Thank you James. I think we've simply let the checks and balances slide since1945, busy rebuilding the countries destroyed and basked too long in a victory perceived as good triumphing over evil when in fact the 'good' victors stole most of the wicked spells from the evil losers.
Pfizer Et al, will all have known the Nuremburg Code had no teeth and with the ridiculous 'NO LIABILITY' Temporary Concession from 1976 (Swine Flu) they continue to use it as a LICENCE to KILL.
LIABILITY must be reintroduced NOW!
Covid would disappear into insignificance, injections will be stopped and Pfizer et al, will go BANKRUPT from litigation.
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer and to fight the Tyrants.
Excellent first half of the article. However, all the subsequently suggested solutions require government force to implement. The result would eventually (and likely sooner than later) yield more of the same things you just indicted. The only real alternative is to stop delegating safety (or anything else) to coercive systems.
"The only real alternative is to stop delegating safety (or anything else) to coercive systems." I agree 100%, but we're talking here about placing restrictions on the power of evildoers to violate your rights. I don't see "enforcing" rights as a coercive measure, but as a countermeasure against coercion. If there are no legal consequences for violating your rights... well, you get where we are today.
Plenty of legal consequences already exist, and they are both ignored and subverted. Adding laws very commonly yields unintended (and less just) results.
Deferring to government to enforce “legal consequences” is the very mechanism which is invariably used by bureaucracies, businesses, and fellow citizens to impose their will on others. Even if everyone agreed on the definition of natural rights (which is very clearly not the case) government is inevitably a corruptible tool. Short-term improvement is possible, but long term tyranny is inevitable. Sometime soon I will discuss this further in my substack “Durable Freedom”.
Regardless, you are doing thoughtful work and have good intentions. Kudos!
A little further clarification. I'm not in favor of using government power to pass a bunch of new, coercive "regulations". Of course that is destructive and contrary to the whole point and will only result in more tyranny. You and I agree on that. I'm talking about people, you and I, limiting/restricting/curtailing the power of government (and their corporate masters), through a bill of rights.
There's a sense (a twisted sense) in which the Magna Carta might have been considered a new, coercive law, since it was "coercive" against King John, lol. But no liberty-minded person thinks that. We understand that to the extent that King John's power is limited is the extent to which his people enjoy liberty. If the power of the King is not *legally* limited (i.e., backed by the force of the legal system) there's a real sense in which we have not limited his power at all, and just created a pretty document with some nice ideas in it. (Which, I have argued, is exactly what Nuremberg is).
I appreciate your thoughts. These are the sorts of conversations that liberty-minded folks need to have.
Any social pact which sanctions coercion (even with an enumeration of some natural rights) will eventually, and likely immediately, result in more tyranny than would exist in the absence of that pact. The Bill of Rights did not rebuke the Constitution, the Magna Carta did not deny the legitimacy of the king, and (as you have shown) Nuremberg is just a set of guidelines. They all just tried to reduce the potential for harm. They're all admirable attempts at social technology, but they demonstrably failed, as similar attempts always will. It is not possible to create rulers (or police, or armies, or courts, or taxes, or bureaucrats) and then limit them for very long (hello Whisky Rebellion, where the very first, and arguably most honorable, president almost immediately demonstrated state overreach in levying taxes and then enforcing them). Zealous resistance to any creation of rule (at any level) is the only thing a bill of rights should contain. Everything else can be left to voluntary interaction. The result will of course be imperfect, but far less so than yielded by institutionalized coercion (ie government of any type). The State is the ultimate transgressor against natural rights, and enabling the state in any way will yield maximally unintended results.
Unfortunately there is little prospect of a different path unless starting anew, which is not likely to happen in the current world. I channel my present frustration into thinking about the (likely far) future. I appreciate attempts to improve things in the near term, though most of them boil down to selectively trying to protect (by use of state force if necessary) that which is important to the particular individual, while resisting other uses of the state. The union of that is what we now have. And it will get monotonically worse overall (even if there are transient and selective improvements).
The FDA have just asked Pfizer to undertake Safety Trials on their Covid 19 injections that have already killed millions worldwide. A bit late? They've requested the MAKERS investigate THEIR OWN POISONS which is absolute nonsense because before they start, we know their Mission will be to infer the deadly injections ARE SAFE!
I'm going out on a limb here, but my guess is that Pfizer won't find anything untoward to be concerned about.
'LIABILITY' must be REINTRODUCED IMMEDIATELY, then Covid and the need for deadly but ineffective injections will disappear and Pfizer will go broke from litigation.
The Nuremberg Code has been superseded by the Rome Treaty. Grants the ICC powers to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity that are not being addressed by national courts.
Yes, but the ICC has only gone after those involved in Darfur conflict, Congolese rebels, and Gaddafi, and the like. What about the criminals in government, military, and pharmahealth industry involved in medical experimentation?
Even though the Rome Treaty defines "biological experiments" as a war crime, it hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem likely that anyone will be prosecuted for it. Something more is needed.
The greatest crime in world history.
Thank you James. I think we've simply let the checks and balances slide since1945, busy rebuilding the countries destroyed and basked too long in a victory perceived as good triumphing over evil when in fact the 'good' victors stole most of the wicked spells from the evil losers.
Eternal vigilance is hard work.
Bon courage, Charles.
Pfizer Et al, will all have known the Nuremburg Code had no teeth and with the ridiculous 'NO LIABILITY' Temporary Concession from 1976 (Swine Flu) they continue to use it as a LICENCE to KILL.
LIABILITY must be reintroduced NOW!
Covid would disappear into insignificance, injections will be stopped and Pfizer et al, will go BANKRUPT from litigation.
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer and to fight the Tyrants.
Excellent first half of the article. However, all the subsequently suggested solutions require government force to implement. The result would eventually (and likely sooner than later) yield more of the same things you just indicted. The only real alternative is to stop delegating safety (or anything else) to coercive systems.
"The only real alternative is to stop delegating safety (or anything else) to coercive systems." I agree 100%, but we're talking here about placing restrictions on the power of evildoers to violate your rights. I don't see "enforcing" rights as a coercive measure, but as a countermeasure against coercion. If there are no legal consequences for violating your rights... well, you get where we are today.
Plenty of legal consequences already exist, and they are both ignored and subverted. Adding laws very commonly yields unintended (and less just) results.
Deferring to government to enforce “legal consequences” is the very mechanism which is invariably used by bureaucracies, businesses, and fellow citizens to impose their will on others. Even if everyone agreed on the definition of natural rights (which is very clearly not the case) government is inevitably a corruptible tool. Short-term improvement is possible, but long term tyranny is inevitable. Sometime soon I will discuss this further in my substack “Durable Freedom”.
Regardless, you are doing thoughtful work and have good intentions. Kudos!
A little further clarification. I'm not in favor of using government power to pass a bunch of new, coercive "regulations". Of course that is destructive and contrary to the whole point and will only result in more tyranny. You and I agree on that. I'm talking about people, you and I, limiting/restricting/curtailing the power of government (and their corporate masters), through a bill of rights.
There's a sense (a twisted sense) in which the Magna Carta might have been considered a new, coercive law, since it was "coercive" against King John, lol. But no liberty-minded person thinks that. We understand that to the extent that King John's power is limited is the extent to which his people enjoy liberty. If the power of the King is not *legally* limited (i.e., backed by the force of the legal system) there's a real sense in which we have not limited his power at all, and just created a pretty document with some nice ideas in it. (Which, I have argued, is exactly what Nuremberg is).
I appreciate your thoughts. These are the sorts of conversations that liberty-minded folks need to have.
Any social pact which sanctions coercion (even with an enumeration of some natural rights) will eventually, and likely immediately, result in more tyranny than would exist in the absence of that pact. The Bill of Rights did not rebuke the Constitution, the Magna Carta did not deny the legitimacy of the king, and (as you have shown) Nuremberg is just a set of guidelines. They all just tried to reduce the potential for harm. They're all admirable attempts at social technology, but they demonstrably failed, as similar attempts always will. It is not possible to create rulers (or police, or armies, or courts, or taxes, or bureaucrats) and then limit them for very long (hello Whisky Rebellion, where the very first, and arguably most honorable, president almost immediately demonstrated state overreach in levying taxes and then enforcing them). Zealous resistance to any creation of rule (at any level) is the only thing a bill of rights should contain. Everything else can be left to voluntary interaction. The result will of course be imperfect, but far less so than yielded by institutionalized coercion (ie government of any type). The State is the ultimate transgressor against natural rights, and enabling the state in any way will yield maximally unintended results.
Unfortunately there is little prospect of a different path unless starting anew, which is not likely to happen in the current world. I channel my present frustration into thinking about the (likely far) future. I appreciate attempts to improve things in the near term, though most of them boil down to selectively trying to protect (by use of state force if necessary) that which is important to the particular individual, while resisting other uses of the state. The union of that is what we now have. And it will get monotonically worse overall (even if there are transient and selective improvements).
The FDA have just asked Pfizer to undertake Safety Trials on their Covid 19 injections that have already killed millions worldwide. A bit late? They've requested the MAKERS investigate THEIR OWN POISONS which is absolute nonsense because before they start, we know their Mission will be to infer the deadly injections ARE SAFE!
I'm going out on a limb here, but my guess is that Pfizer won't find anything untoward to be concerned about.
'LIABILITY' must be REINTRODUCED IMMEDIATELY, then Covid and the need for deadly but ineffective injections will disappear and Pfizer will go broke from litigation.
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
The Nuremberg Code has been superseded by the Rome Treaty. Grants the ICC powers to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity that are not being addressed by national courts.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-rome-treaty-the-international-criminal-court
Yes, but the ICC has only gone after those involved in Darfur conflict, Congolese rebels, and Gaddafi, and the like. What about the criminals in government, military, and pharmahealth industry involved in medical experimentation?
Even though the Rome Treaty defines "biological experiments" as a war crime, it hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem likely that anyone will be prosecuted for it. Something more is needed.