When one narcissist – third-rate official of the Biden administration steals females’ luggage in order to parade in stolen woman’s outfit in front of the Media and at official receptions, this dude gets fired from the super-tolerant administration which was proud of him and he becomes the subject of conservatives’ mockery.
When the bunch of provincial-level lawyers stole the power which not belong to them (see for more details books penned by Simcha Rotman and our, just a published book, both in Hebrew), when they were humiliating the very idea of the rule of law and Justice, more specifically: they claimed that self-incrimination extorted by torture is a legitimate way of investigation; they call deregulation “unfair competition”, they numerous times prevented infliction of damage to terrorists and more … all these facts mean that this bunch of people had stolen their judge’s gowns and even very name of the Court, they stole very name of “Justice” and despite all these easily checkable facts, there are many thousand (not hundred thousand but still many) idiots who are ready to destroy their reputations, to cut off their connections to their friends and colleagues not in order to save the thieves from their well-deserved punishment but in order to prevent a return of just a piece of the stolen stuff.
Yes, we are the champions and this is the reason for us, to be ashamed.
The present coronavirus crisis caused major worldwide disruption. Numerous experts admit now that crisis management was far from optimal from the very beginning. In the paper, we first digest the available information on the crisis and its management. We then list factors that led to the chosen way of crisis management. Afterward, we question whether religious leaders could have gained enough information for them not to have supported lockdowns, etc. back in March 2020. In our opinion, they could have if they would have addressed trustworthy experts with a list of reasonable professional questions. We then analyze the question if hypothetical coercive measures are justified in the case when they are effective in decreasing the overall mortality but cause the death of several people. Our conclusion is that such measures are not justified ethically, and implementing emergency powers is justified only in the case of war. Finally, we formulate several important problems highlighted by COVID-19 to be discussed in the future.
The reader is highly recommended to compare this paper to the prominent libertarian Scholar Walter Block article “A Libertarian Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic” penned and published in 2020 on a way how to approach the intellectual challenge of the pandemic and how to assess the Government’s response.
Few of our papers relevant to the issue of assessment of Government response to the virus pandemic:
Who is the principal beneficiary of the welfare state? This issue was discussed during the dispute hosted by “Students for Liberty” an international non-profit organization on January 11 at Ben Gurion University (in Hebrew).
The book is our attempt to assault the ‘Living Dead’ of Socialism from a new and important position. There are many talented authors who tried to prove the advantages of a free economy, based on ‘universal’ (not specific for certain historical epochs and countries) models, cases, and arguments. We believe, the historic context and political and legal institutions are matters of great importance and can’t be ignored. Milton Friedman fixed the moment of the very start of the ‘illogical’ revival of the Dead Socialism as early as 1994: “What has happened in Europe with the collapse of the Berlin Wall? By now everybody agrees with two propositions. Proposition one: “Socialism is a failure.” Proposition two: “Capitalism is a success.” To judge from what goes on in Washington, the conclusion that has been drawn is: “Therefore, the U.S. needs more socialism.” Our book discloses for the reader well known in Economics and in History strong incentives of Left politicians (promoters of ‘Big Government’ caring from cradle to grave) and bureaucrats. Why do they relentlessly push all the time for higher taxation, toughest regulations (nowadays, usually presented as ‘anti-discriminatory’, ‘ecological’), etc? The book eventually shows the way, how Welfare state tends to develop into full-fledged socialism and explains, why even ‘socialism lite’ is very dangerous in Long Run perspective. The book is based on data and numerous cases/examples from Israel and old Democracies’ historical / nowadays’ experiences.
Full references with clickable links and some supplemental materials the reader can find in the
Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia – FI) was the only political party represented in the previous Parliament that decisively challenged COVID-19 mandates as a threat to personal rights and liberties. Nicholas Farrell, historian, and journalist had speculated about the probability of FI victory more than a year ago (August 3, 2021): “How remarkable, then, that such a quintessential conservative Englishman as Sir Roger Scruton should have been so powerful a cleansing influence on Italy’s post-fascists and inspired their young leader – who could well become Italy’s next premier – to transform their small, big state, big brother post-fascist party into a vote-winning patriotic, conservative party founded on the sacred principle of individual liberty.” “Why are only Italy’s ‘far right’ opposing vaccine passports?” By the date (September 28, 2022) Italian voters had manifested the highest demand for their rights and liberties protection, delivering the highest reward to the party, leading the anti-mandates movement. Look for a comparison to the other cases of elections influenced by COVID-19 mandates agenda: “Coercive Policies and Some Reactions to the Coercion in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic“
Austrian local family doctor joined the campaign for experimental vaccine(s) (as FDA confessed “Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes”; see for more references “COVID-19 Library” section IV.5) promotion, with a little bit of excessive enthusiasm. She wasn’t among the principal decision-makers, but she agreed to be one of the faces, the front-woman of the campaign. This campaign brazenly ignored the rules of scientific discussion. Dissent opinions were suppressed, and all alternatives to vaccines were declared useless. Eventually, vaccine fanatical hysteria caused the adoption of draconian “law” mandating vaccination under threat of severe fines (up to 15,000 USD yearly).
Our article claiming that lockdown policies have never been scientifically justified has been published in the Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Yanovskiy M, Socol Y. Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159295).
The present coronavirus crisis caused a major worldwide disruption that has not been experienced for decades. The lockdown-based crisis management was implemented by nearly all countries, and studies confirming lockdown effectiveness can be found alongside the studies questioning it. In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historical experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth. Our aim was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.
The paper challenges governmental intervention in cases of “medical events” (disasters, pandemics, and the like). These interventions have a price measured in human life lost (and this point is not new at all). So, governmental emergency intervention is targeted to protect human lives and break normal routine lives, harming incomes and thus shortening human lives. So the emergency intervention ought to be justified by proven harm prevented. We had developed not so complicated procedure of counting minimal thresholds justifying the possibility of intervention. We counted the human life price (about 500 thousand normal quality life years) of lockdowns imposed on Israeli people in 2020.