Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Alice Salles

covid-19 food thomas massie coronavirus

As Producers Dump Food Amid COVID-19 Crisis, Thomas Massie Fights To Strengthen Supply

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, News You Can Use. 1 Comment on As Producers Dump Food Amid COVID-19 Crisis, Thomas Massie Fights To Strengthen Supply

The COVID-19 health crisis has prompted governments around the globe to impose measures that have severely impacted local economies. As weeks of enforced social distancing rules go by, we begin to understand just how many people are being negatively impacted. But as the restaurant, hospitality, and tourism industries are the first to report immense difficulties, we learn of another sector of the economy suffering due to the local and federal governments’ top-down approach to fighting this epidemic. According to reports from The New York Times and the Indian Express, the massive closure of U.S. restaurants is forcing American farmers to dump their own produce as Americans are forced to stay home and cook for themselves. “People don’t make onion rings at home,” onion farmer Shay Myers told reporters. In addition to fresh produce, the country’s largest dairy cooperative, Dairy Farmers of America, is also feeling the impact of the shutdown, having to dump 3.7 million gallons of milk daily. To make matters worse, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told a radio station this week that America is “weeks, not months, away from farmers euthanizing animals that would have been sold for meat/food.” According to the congressman, while the price of meat is going up at the grocery store, farmers are seeing the value of their cows, hogs, and steers drop. That’s because of a supply line that is “brittle,” the congressman said. “You have to take cattle, steer, beef, whatever, hogs, to a processing plant. And these processing plants, like much of industrial America right now, are shutting down because of absentees, which has been exacerbated by the unemployment program the federal government has instituted — plus the $1,200 checks that are about to hit, plus some of the regulations that the states have put in place.” The fact bureaucrats have no idea how the economy works, Massie added, makes it difficult for them to conceive that their own shutdown policies would impact the food industry so negatively. Unfortunately, meat processing plants are closing their doors everywhere, Massie explained. Including a plant that processed 1,900 cattle a day. If farmers can’t have their cattle processed, consumers will see fewer options at the grocery store. “I’m afraid you’re going to see … cattle and hogs being euthanized or incinerated and buried while we have shortages at the supermarket,” Massie said during the interview. “And you talk about civil unrest when you start seeing that. And it’s all because of the brittle food supply chain.”

The Libertarian Solution

The food industry in America has long been the victim of government meddling. From regulations to subsidies that reward some farmers at the expense of others, the U.S. government has done little over the decades to allow the market to correct issues raised by crises such as the one we’re facing today. To Massie, the way to ensure Americans can continue to buy meat products during and after the lockdowns is to cut out the middleman. “I’ve got a bill that would let these local meat packers sell cuts of meat individually instead of having to sell half a cow or a quarter of a cow,” he said. While this is an excellent and necessary first step, this bill wouldn’t address issues being faced by other food producers. In order to free the food market as a whole, the U.S. government should dismantle most of the regulations and subsidies that are currently keeping food suppliers from being able to distribute their products to a greater number of people. If Massie is able to push this bill through Congress, bringing it to President Donald Trump for his signature, this could be the beginning of a chain reaction that would bring the public’s attention to the system that has, for much too long, kept our food supply hostage to the whims of clueless bureaucrats.
coronavirus covid-19 n95 3M monopoly masks

N95 Mask Shortage Amid Coronavirus Crisis: A Government-Created Mess?

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Elections and Politics, Healthcare, Taxes, Trade & Tarrifs. 2 Comments on N95 Mask Shortage Amid Coronavirus Crisis: A Government-Created Mess?

President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 to direct the multinational conglomerate 3M to cease the exportation of N95 respirator masks due to the coronavirus crisis.  coronavirus covid-19 n95 3M monopoly masks The decision followed a segment of Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News highlighting the story of Jared Moskowitz, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management.  During his interview, Moskowitz said that 3M would not let him buy a large quantity of the respirator masks because they were being shipped abroad. “What I asked 3M is that, are they aware that their authorized distributors — U.S. companies — are telling me that the reason our orders are being pushed down is because foreign companies are showing up with cash to purchase the orders?” Moskowitz told Carlson. In light of this news, Trump decided to pressure 3M to boost its distribution of respirator masks to the American market, using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.  “We hit 3M hard today after seeing what they were doing with their Masks,” Trump tweeted. “‘P Act’ all the way. Big surprise to many in government as to what they were doing—will have a big price to pay!” For its part, 3M told media outlets that meeting the demand for masks prompted by how governments across the globe are responding to reported cases of coronavirus has not been easy. As a result, Trump managed to force 3M to redirect some of the shipments back to American soil — but not all.  While this action was praised by some, it didn’t come as a surprise to proponents of free markets. After all, there is a lot more to this story than what was on display during Carlson’s show.  Monopolies, Shortages, & High Costs Considering that the N95 masks are treated as essential equipment for medical professionals dealing with potentially contagious patients, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear told news outlets that if 3M simply can’t meet the demand it should consider dropping its hold on the patent of the respirator device.  Despite defending the broadening of the N95 mask production, Beshear stopped short of defending an end to patent protection altogether, highlighting that freeing other companies from liability if they sought to produce the same masks should be limited to this particular crisis.  “The procurement is incredibly difficult, as is the manufacture because it’s under patent. I’d like to see the people with that patent, which is 3M, provide that to the nation under a license for this period of time,” he said. “I believe it’s their patriotic duty, and they should put it out there so everybody else can manufacture it.”  What the Kentucky governor may have not realized is just how many more lives would be saved under different circumstances if companies like 3M didn’t hold a government-backed right to produce these items. Unlike what proponents of intellectual property laws may suggest, Dr. Timothy Farrell explained in this Mises Institute article that patents aren’t necessary to help boost innovation in the healthcare field. “Even where new drugs could be reverse-engineered and copied, innovation could still be rewarded in a world without patent laws.”  As a matter of fact, government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are in charge of securing patents such as the one owned by 3M, are the ones that should be under heightened scrutiny as people in America struggle to find N95 masks.  If it weren’t for the added costs imposed by the process of getting the FDA to approve drugs and medical devices, as well as the added taxes and regulations, manufacturers of both drugs and life-saving devices wouldn’t have an opportunity to artificially limit the supply by charging higher prices and keeping competitors from developing similar and more affordable products, as explained by patent law expert Stephan Kinsella.  If government agencies did not give companies like 3M highly lucrative incentives to monopolize the production of said masks, we might have never seen a real global shortage in light of COVID-19. Why not look at this problem and use it as a means to explore how much better prepared we would be for something similar in the future by just dropping the legal barriers keeping competitors from developing N95 masks?
privacy coronavirus south korea

Will Coronavirus Response Erode Our Right to Privacy?

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Consumer Protection, Elections and Politics, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. No Comments on Will Coronavirus Response Erode Our Right to Privacy?

As White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Deborah Birx states that outbreak projections widely spread by the media aren’t always what they seem, there’s a growing number of public figures pushing the narrative that America should be more like South Korea.  privacy coronavirus south korea Claiming the small east Asian country of 51 million people is ahead of others in its fight against COVID-19, politicians and members of the media are making the case that America should embrace a similar approach. However, few proponents of this idea are discussing how the South Korean government uses phone and credit card tracking to require people to get tested, and then to ensure that those who have tested positive for the virus aren’t breaking their quarantine.  In addition to using tracking to enforce mandatory rules, the country is also exposing gathered data to the greater population in the form of an app that gives residents knowledge of coronavirus “hot spot” areas. While the app itself does not publish personal information related to those who have fallen ill, it does demonstrate how far the South Korean surveillance mechanisms can go.  Embracing Surveillance In America, privacy concerns have been under the spotlight for years since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden reported on America’s secret surveillance programs, but in more recent years, apathy replaced concern, and the U.S. government once again ramped up its efforts to boost its surveillance apparatus.  With the alleged threat that COVID-19 may pose, the U.S. government has a great excuse to put those capabilities to use like South Korea and even China before them. What’s left for us to find out is if the pro-privacy spirit that was so evident when Snowden came forward remains alive among those who now fear for their lives and health.  In an article for Forbes, cybersecurity contributor Zak Doffman explains that as government leaders use terms such as “the invisible enemy” when referring to the virus, we find ourselves more openly supportive of making privacy compromises.  If the goal is to win this “war,” the sentiment goes, then the government can and should do anything in its power, and that includes partnering with tech companies such as Facebook and Google to track citizens, enforce quarantine rules, and threaten those who defy government orders.  As a matter of fact, the Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is already “in active talks with Facebook, Google and a wide array of tech companies and health experts about how they can use location data gleaned from Americans’ phones to combat coronavirus.”  While “combating coronavirus” sounds wholesome, it is what’s beneath the surface that should be scary. After all, as we become gradually comfortable with the government tracking our health and whereabouts through social media and smartphone tech, we will also grant bureaucrats access to much more than what kind of viruses lurk inside our throats.  Are we willing to tolerate this violation of privacy? And if so, why pretend we hold to a Constitution that defends our right to remain free from unwanted or undue intrusion in our private life and affairs?
eric garcetti, coronavirus, economy

Lockdown or Else: CA Shuts Off Water, Electricity to Businesses Defying Coronavirus Order

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Elections and Politics, Healthcare, Property Rights. 1 Comment on Lockdown or Else: CA Shuts Off Water, Electricity to Businesses Defying Coronavirus Order

The coronavirus crisis is triggering a series of governmental actions across the globe. In America, governors are taking different approaches to help prevent the spread of the virus, with some states implementing more restrictive measures than others.  eric garcetti, coronavirus, economy In California and New York states with some of the highest rates of confirmed novel coronavirus cases, governors have done the unthinkable, issuing directives forcing the population to stay home and threatening to fine those who step out of line.  In California, being caught breaking the new rules could also lead to a misdemeanor, putting residents at risk of going to jail for not practicing “social distancing.”  As if these measures weren’t enough, some city officials decided to double down, announcing that they would be using government-run services to force business owners’ hands.  Defying Logic In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that businesses that ignore state orders will risk having their water and power shut off.  This measure, Garcetti said during his daily briefing Tuesday, is part of his brand new “business ambassadors program,” which puts the task of keeping an eye out for rule breakers in the hands of so-called neighborhood prosecutors. If what the state sees as a non-essential business is known to remain open, neighborhood prosecutors will remind the business owner they must close their doors if they don’t want to be visited by the Department of Water and Power.  Calling business owners who keep their shops open “irresponsible and selfish,” Garcetti added that the “easiest way to avoid a visit is to follow the rules.”  While it’s expected that a state run by Democrats would see little to no opposition to the type of autocratic ruling we often see being implemented in authoritarian countries such as China and Russia, there’s growing evidence that COVID-19 might not be as problematic as once thought.  According to a study carried out by researchers at Oxford’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease lab, half of the population of the United Kingdom may have already been infected with the novel coronavirus. If this is the case, it would mean that the virus was responsible for sending only .01 percent of those infected to the hospital.  While this number must still be confirmed by follow-up studies, it seems to echo what some critics of the current response to the coronavirus have been saying.  One of these critics, Dr. Pietro Vernazza, a Swiss physician at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy who specializes in infectious diseases, got some attention when he pointed out the fact that around “85 percent of all [coronavirus] infections have occurred without anyone noticing” in both China and Italy.  He also warned that if governments were to shut down schools, we would all suffer dearly down the road as children would not be exposed to the virus and thus would be prevented from becoming immune.  While it is clear that the novel coronavirus exposes some of those infected to serious and potentially deadly complications, it’s still too early to say with certainty that the dangers warrant shutting down entire economies, and thus demolishing the livelihoods of thousands if not millions of households in the process.  As any Austrian economist will tell you, the economy isn’t something apart from human history, something created by government decree or developed by an elite as a means of oppression — the economy is simply how humans live and thrive, producing goods, offering services, and using these skills in a mutually beneficial manner.  Attempting to halt the economy as such means destroying what makes life possible. Worse yet, it does so under the auspices of saving mankind from itself, as officials use repressive methods to show the public they couldn’t possibly make life-saving decisions for themselves.  If anything, we should be questioning why so many life-changing decisions were made on our behalf without enough evidence to back them up. Otherwise, we risk giving bureaucrats more power than they already have over our lives.
Bernie Sanders

Sanders’ Aversion to Charity Shows He’s Not for The Little Guy

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Economics, Elections and Politics, Philosophy, Property Rights, Taxes. 1 Comment on Sanders’ Aversion to Charity Shows He’s Not for The Little Guy

While Vermont senator Bernie Sanders might not be the de facto Democratic presidential nominee, his political philosophy continues to gain ground among the younger demographics in populous states such as California.  One of the staples of his ideology is his lack of “faith” in private charity.  Bernie Sanders Claiming that he didn’t “believe” in charities, shortly after being elected mayor of Burlington in 1981, Sanders explained during a United Way meeting that the private model of charity goes against his belief that government, and not private organizations, should be in charge of social programs.  To him, private giving is wrong because it “usurps the authority of the government,” Rev. Ben Johnson with the Acton Institute recently explained.  Despite the many decades Sanders spent as a career politician, his approach to charity hasn’t changed.  Donating only 2.2 percent of his income to charity, Sanders’ performance in the philanthropic realm is abysmal in comparison to the top Democratic presidential contender, Joe Biden, who donates about 9 percent of his money to charity yearly. As noted by Johnson, even when Sanders gets involved in charity, it isn’t about helping people, but about propping up the state.  “In 2013, he joined his fellow Vermont legislators in briefly donating five percent of their income to charity. Sanders said he did this to ‘express solidarity’ with (generously compensated) federal workers facing budget constraints.”  To Sanders, there’s only one way to perform humanitarian work, and that is by effectively stealing the funds from the productive class.  Taxes, and only taxes, Sanders seems to contend, with both his words and his actions, can be used to perform works of charity, which must be carried out by the state in a compulsory way. As Adolphe Blanqui, the protégé of J.B. Say, wrote in 1837, there’s a clear distinction between members of a society — they are either “people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others.”  Blanqui went on to explain that while the “fruit of labor is taken from the workman by taxes,” it is all done “under [the] pretence of the welfare of the state.”  The other class, therefore, “[declares] labor a royal concession, and [makes] one pay dearly for the right to devote himself to it.”  If Sanders were to look critically at his idea of how charity ought to exist only under the auspices of government, he then would have to admit that his system is only possible because there’s a parasitical group of men and women from a privileged class who rely solely on the work of others.  When so clearly laid out, wouldn’t his ideal system necessarily make him the oppressor? As Johnson explains in his analysis, Sanders does not want the government to do charity to help those in need. If this were the case, he wouldn’t be opposed to any form of charity.  What he wants instead is to use government force to use charity as a means of bondage — complete dependence on the state is, after all, what Sanders is after. Unfortunately, a large number of others also seem to feel the same way.

Are Social Media Outlets Ready for a More Conservative Young Generation?

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Are Social Media Outlets Ready for a More Conservative Young Generation?

For the most part, Americans have grown accustomed to an increasingly left-leaning culture, with social media companies playing the role of enforcers in an openly progressive environment where conservative politics is treated as an anomaly and something to be rejected. Whereas the conventional libertarian response to this phenomenon is to simply look at social media platforms as private companies that can set their own rules, it is also true that with a new generation coming of age and making their own consumption decisions, the current cultural environment could soon shift. In no time, companies that effectively punish conservative attitudes might have to deal with the backlash as consumers begin to punish them. As Gen Zers, or Zoomers, are growing older, it’s becoming clear that their politics don’t necessarily mirror millennials’. This is slowly translating into more skepticism when it comes to platforms like Facebook. As Zoomers leave Mark Zuckerberg’s platform in droves, social media companies like TikTok, an app that is making history as the fastest growing in use among the 12 to 18 age demographic, seem to be slow to pick up on the signs that the anti-conservative streak might not be that popular among younger consumers. Thankfully, public pressure still speaks volumes, and with the younger audience becoming less likely to subscribe to left-leaning politics, social media platforms may have to change their tune. That’s precisely what happened recently when TikTok banned pro-life activist Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action. After she announced publicly that she had been prohibited from posting pro-life content on the video-sharing medium, TikTok reached out to Rose personally to reinstate her, giving Live Action another opportunity to reach out to the demographic most at risk for unexpected pregnancies. Thanks mostly to the pressure her announcement created, Rose wasn’t locked out of the platform for long, but other voices, including some considered “dangerous” because of their countercultural speech, remain banned in most of the popular online outlets. Right now, the leading voices in the left-leaning media, in advocacy and on social media, might still feel they have the upper hand when it comes to what is and isn’t acceptable speech online, but as young people take a hold of the narrative, will social media websites cave in or will they stand strong against the tide? Considering some social media moguls are already beginning to sound less disapproving when it comes to certain political speech they dislike, we might finally see online platforms acquiesce in the coming years.

The National Archives Can’t Handle U.S. Records Load, So Agencies Are Destroying Them

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Issues, Liberator Online, News, News You Can Use. 3 Comments on The National Archives Can’t Handle U.S. Records Load, So Agencies Are Destroying Them

The federal government has a problem keeping up with its own paperwork — that is nothing new. What might sound new to millions of Americans is that the nation is slowly learning to let its own history go due to a chronic lack of funds that is making it hard for several agencies to convert paper documents into digital records. In order to deal with the growing number of records in need of storage, the National Archives allowed certain agencies to destroy records in 2017, a plan that was met with some resistance from legislators and immigration advocates. Records officials then claimed that in order to lessen their workload, they would allow officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tasked with recording sexual abuse and death of undocumented immigrants to destroy documents. While the agency ended up postponing the implementation of this plan, the New York Times reports that last month, the National Archives announced it would give ICE the green light to start destroying records from President Trump’s first year in office, some of which register civil rights violations and complaints from detainees of shoddy medical care. As the National Archives struggles to house the existing billions of records in its possession, ICE isn’t the only agency being told it needs to trim down. The Department of the Interior is deleting records on drinking water safety, endangered species, and offshore drilling, according to the New York Times — even after reportedly destroying papers from a case involving the agency’s mismanagement of Native American lands. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for instance, released fewer than ten percent of its estimated 160 million paper records this year, and the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, Keith Krach, was given the go-ahead to designate all documents as “temporary.” While some believe that this issue should push Congress to act, especially due to the lack of employees required to manage the growing number of records sent to the National Archives, the government’s utter incompetence in dealing with its own records is as much of an American tradition as apple pie. Of course, many will try to label this as yet another attempt from the Trump administration to delete records that do not do his presidency any favors, but the reality is that the National Archives has been struggling for years. Expanding The Archives’ Responsibilities In 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments, giving the National Archives the responsibility to care for electronic government records. As the archivist in charge, David Ferriero initiated the monumental task of transferring the historically important records of the Obama era into the National Archives, however, he learned that several key records were missing. The administration had simply “lost” records it was supposed to keep. A shocking revelation to those who had paid close attention — it was the Obama administration itself that had imposed requirements regarding online records, adding that the National Archives alone could decide whether records should be stored or destroyed. As the National Archives continues to receive a growing load of records from several agencies regularly, thanks in part to Obama’s rules, it is also tasked with figuring out what is worth keeping and what is not. Those rules weren’t put in place by Trump, but by his predecessor, and the opportune loss (or destruction) of records didn’t start in 2016, but much earlier when Obama signed the records act into law. At this point, documents that would seem important to some are being completely forgotten and tossed out, while others are being “lost.” Why should one person, or in this case one agency suffering from a lack of funding, be given this tremendous power? If anything, the federal government has too much power to influence U.S. history. Suffering from a serious dereliction of duty, the nation’s federal government has deviated from its initial purpose by growing to a point that republicanism is no longer a possibility.

Apple Caves In to FBI Demand for Backdoor Access

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 1 Comment on Apple Caves In to FBI Demand for Backdoor Access

The U.S. government has long pressured tech companies to give law enforcement more access to the backend of their products in the name of public safety. Even after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations surfaced in 2013, showing that the surveillance machine operated by the federal government was rife with abuse and unconstitutional behavior, officials seemed unphased. Under President Trump, Attorney General William Barr continues the tradition of asking private companies to cooperate more — giving the feds even more access to private data without due process. Recently, Barr attacked Apple for allegedly refusing to cooperate in undermining the encryption of iPhones, which would aid law enforcement in their investigations. The attack completely ignores the fact that Apple does, indeed, cooperate. As the writers at Tech Dirt point out, Barr’s claims aren’t based on facts. “[…] plenty of people have been pointing out for years that the reality is that most iPhone encryption is effectively meaningless because if a user has iCloud backups on, Apple retains the key to that data and can (and does!) open it up for legitimate law enforcement requests,” the article explains. Furthermore, there are plenty of additional resources law enforcement agencies have at their disposal, which they continue to put into use to hack into most iPhone models, making Barr’s push to make Apple more friendly toward the surveillance state meaningless. Over the years, the ineffectiveness of Apple’s encryption methods has caught the attention of privacy advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who have long urged the Silicon Valley company to fully encrypt iCloud backups, making it impossible even for Apple to get in. This push prompted Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to respond to the complaints during an interview, saying that the company decided not to deploy full encryption after thinking about the potentially negative consequences for users. After all, if the iCloud backup is fully encrypted and Apple has no access to it when the user loses his password, he also loses access to his data — forever. In spite of these hurdles, Cook suggested in the same interview that Apple would eventually try to encrypt backups as well. “I think that will be regulated in the future as with the devices. So we will not have a key for it in the future,” Cook concluded. Now, it looks like this idea is a thing of the past. According to Reuters, Apple put an end to its full encryption plan after pressure from the FBI, where complaints regarding the impact of such encryption would be deeply felt among agents. Needless to say, Apple decided to put the needs of the feds before those of their customers. And while Apple’s decision may seem counterintuitive, it pays to note that if Apple doesn’t toe the line, it risks being the target of the same harsh regulations that the bureaucracy imposes on its potential competitors. While this is nothing new, especially when you consider the federal government’s massive power, it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in America, where crony capitalism is the law of the land.

Clueless California Democrat Couldn’t Care Less About Putting People Out of Work

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. 2 Comments on Clueless California Democrat Couldn’t Care Less About Putting People Out of Work

California is beating all other states when it comes to giving residents enough incentives to flee. With the Golden State’s recently enacted AB5 law now scaring companies from hiring freelancers, things are about to get even worse. Despite the despair of many who rely on freelance work to pay the bills, bureaucrats are unimpressed, saying they simply don’t believe the naysayers. Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, AB5’s author, has made a name for herself for continuing to deny charges that her bill is hurting workers, claiming her intentions were good. But the claim that forcing companies to reclassify freelancers as employees, AB5’s core goal, hasn’t aged nicely, especially as workers in a variety of fields, from rideshare drivers to journalists, complain about their plummeting earnings. On Twitter, it’s clear the new law is upsetting both the left and the right. Users such as conservative commentator and Redstate editor Kira Davis, journalist and beer enthusiast Beth Demmon, disabled essayist and film critic Kristen Lopez, and “All-American Muslim Girl” author Nadine Jolie Courtney are all openly concerned about their future, due to the fact that media outlets are no longer seeking to publish their work. Despite their public display of concern regarding AB5 and how the law will further impact their careers, Gonzalez seems oblivious as to how her bill could hurt anybody. In a recent interview on local San Diego TV station KUSI, the assemblywoman dismissed concerns about AB5, going as far as saying that the complaints of a freelance translator who says she’s having a hard time getting jobs were nothing but lies. “I’m sorry, and I feel that she does feel that way. But, I don’t think it’s true.” In the past, the assemblywoman lost her cool and resorted to profanity on Twitter when responding to a critic who was saying people were no longer going to be able to get more side gigs thanks to her bill. Clearly, the lawmaker sees no problem with people losing their livelihoods thanks to her work. As California sees an exodus of working-class families in the works, rules like AB5 provide workers infinite more incentives to move elsewhere. Unfortunately, there’s absolutely nothing that will disarm prideful bureaucrats like Gonzalez — and that’s by design. Lawmakers have no incentives to worry about the outcome of their bills. Feel-good promises are what voters are all about, and politicians aren’t in the business to help — they are in it to get reelected. By the next election cycle, few if any, will remember that the San Diego Democrat was to blame for the despair of thousands of Californians.

African Americans Brace for a Civil War — Is It Time to Decentralize?

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. 7 Comments on African Americans Brace for a Civil War — Is It Time to Decentralize?

America is going through a difficult moment, with right versus left making a mockery of civility both online and in public. Whether the ideological divide is going to eventually engulf the whole country, pitting neighbor against neighbor in a war for survival, remains to be seen. Until then, all it takes is a quick glance at Twitter to find countless sources telling tales of vicious attacks brewed by passionate defenses of political ideologies. This brutality might be amplified by online platforms and their users, but to at least one demographic in particular, it signals that things are only getting worse. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% of black voters believe the U.S. will “experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years,” whereas only 7% of white voters believe that a civil war is “very likely” to break out. On the other hand, 38% of white voters don’t see a civil war taking place in America anytime soon. Among other minorities, concerns regarding a potential war are also high, with 34% of Latinos and others saying a civil war is at least somewhat likely. While it’s hard to pinpoint the specific reason why each individual black and Latino respondent believes that a war is imminent, it doesn’t take a great deal of analysis to conclude that the left’s scare tactics are working on their target demographics. Since the 2016 presidential election when Democratic candidates associated Trump with doomsday scenarios, nuclear wars, and utter decline of the American empire, Americans who lean left politically have been told the end is near. Removing Trump from office, they repeated, was key to getting America back on track. As the contagious dissatisfaction spread, even the right began to unite against Trump, building up the tensions and helping the left justify its hateful rhetoric. As the nation follows the impeachment hearings and listens to 2020 Democratic candidates blaming all that is wrong with America on Trump, it’s safe to say there’s no end to the political divide insight. How long will it take until a civil war does break out? And if it doesn’t, would half of the country be willing to completely criminalize a certain political ideology to soothe the tensions? Would that mean the other half of the country would be pushed into the shadows, being forced to discuss their political leanings away from the thought police? In time, the prevailing group would want to implement stern measures against those who refuse to comply. By then, would they advocate for the imprisonment of their fellow Americans? What would the future look like in such a politically divided country? As explained by the Mises Institute president, Jeff Deist, there’s only one real option for those who want peace. If we want to come out unscathed from this difficult phase, we must go beyond begging for tolerance. Instead, we must elevate division — but not of the social kind. We must bring back localism, federalism, and yes, political separation. In a country so large and so diverse as America, allowing people to take control of their communities makes sense. After all, a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., has absolutely no idea what the head of a household in Boise, Idaho, goes through. Why should he be dictating what kind of political ideology that an individual should subscribe to? In a world where politically charged conflicts could ignite a civil war, why not look at decentralization as a peaceful, lasting solution?

Court Rules Against Liberty of Conscience Rule Protecting Anti-Abortion Doctors

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Healthcare, Liberator Online, Marriage and Family, News, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Court Rules Against Liberty of Conscience Rule Protecting Anti-Abortion Doctors

The Trump administration’s rule giving health providers the freedom to refuse care based on moral or religious reasons has been struck down by a second federal judge in Washington State. Essentially, the Trump rule would withdraw federally-backed health care funds to states that push back against medical professionals who refuse to participate in procedures that go against their beliefs. This protection had been often associated with abortion and was challenged in court by groups such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as California and New York. In a statement, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said that the federal government is wrong in trying to protect the rights of individual providers if it means they will discriminate against certain groups. “The court agreed that all Washingtonians deserve to receive the full range of health care services,” he said. “This rule would have disproportionately harmed rural and working poor Washington families, who have no alternatives to their local health care providers, as well as LGBTQ individuals, who already face discrimination when they seek medical care.” To the judge, certain people are more worthy of government protection than others. The Right To Discriminate In a 2010 column, economist Walter E. Williams argued that discrimination happens whether the state wants it or not because what we do with our lives (and our labor) is our property, not the state’s. If a person is providing a private service or a good, he is just as entitled to discriminate against an individual as he is against a series of potential brides while selecting a marriage partner. “The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members,” Williams explained. Whenever there’s a private party involved, he added, it is completely up to the owner to determine who should or shouldn’t be admitted. Therefore, Trump’s “conscience protection” rule is nothing but an extension of basic property rights, except it threatens states with the withdrawal of taxpayer dollars in case they fail to comply. By blocking this protection and keeping the federal government from enforcing this rule, judges are, in essence, violating the property rights of physicians and nurses who refuse to partake in certain procedures. If anything, this move would only give politically connected groups more tools to violate the property rights of others in the long run. Right now, being a Christian and a conservative isn’t popular, so public opinion will be on the side of those attacking them. Tomorrow, there might be another group under the state’s target, and those trying to suppress them will use the same tools used to squash Trump’s conscience protection.

Nurses’ Union Supports Sanders, Ignores Destructive Consequences of Medicare for All

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Nurses’ Union Supports Sanders, Ignores Destructive Consequences of Medicare for All

Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders snagged another campaign endorsement. Much like all others, the latest pledge of support comes with strings attached. National Nurses United is the largest nurses union group in America. This week, it announced its endorsement of Sanders and his universal Medicare for All, giving the presidential candidate millions in financial backing from the union’s super PAC.  In the announcement published by NNU’s own website, President Jean Ross made it clear why supporting Sanders is part of the organization’s strategy. “We need a president who makes it easier for us to stand together and hold our employers accountable for putting people above profits,” said Ross.  In the same article, NNU Executive Director Bonnie Castillo, RN, further explained why they believe Medicare for All would be an improvement of the current healthcare system  “Nurses are beyond tired of watching our patients suffer and die needlessly simply due to inability to pay, and we know Bernie Sanders is, and has been, leading on Medicare for All through his advocacy and Senate legislation.” To the group, putting the financial burden on government (i.e. the taxpayers) is key to giving Americans access to life-saving health care. However flawed the current healthcare system in America is, NNU leadership seems to believe, eliminating a private option and transitioning millions of Americans to a Medicare-style system would both help patients in the lower-income brackets and the medical industry, who would have no shortage of patients to care for. Unfortunately, the NNU’s logic is lacking, especially when we realize that the destruction of the private sector will actually worsen the already troubling medical staff shortage plaguing the country. In the end, Sanders and his Medicare for All will actually make it less profitable for nurses and doctors to practice medicine, insulate the market from newcomers, and hurt patients who need help the most. Fighting for the Status Quo Currently, the US healthcare market is still dealing with the disruption caused by the Affordable Care Act.  Despite the many promises made by former President Barack Obama and the claims made in several pro-ObamaCare studies claiming that the passage of the law saved lives, the numbers don’t add up. Worse yet, the rules actually made US healthcare more expensive and less effective. By transferring millions of Americans who either have private insurance or who aren’t covered to Medicare would actually lower provider fees below market levels, since Medicare reimbursement rates are significantly lower than the fees provided privately.  Over time, physicians, clinics, hospitals, and others in the industry would be forced out of the market due to their incapacity to pay the bills. This would increase the demand for providers and yet, new providers would not be able to enter the market precisely due to the increasing costs.  Patients would be the first to suffer as they would lose control over their healthcare decisions and see a dramatic drop in the quality of care, as they would have to deal with longer wait times.  If anything, nurses supporting the NNU’s decision to back Sanders’ proposal aren’t looking after the poor and the sick. Instead, they are looking out for the political class and their misguided vision for America.