Will Big Tech Help the Government Undermine Gun Rights?
The Trump administration is flirting with the idea of creating a social credit system with help from Big Tech to use spy data collected from Amazon, Google, and Apple devices to see if certain individuals are fit to own a gun.
What seemed like a distant threat confined to an authoritarian country like China may now be washing up on our shores.
The Daily Caller reported that this “proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department.” It added, “the new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”
HARPA would use “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence”, which include Apple Watches, Amazon Echo, and Google Home.
Simply put, the data that these devices gather would be used to strip law-abiding Americans of their basic rights.
Chris Menahan of Information Liberation, an independent news site, nailed it when he said, “Though the proposal is starting as a voluntary data collection scheme allegedly aimed at finding warning signs of mental illness, we all know so-called “voluntary” government programs often become mandatory at the drop of a hat. ”
If speculation holds true, this proposal could allow Big Tech to engage in neuro-surveillance of citizens through their smartphones and smart home devices.
When talking about gun control in recent times, more than just the right to bear arms is at stake. With proposals like red flag laws and pre-crime legislation like the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act being discussed, rights to self-defense and due process are under legitimate threat. This is a potential double whammy of civil liberties violations.
We must remember that the fight for liberty is an all-inclusive package. Certain political debates may deal with a specific issue—in this case, gun violence — but they are often linked to other issues such as due process, free speech, etc. In other words, losing one fight on civil liberties could create a domino effect of further losses of liberties.
Liberty is not an isolated concept. When one aspect is undermined, others follow. The outrage following these mass shootings is the perfect time for libertarians to calmly explain the implications of the gun control measures D.C. is putting forward. During debates like these, rational arguments and a staunch defense of liberty are desperately needed.
What seemed like a distant threat confined to an authoritarian country like China may now be washing up on our shores.
The Daily Caller reported that this “proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department.” It added, “the new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”
HARPA would use “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence”, which include Apple Watches, Amazon Echo, and Google Home.
Simply put, the data that these devices gather would be used to strip law-abiding Americans of their basic rights.
Chris Menahan of Information Liberation, an independent news site, nailed it when he said, “Though the proposal is starting as a voluntary data collection scheme allegedly aimed at finding warning signs of mental illness, we all know so-called “voluntary” government programs often become mandatory at the drop of a hat. ”
If speculation holds true, this proposal could allow Big Tech to engage in neuro-surveillance of citizens through their smartphones and smart home devices.
When talking about gun control in recent times, more than just the right to bear arms is at stake. With proposals like red flag laws and pre-crime legislation like the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act being discussed, rights to self-defense and due process are under legitimate threat. This is a potential double whammy of civil liberties violations.
We must remember that the fight for liberty is an all-inclusive package. Certain political debates may deal with a specific issue—in this case, gun violence — but they are often linked to other issues such as due process, free speech, etc. In other words, losing one fight on civil liberties could create a domino effect of further losses of liberties.
Liberty is not an isolated concept. When one aspect is undermined, others follow. The outrage following these mass shootings is the perfect time for libertarians to calmly explain the implications of the gun control measures D.C. is putting forward. During debates like these, rational arguments and a staunch defense of liberty are desperately needed.
When a big government politician says, “We need to do something!” it’s a sure bet there will be bad policy. Add racial tension, and there’s a spicy recipe for chaos, just the sort of thing bureaucracies feed on.
Libertarians and a few good Republicans understand this power dynamic. So, why does it seem like the Democrats are free to draw the parameters of any debate on race, most treacherously at the presidential level?
Consider the premises laid out during the third Democratic debate. Racism is systemic, they say. It’s in gun violence, health care, education, the economy, the environment, the hospital, and the courtroom. White privilege is ingrained in society, we’re told.
Is it really sufficient to rebut this ideology by telling black voters that Democrats founded the KKK and Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act? Obviously, that boomer argument will never work.
Or how about the suggestions humbly offered by writers 
This exodus, which became particularly strong following the Great Recession of the late 2000s and early 2010s, has already pushed 7 million born and raised Californians to neighboring states. The majority of those who leave, 
Naturally, interests groups connected to the state complained about how these reforms would hurt labor rights and environmental protections. After all, many pro-intervention groups cannot fathom the idea of a society that is able to organize itself voluntarily.
Nonetheless, Brazil desperately needs such reforms. The World Bank’s 
Trump’s bombastic criticism of the labor leader came after Trumka slammed Trump’s trade deal with Mexico and Canada in a previous interview on Fox News. Although this attack may have seemed petty, Trump did raise a valid point about the political nature of unions in one of his tweets.
Trump specifically said, “No 
The former El Paso congressman believes that no one in America should be living below the poverty line, hence his support for a $15 minimum wage. Similarly, O’Rourke contends that such a wage increase would boost worker productivity. The $15 minimum wage is in vogue among leftist elites, with states like 
After a series of mass shootings during the last month, Kroger 
9/11 is not an excuse to continue these wars
To start, none of the wars in which the US is engaged is against countries that helped commit the September 11th attacks. The US killed most perpetrators of these attacks 
In an interview with 
But this exchange goes beyond Julian Assange. It goes beyond American foreign policy. Rather, one can see a horrifying problem with America’s heart in this exchange. As the conversation continued. It became increasingly obvious that McCain has no concept of society, even humanity, without the state. It is not, however, her fault. She has fallen victim of years of indoctrination that American children, but especially the children of the power elites, suffer.
Meghan McCain Sees No Life Without Government
At an especially testy part of the exchange, Anderson explained that the US Military has killed far more people than Wikileaks could ever imagine. After she said this, McCain responded to Anderson by asking, “So you think the military is putting the government at risk?” I didn’t notice this line at first. But when I saw this video again, I felt chills thinking about this quotation. Pamela Anderson just pointed out that the military has killed thousands, if not millions, of innocent people; and the only response you have is that the military doesn’t endanger the government?
In order to believe this, you have to believe that there is no line dividing the people from the state. One does not come to think of the best interests of the state when the death of innocents come to mind unless they were conditioned to think that way.
Simply put, Meghan McCain is just as much a victim of indoctrination as the average mainstream adherent of political thought. For McCain, however, it is ten times worse. The probable source of this radical indoctrination is her father, John McCain, and his associates.
To be very clear, we are not the government. Until we realize this, the heart and soul of liberty and independence is at jeopardy. This is the real battle of our generation – autonomy vs. the absolute disintegration of a culture that separates us from the state.
We must fight against our social conditioning to view all that is good as the state, and all that is outside the state as bad. Such a cultural disposition is the road to totalitarianism.
So, condemn Meghan McCain’s sentiment, but don’t blame her for it. She is a victim as much as any other