the peoples?
I imagine a scene where children play along and suddenly someone shows up and tells them, the rules were changed and now they have to play it differently. What will be the outcome of such an interference? (I find this analogy not very fitting but use it anyway).
Being realistic about it,
some children will quickly adopt to the new rule (already habituated to obey to the more powerful adult), other children will not cooperate and pretend no one told them new rules, and others again will start to argue with the rule inventing person, even fight it.
The expectation of those who abide by the new rule that all the others shall play it in the same way, is not only unrealistic, it tends to become coercive, once it's not accepted that the players are not equally taking this new rule as "alright".
By now we realize that we are not children.
A law is a human invention, a creation of something
which party A has chosen to install, expecting party B, C, D and so on to follow. A law does not fall from the sky from some divine entity.
State of emergency?
A law, coming upon us in the experienced way, is not at all prepared for all the individual events taking place out of the framework of its expression and commands. This kind of law weakens in fact the individuals single process of asking their own consciousness about a particular matter. In this case, the matter of "emergency".
"Own consciousness" can mean: To consult your inner statistician, to trust your observation, which by its local limitation and subjectivity is able to comprehend the character of your surroundings, as compared to the futile effort to try to grasp the world outside this sphere and to find useless in favour of it one's own thinking, observing and feeling, while it is of course the only thing we can use, since we have nothing else.
translation: Strongfortism
the famous, individual method,
which has made thousands of joyful, energetic and successful people, and which will also enable you to develop the powers of nature dormant in you without medicine or apparatus. You will attain robust health, virile strength and stamina. Stronfort's interesting, richly illustrated free book explains how you can achieve all this:
"Life Energy" ... Photographed from a magazine, dated from May, 1932 - I put it in here for the amusement of yours :)
Why the law is not only weakening but distorting and preventing people in their own judgements about a (given) situation?
My answer on this is, that out of "the given situation" in that sense, that a situation cannot be observed by the many and happens only ever between particular people (therefore reduced to the involved ones) has been commanded as a "situation of the same nature", an attempt to equalize what is different into something which is the same.
Then, the law, in its omnipotence, says: "if things did not occur to be me, challenge me!". It accepts that a damage which it wants to prevent in one case, happens as a damage in another case. Seen it in this light, a law cannot be just overall, it produces injustice in one amount and justice in another quantity.
An emergency which needs to be amplified - is that an emergency?
The reason why I think that the basic message "There is an emergency" already contradicts itself is, for if there would be an emergency indeed, we, the people, would not be in the comfortable situation to argue about it. We'd be more than busy to help each other out to secure the very basic human needs.
Let's take the Tsunami which happened in the year 2004.
That was a catastrophe, a real emergency for all the people which happened to be in the regions where the water destroyed the coasts.
Was it needed that the governments announced a state of emergency? Why, no! Everyone was seeing it with his own eyes who was there. Was it needed that the governments stretched this state of emergency, if it would have been declared (which I really don't know and that also is an interesting fact)?
Centralizing problem solving - is that smart?
Now, imagine, the governments would have set a law which centralized all the steps which have taken place within the happenings. Like telling the locally, more or less, affected people: "You must take our orders. Until you don't have formulated regulations as how the situation needs to be handled you are not allowed to act. If you act against what we have already formulated for you, you'll be punished by the law."
Now imagine the not injured ones. They are surrounded by chaos, broken streets, houses, destroyed coast lines and such. They look around and start to gather, forming teams of rescuers and make shift camps in order to make it possible to help other humans and animals.
Would they wait for the authorities in order to tell them what do do? You bet, they would not. Out of sheer necessity and empathy they would start to act. Oftentimes, also by risking their own lives in order to safe others. In the meantime the expert teams - those who were not killed themselves and from external places - would start to arrive where they seem to be needed the most. They would start to act in a more organized way and help the locals as well as take important information from them.
A rescuer who does not listen to witnesses or does not follow hints from the people who direct him to where things are needed, is a not very smart one, right?
All would want to work hand in hand, taking the actual situation and responding to it locally and personally.
They would not be ordered to first draft a concept of how to handle the emergent situation, send it to the upper hierarchies, wait until those authorities judge the paper appropriate or inappropriate, when they themselves can already sense and observe what is needed a priori. Making themselves an authority for the personal and local and particular situation.
Now, make the comparison.
Do we have a situation of emergency?
Is that really the case? If not, what is your answer to the fact that this law has not been taken back?
How can we even argue at all when the very basic state of affairs has been cast aside?
The big chunk of the unpalatable lies in the idea that ...
... a disaster is only a disaster when it has already happened, marking a past event that cannot be prevented by human intervention.
Everything else is not a disaster according to this definition. Ergo, a state of emergency does not need to be maintained on this basis either.
The frightening and seemingly infamous intention behind this seems to be that one should let things happen first and thereby (horror!) possibly endanger thousands of lives!
In fact, however, it is impossible to "let" a catastrophe happen, because otherwise it would not be one. It is beyond human influence to have a preventive effect on catastrophes. If prevention is possible, then we are not (!) dealing with disasters.
The question of whether one should have waited or let it happen cannot even arise, because humans have no influence on it. A tsunami, a volcanic eruption, a plague (note: I have chosen not to believe in grand scale plagues), a hurricane, you can't make that decision because it's beyond our scope to decide on a catastrophe.
Arguments have been exchanged - is that all we can do? I think it's not only counterproductive to argue whether the world is in a state of chaos, but it holds us hostage.
I need at least a bit of culture in my life.
I need people who are able to celebrate what is important for them. Gathering, singing, dancing, holding funerals, welcoming births, taking part in the local activities. Going to pubs and clubs.
No evidence whatsoever will be acknowledged by the confronting parties, which either believe they are in danger of a plague or who believe they are in danger of a society becoming totalitarian. There will be no winners in continuation of this fight. Nobody will be right or wrong in this in the present time, in the sense that a huge and bright sign will appear in the sky which announces:
"Good people, the crisis is over! Either side is going to be released from the confronting forces! You shall leave now the places of war and disagreement, for it's all settled!"
The only chance I see, is that the confronting and hardened parties of different beliefs grant each other the freedom of choice.
As much as I cannot follow other peoples reasons, for my own reasoning differs a lot from theirs, I refuse to call them names, or, if this happened out of emotions, not to make a culprit out of my heart.
But my statement is clear: I will not coerce others to decide for something I wish myself shall be put upon them. I am free, I need not to make others decide for me, for I may be anxious to take responsibility.
The ethical question of the freedom of the will is in principle undecidable.
But of course I decide anyway - because my will decides, I decide.
I used here a quote from Heinz von Förster.
How could it be otherwise for you?
So how can you prevent or let disaster happen that is outside these possibilities? Preventing a disastrous event and letting it happen is only possible if there is the possibility of influencing it, and it must be said that this would then be a relative event and not an absolute one.
Damage occurs, it is an act that lies in the past, in other words: in its moment of occurrence it is irreversible.
When a natural event breaks out, one can only try to restore what it has caused, insofar as one wants to rework and use the devastated area. But the dead and the loss of material values cannot be undone.
A plague of the kind that has been presented to us would be similar to the outbreak of a natural event, such as the flooding of a region by a raging river. It would have come upon us even before we saw it. The deadliness would itself have been evident and we would not have had to be made aware of it. No measure, however taken, of the kind we experienced would really have been very effective.
If one could achieve effectiveness and great influence, we would not be dealing with a disaster, but with an event that can be regulated. This would make it less threatening - even insignificant - rather than permanent or even greater.
So how can the contradiction still be overlooked at all? I assume that everyone will be able to answer this question for themselves or else cast doubt on the question asked.