How Becoming a Father Made Me Rethink My Libertarianism
Author: Nick Hankoff
After The Police Are Dismantled, Will Private Security Services Save the Day?
Will Minneapolis be safer after its police force is disbanded? Only if the city follows a libertarian approach will the people be guaranteed greater protection for themselves and their property. All other methods jeopardize resistance to a police state.
A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council promises to “dismantle” their city’s police department in response to the May 25th death of George Floyd, who died after suffering for over eight minutes from an officer’s knee pressed into his neck. That incident, caught on video, spurred protests and riots nationwide as well as globally.
Needless to say, a lot is at stake here if Minneapolis follows through. It is the country’s 46th largest city and part of the 16th largest metropolitan area. The immediate and long-term consequences would be studied by communities worldwide, perhaps for generations to come.
In the run-up to the City Council’s decision, over 600 people have been arrested in connection to the Minneapolis protests and riots. Together with St. Paul, the Twin Cities have seen nearly as many buildings looted or vandalized, and at least 67 were completely destroyed by fire, while still others had serious water and fire damage, according to the Star-Tribune.
Libertarians, especially those of an anarcho-capitalist bent, have long called for abolishing the police or at least severely downsizing or decentralizing them. However, there are reasons for them to be apprehensive about what Minneapolis appears to be spearheading.
The libertarian understanding of police is that they are not just the government’s law enforcers but more fundamentally a state response to the market demand for security of persons and property.
Like all government “services,” policing is financed through compulsory taxation backed by the threat of force. The moral and logical implications of this should be obvious, but the libertarian is also aware of the economic impacts when only one side of a transaction is voluntary.
Thankfully, it is easy to visualize what policing or protection services would look like under a totally voluntary arrangement. Most of what the police provide is already largely available on the open, voluntary market. In fact, what’s difficult is quantifying all of the products and services that go into this field, from cameras to alarm systems to weapons and security guards.
Now, when it comes to some powers like making arrests and incarcerating, police have more of a monopoly. Might that exclusivity be a contributing factor to unaccountability for police brutality and the troubling facts surrounding criminal justice and record prison populations?
In a libertarian order, where private property rights are secured through voluntary means, there is the benefit of economic signals in the form of prices. Under the status quo, governments may calculate some costs, but there is no sales revenue feedback, due to their “customers” being coerced into “buying” whatever is “offered.”
If police answered to customers just as grocers and hairdressers do, they wouldn’t be wasting time doing things that customers wouldn’t pay for, like pursuing the failed War on Drugs or petty rule infractions that generate revenue for governments.
Many police officers want to serve the public, and they nobly try their best to do so. But they’re up against a system that actually serves the government, as it makes the call on what is deemed a security threat. Police militarization is a consequence of this.
A brief sidenote to better illustrate the point, consider the TSA’s role at airports. The agency just rolled back its rule on larger bottles of hand sanitizer due to Covid-19, effectively admitting its rules are as dumb as they’ve always seemed. Or, remember when then-Congressman Ron Paul counted nearly 100,000 federal agents who carried guns, including for OSHA and the EPA.
Considering how much technological research and development is steered by government grants and contracts, it’s startling to think of the potential there is for truly private production of security.
The malinvestment is seen, but the unseen is how those resources would be better directed by businesses, neighborhood associations, and mutual aid groups that care about the communities they serve.
In Minneapolis, unfortunately, it does not seem that a libertarian path is being taken to arrive at a “police-free future” as their City Council statement puts it.
The statement fails to detail how the city will develop a “new transformative model for cultivating safety.”
“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,” the statement continues, adding that the City Council will dialog with residents over the coming year.
That may sound good, but it really doesn’t say much of anything. More can be derived from what is not being said.
There is no indication that the taxpayers who footed the bill for the police department will see any refund, nor taxes being lowered. And there is absolutely no talk of undoing any gun control restrictions or pressuring the state to do so. Unsurprisingly, the Minneapolis City Council isn’t poised to give up any power, but instead grab more.
City Council president Lisa Bender has appeared on CNN, saying that worrying about who to call about a house break-in in the middle of the night “comes from a place of privilege.”
“I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done,” Bender added.
So, now “privilege” is the latest bogeyman, not unlike the concocted threats mentioned earlier, like terrorism, drugs, etc.
Bender’s words do not reflect a good philosophical foundation to ensure public safety going forward. They reflect a political class that feels emboldened to centrally plan the allocation of public safety resources, and that’s no transformation from what existed beforehand.
The libertarian way is the only “transformative” one, because it strikes at the root of the problem. That is, the coercion, the legalized violence the state has reserved for itself in the name of protection. Only when peaceful means are deployed will there be a peaceful end, the end of unaccountable police.
A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council promises to “dismantle” their city’s police department in response to the May 25th death of George Floyd, who died after suffering for over eight minutes from an officer’s knee pressed into his neck. That incident, caught on video, spurred protests and riots nationwide as well as globally.
Needless to say, a lot is at stake here if Minneapolis follows through. It is the country’s 46th largest city and part of the 16th largest metropolitan area. The immediate and long-term consequences would be studied by communities worldwide, perhaps for generations to come.
In the run-up to the City Council’s decision, over 600 people have been arrested in connection to the Minneapolis protests and riots. Together with St. Paul, the Twin Cities have seen nearly as many buildings looted or vandalized, and at least 67 were completely destroyed by fire, while still others had serious water and fire damage, according to the Star-Tribune.
Libertarians, especially those of an anarcho-capitalist bent, have long called for abolishing the police or at least severely downsizing or decentralizing them. However, there are reasons for them to be apprehensive about what Minneapolis appears to be spearheading.
The libertarian understanding of police is that they are not just the government’s law enforcers but more fundamentally a state response to the market demand for security of persons and property.
Like all government “services,” policing is financed through compulsory taxation backed by the threat of force. The moral and logical implications of this should be obvious, but the libertarian is also aware of the economic impacts when only one side of a transaction is voluntary.
Thankfully, it is easy to visualize what policing or protection services would look like under a totally voluntary arrangement. Most of what the police provide is already largely available on the open, voluntary market. In fact, what’s difficult is quantifying all of the products and services that go into this field, from cameras to alarm systems to weapons and security guards.
Now, when it comes to some powers like making arrests and incarcerating, police have more of a monopoly. Might that exclusivity be a contributing factor to unaccountability for police brutality and the troubling facts surrounding criminal justice and record prison populations?
In a libertarian order, where private property rights are secured through voluntary means, there is the benefit of economic signals in the form of prices. Under the status quo, governments may calculate some costs, but there is no sales revenue feedback, due to their “customers” being coerced into “buying” whatever is “offered.”
If police answered to customers just as grocers and hairdressers do, they wouldn’t be wasting time doing things that customers wouldn’t pay for, like pursuing the failed War on Drugs or petty rule infractions that generate revenue for governments.
Many police officers want to serve the public, and they nobly try their best to do so. But they’re up against a system that actually serves the government, as it makes the call on what is deemed a security threat. Police militarization is a consequence of this.
A brief sidenote to better illustrate the point, consider the TSA’s role at airports. The agency just rolled back its rule on larger bottles of hand sanitizer due to Covid-19, effectively admitting its rules are as dumb as they’ve always seemed. Or, remember when then-Congressman Ron Paul counted nearly 100,000 federal agents who carried guns, including for OSHA and the EPA.
Considering how much technological research and development is steered by government grants and contracts, it’s startling to think of the potential there is for truly private production of security.
The malinvestment is seen, but the unseen is how those resources would be better directed by businesses, neighborhood associations, and mutual aid groups that care about the communities they serve.
In Minneapolis, unfortunately, it does not seem that a libertarian path is being taken to arrive at a “police-free future” as their City Council statement puts it.
The statement fails to detail how the city will develop a “new transformative model for cultivating safety.”
“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,” the statement continues, adding that the City Council will dialog with residents over the coming year.
That may sound good, but it really doesn’t say much of anything. More can be derived from what is not being said.
There is no indication that the taxpayers who footed the bill for the police department will see any refund, nor taxes being lowered. And there is absolutely no talk of undoing any gun control restrictions or pressuring the state to do so. Unsurprisingly, the Minneapolis City Council isn’t poised to give up any power, but instead grab more.
City Council president Lisa Bender has appeared on CNN, saying that worrying about who to call about a house break-in in the middle of the night “comes from a place of privilege.”
“I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done,” Bender added.
So, now “privilege” is the latest bogeyman, not unlike the concocted threats mentioned earlier, like terrorism, drugs, etc.
Bender’s words do not reflect a good philosophical foundation to ensure public safety going forward. They reflect a political class that feels emboldened to centrally plan the allocation of public safety resources, and that’s no transformation from what existed beforehand.
The libertarian way is the only “transformative” one, because it strikes at the root of the problem. That is, the coercion, the legalized violence the state has reserved for itself in the name of protection. Only when peaceful means are deployed will there be a peaceful end, the end of unaccountable police.
The Bush-Obama-Trump Surveillance State Won’t Be Mentioned on the Presidential Debate Stage
As Americans nobly try to decipher what’s true or false in this year’s presidential debates, they won’t hear a peep about one of the biggest threats to liberty: secretive mass surveillance. That would require a third voice on the stage.
Rampant violations of Americans’ rights against unlawful searches are set to continue unquestioned at the highest levels in the land of the free. That is the result of a powerful bipartisan consensus dating back to at least President George W. Bush and shared by presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, not to mention leaders of Congress, over the last two decades.
The power to collect bulk personal data of Americans and then place those individuals on government lists is irresistible. Obama paid lip service to civil liberties advocacy groups on the campaign trail, but as president, he didn’t shut down what Bush helped establish. The same can be said for Trump.
In just a few months, Trump will be scheduled to debate his Democratic opponent, who will be Joe Biden if he is officially nominated and not replaced over health concerns. Of course, Biden won’t have any credibility in going after Trump for his new national security watchlist that includes Americans with no connections to terrorism. More on that program in a minute.
Trump would sooner bring up runaway surveillance power in a debate against Biden, but only within the parameters of how the Obama administration used a phony Russian collusion narrative as a pretext to spy on and pursue members of the 2016 Trump campaign.
When it comes to impacts on average Americans, Trump would have us believe that he has all the right people in charge of mass surveillance programs, unlike other presidents did or would. Every president says that though.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush signed an executive order launching the warrantless wiretapping program of the National Security Agency. It covered virtually every single American and remained secret for years until a New York Times exposé on the program in December 2005. The Times had the story a full year prior but was pressured into not reporting it out of so-called national security concerns.
In August 2006, the federal court case ACLU vs. NSA was ruled in the ACLU’s favor by a district judge who found that Bush’s mass surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches. In 2007, the president allowed his program to expire, but it was transferred to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the powers were expanded further in 2008.
By the time Obama became president, it was already clear that the warrantless wiretap programs would remain largely intact. As a U.S. senator, Obama voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which among other broad powers lets FBI agents write their own search warrants instead of going to a judge. He also voted to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adding legal immunity for giant telecom corporations that shared Americans’ data with the government.
In one of Obama’s last acts as president, he signed an executive order expanding mass surveillance powers with regard to sharing information on Americans among various agencies of the government.
Trump has had a different orientation toward the surveillance state, but several failed attempts at reform in Congress have not seen strong support from the administration. Recently, an amendment to bar the FBI from obtaining internet histories of Americans without a warrant was defeated in the Senate. They were short just one vote for a modest, partial reform.
Despite Trump’s verbal attacks on the “deep state,” his administration has created a new secret national security watchlist that includes Americans with no terrorism ties. Government officials told Newsweek that the list has the potential to contain thousands of Americans in over a hundred cities, merely for being suspected of a crime and being associated with “transnational” criminal activity. A similar program was used in the 9/11 era, but this one is adapted to a world of social media and smartphones.
None of this will be brought to light in the presidential debates this year, for a couple of reasons primarily. There is, as stated before, the clear risk of being labeled a hypocrite for pointing out programs supported by both major political parties. The other reason is that there won’t be a third voice on the debate stage who has a clear record against these programs.
That third voice should be Libertarian Party presidential nominee Jo Jorgenson, a psychology professor who will be the only other candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. But there is little hope that she will be given the opportunity to raise the level of debate and Americans’ knowledge of the issue of secret mass surveillance.
That doesn’t mean Americans are helpless in defending their freedom and privacy. At the state and community levels, citizens can get involved by telling their representatives they want a law or ordinance that blocks any local aid to the federal government in pursuance of these mass data collections.
Hopefully, by the time the next presidential election comes around, robust national debate and real reform will follow the lead of local efforts to enforce the Constitution and protect liberty.
Rampant violations of Americans’ rights against unlawful searches are set to continue unquestioned at the highest levels in the land of the free. That is the result of a powerful bipartisan consensus dating back to at least President George W. Bush and shared by presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, not to mention leaders of Congress, over the last two decades.
The power to collect bulk personal data of Americans and then place those individuals on government lists is irresistible. Obama paid lip service to civil liberties advocacy groups on the campaign trail, but as president, he didn’t shut down what Bush helped establish. The same can be said for Trump.
In just a few months, Trump will be scheduled to debate his Democratic opponent, who will be Joe Biden if he is officially nominated and not replaced over health concerns. Of course, Biden won’t have any credibility in going after Trump for his new national security watchlist that includes Americans with no connections to terrorism. More on that program in a minute.
Trump would sooner bring up runaway surveillance power in a debate against Biden, but only within the parameters of how the Obama administration used a phony Russian collusion narrative as a pretext to spy on and pursue members of the 2016 Trump campaign.
When it comes to impacts on average Americans, Trump would have us believe that he has all the right people in charge of mass surveillance programs, unlike other presidents did or would. Every president says that though.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush signed an executive order launching the warrantless wiretapping program of the National Security Agency. It covered virtually every single American and remained secret for years until a New York Times exposé on the program in December 2005. The Times had the story a full year prior but was pressured into not reporting it out of so-called national security concerns.
In August 2006, the federal court case ACLU vs. NSA was ruled in the ACLU’s favor by a district judge who found that Bush’s mass surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches. In 2007, the president allowed his program to expire, but it was transferred to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the powers were expanded further in 2008.
By the time Obama became president, it was already clear that the warrantless wiretap programs would remain largely intact. As a U.S. senator, Obama voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which among other broad powers lets FBI agents write their own search warrants instead of going to a judge. He also voted to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adding legal immunity for giant telecom corporations that shared Americans’ data with the government.
In one of Obama’s last acts as president, he signed an executive order expanding mass surveillance powers with regard to sharing information on Americans among various agencies of the government.
Trump has had a different orientation toward the surveillance state, but several failed attempts at reform in Congress have not seen strong support from the administration. Recently, an amendment to bar the FBI from obtaining internet histories of Americans without a warrant was defeated in the Senate. They were short just one vote for a modest, partial reform.
Despite Trump’s verbal attacks on the “deep state,” his administration has created a new secret national security watchlist that includes Americans with no terrorism ties. Government officials told Newsweek that the list has the potential to contain thousands of Americans in over a hundred cities, merely for being suspected of a crime and being associated with “transnational” criminal activity. A similar program was used in the 9/11 era, but this one is adapted to a world of social media and smartphones.
None of this will be brought to light in the presidential debates this year, for a couple of reasons primarily. There is, as stated before, the clear risk of being labeled a hypocrite for pointing out programs supported by both major political parties. The other reason is that there won’t be a third voice on the debate stage who has a clear record against these programs.
That third voice should be Libertarian Party presidential nominee Jo Jorgenson, a psychology professor who will be the only other candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. But there is little hope that she will be given the opportunity to raise the level of debate and Americans’ knowledge of the issue of secret mass surveillance.
That doesn’t mean Americans are helpless in defending their freedom and privacy. At the state and community levels, citizens can get involved by telling their representatives they want a law or ordinance that blocks any local aid to the federal government in pursuance of these mass data collections.
Hopefully, by the time the next presidential election comes around, robust national debate and real reform will follow the lead of local efforts to enforce the Constitution and protect liberty.
When "Experts" Set Policy, Citizens Lose Control of Their Own Government
It is tempting to have faith in “science” when it comes to public policy during an emergency. However, as the coronavirus pandemic episode shows us, “experts” can be just as wrong and harmful as the politicians hiding behind them.
Type into a search engine “trust science.” Check news and op-ed results. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any counterpoint to the notion that America and its government must unite in submission to the experts.
Perhaps what’s driving this prevalent attitude is not just fear of Covid-19. Amid a presidential election year, our society is more hyper-politicized than ever. What could be more non-political than science itself? Its cold calculations offer a comforting escape from the hot air.
However, there is a catch. That is, living under a technocracy and sacrificing self-government in the process. Indeed, this has been a trend in American governance for a long time.
There are experts advising or running unelected boards, commissions, bureaucracies, and agencies all around us. Think of the Federal Reserve or the Office of the Surgeon General, both created in the Progressive Era.
In a technocracy, there’s no representation or accountability. The politicians simply yield to the health specialists or some guru who has looked at the data. Even if this solves some problems, the sterilization of the people and their democratic processes isn’t worth it in the long run.
The truth is the experts often get it wrong, not to mention they are still only human, subject to political or ideological biases or other interests like ambition. If they’re making decisions for the country, and likely pulling in a decent tax-subsidized salary, shouldn’t they earn the support of the people or otherwise be held to account for failure?
Take the current surgeon general, Jerome Adams, for instance. On February 29th, the day after the first U.S. death from Covid-19, he tweeted, “STOP BUYING MASKS!” and urged Americans to stay home.
That tweet didn’t age well. Masks are now required for virtually all people in some areas of the country, or in some retail chains like Costco. Staying at home was what 66 percent of New Yorkers hospitalized with coronavirus were doing.
As science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.”
The Trump administration’s coronavirus task force head, Dr. Deborah Birx, reportedly told the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that there is “nothing from the CDC that I can trust,” according to the Washington Post.
It’s possible that some scientists skew their research for financial gain or political prestige. That isn’t known to be the case during this pandemic so far, but it’s not exactly an exercise in mere hypotheticals either.
In November 2015, Stanford News reported that a “pattern” of scientists fabricating their data spurred the development of a sort of lie detector for research publishing.
Even with good intentions, basing public policy purely on “science” can have disastrous effects. It’s estimated some 75,000 people will die “deaths of despair” as a result of the lockdowns.
That doesn’t include those who will die for lack of important surgeries or cancer treatment and screening, as a result of the lockdowns.
In America, do we still hold to the belief that our government is of, by, and for the people? At the very least, the second category, by the people, seems unpopular during the spread of Covid-19.
Government by the experts is more comforting these days. But what about tomorrow? We may regret it.
Type into a search engine “trust science.” Check news and op-ed results. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any counterpoint to the notion that America and its government must unite in submission to the experts.
Perhaps what’s driving this prevalent attitude is not just fear of Covid-19. Amid a presidential election year, our society is more hyper-politicized than ever. What could be more non-political than science itself? Its cold calculations offer a comforting escape from the hot air.
However, there is a catch. That is, living under a technocracy and sacrificing self-government in the process. Indeed, this has been a trend in American governance for a long time.
There are experts advising or running unelected boards, commissions, bureaucracies, and agencies all around us. Think of the Federal Reserve or the Office of the Surgeon General, both created in the Progressive Era.
In a technocracy, there’s no representation or accountability. The politicians simply yield to the health specialists or some guru who has looked at the data. Even if this solves some problems, the sterilization of the people and their democratic processes isn’t worth it in the long run.
The truth is the experts often get it wrong, not to mention they are still only human, subject to political or ideological biases or other interests like ambition. If they’re making decisions for the country, and likely pulling in a decent tax-subsidized salary, shouldn’t they earn the support of the people or otherwise be held to account for failure?
Take the current surgeon general, Jerome Adams, for instance. On February 29th, the day after the first U.S. death from Covid-19, he tweeted, “STOP BUYING MASKS!” and urged Americans to stay home.
That tweet didn’t age well. Masks are now required for virtually all people in some areas of the country, or in some retail chains like Costco. Staying at home was what 66 percent of New Yorkers hospitalized with coronavirus were doing.
As science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.”
The Trump administration’s coronavirus task force head, Dr. Deborah Birx, reportedly told the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that there is “nothing from the CDC that I can trust,” according to the Washington Post.
It’s possible that some scientists skew their research for financial gain or political prestige. That isn’t known to be the case during this pandemic so far, but it’s not exactly an exercise in mere hypotheticals either.
In November 2015, Stanford News reported that a “pattern” of scientists fabricating their data spurred the development of a sort of lie detector for research publishing.
Even with good intentions, basing public policy purely on “science” can have disastrous effects. It’s estimated some 75,000 people will die “deaths of despair” as a result of the lockdowns.
That doesn’t include those who will die for lack of important surgeries or cancer treatment and screening, as a result of the lockdowns.
In America, do we still hold to the belief that our government is of, by, and for the people? At the very least, the second category, by the people, seems unpopular during the spread of Covid-19.
Government by the experts is more comforting these days. But what about tomorrow? We may regret it.
Education Must Put Parents and Children First, Not Government Control
Children and society’s future are at stake when setting education policy. That makes it among the most intense political issues, but there’s no reason disagreements should rise to the level of involving the criminal justice system.
A recent column in Harvard Magazine highlighted Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s support for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling. That is very close to presuming guilt before innocence, and it certainly risks tearing families apart as we all know how bans are enforced.
Bartholet might be on the extreme end of the anti-homeschooling position, but she isn’t alone. Did I mention she’s a Harvard law professor?
For those in favor or neutral on the question of homeschooling, she might come off ignorant, cruel, or crazy. It’s fair to argue how such a policy would be those things, but this is obviously a well-educated woman who cares about what she calls a child’s right to “meaningful education.”
To begin a fruitful discussion on childhood education, one fundamental question needs to be answered.
Who is principally responsible for the child? The parents brought him into the world, so it starts with them. Any other trustee-guardianship claim on the child would have to go through them first, wouldn’t it?
According to Bartholet, parents have “very significant rights to raise their children with the beliefs and religious convictions that the parents hold.”
Sounds like there’s a but in there somewhere.
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” Bartholet adds. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
Total authority is a dangerous concept indeed. Thankfully, parents don’t have total authority over their children, or else there would be no laws against neglect, abuse, etc. The libertarian position makes it clear that no person has total authority over another, and children are no exception.
Unfortunately, it is Bartholet’s solution that requires total authority in the government over parents and their children in the final analysis. Shared or delegated authority would mean a voluntary association with the parents, but the state does not work that way.
Under Bartholet’s proposal of a presumptive ban, parents would have to seek state permission to exercise responsibility for their child’s education. What this amounts to is an application to lease government property, in this case, the child.
If the parents were denied the privilege but chose to ignore the government’s wishes, the child would be forcefully placed in a school or dealt with however the government deemed appropriate. It need not be theorized what would happen to the parents.
What should be learned? Academics, social values, sports, religion, self-realization? Who should teach it, and how?
For nearly a century, the trend in the current education system has been to centralize authority on these matters.
Kevin Ryan, founder and director emeritus of the Center for Character and Social Responsibility at Boston University, notes that in 1932, there were some 128,000 school districts in America. Today, there’s about 13,500, effectively a consolidation of 90 percent of districts in about as many years.
Parallel to that pattern has been the ceding of power from local school boards to state and federal boards. These producers of the curriculum are detached from their consumers, the parents, and children, more and more. At the same time, administrative jobs and costs have exploded.
One local school board member in Nashville, Tennessee, recently revealed their priorities after Covid-19 lockdowns forced steep budget cuts.
“We have to prioritize where those funds go,” Amy Frogge said. “We can choose to open charter seats or we can choose to pay our teachers and our staff members.”
Needless to say, some 3,000 new charter school seats were denied in favor of sending checks to teachers and administrators.
With no incentive to lower pay to afford more teachers, it’s no wonder classroom sizes are still so big! That brings up another curiosity. If it’s good that classroom sizes shrink so that individual students can get one-on-one time with their instructor, doesn’t that make another good case for homeschooling or another custom alternative?
The U.S. Department of Education’s bureaucracy has grown substantially over its 40-year reign. The U.S. spends more per student than most of the rest of the world, yet it falls behind in math and science.
The American education system didn’t used to be this way. Its failure makes clear that the status quo can’t be relied upon to succeed in the long term.
An argument could easily be made to scrap the whole compulsory public school model. Abolish all government schools, and go back to what raised America’s founding generation to such high literacy that the Federalist Papers were considered easy reading by the masses.
How about a reasonable compromise at least? Create a level playing field between the public school system and the alternatives like homeschooling. Make the latter just as accessible by respecting parental rights and free enterprise.
This would mean more competition, but it wouldn’t be winner-take-all. Under political systems like centrally planned education, if a board votes 50 percent plus one for a curriculum, the other curricula are no longer available at all.
At least under free enterprise, the minority vote would still have options. Just as there are fewer consumers of some movies, cereals, and clothing, there would be more to choose from in learning and teaching services.
Hopefully, a silver lining in this period of COVID-19 lockdowns is that parents, teachers, and officials come to realize the value of freedom in determining the best education for children.
A recent column in Harvard Magazine highlighted Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s support for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling. That is very close to presuming guilt before innocence, and it certainly risks tearing families apart as we all know how bans are enforced.
Bartholet might be on the extreme end of the anti-homeschooling position, but she isn’t alone. Did I mention she’s a Harvard law professor?
For those in favor or neutral on the question of homeschooling, she might come off ignorant, cruel, or crazy. It’s fair to argue how such a policy would be those things, but this is obviously a well-educated woman who cares about what she calls a child’s right to “meaningful education.”
To begin a fruitful discussion on childhood education, one fundamental question needs to be answered.
Who is principally responsible for the child? The parents brought him into the world, so it starts with them. Any other trustee-guardianship claim on the child would have to go through them first, wouldn’t it?
According to Bartholet, parents have “very significant rights to raise their children with the beliefs and religious convictions that the parents hold.”
Sounds like there’s a but in there somewhere.
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” Bartholet adds. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
Total authority is a dangerous concept indeed. Thankfully, parents don’t have total authority over their children, or else there would be no laws against neglect, abuse, etc. The libertarian position makes it clear that no person has total authority over another, and children are no exception.
Unfortunately, it is Bartholet’s solution that requires total authority in the government over parents and their children in the final analysis. Shared or delegated authority would mean a voluntary association with the parents, but the state does not work that way.
Under Bartholet’s proposal of a presumptive ban, parents would have to seek state permission to exercise responsibility for their child’s education. What this amounts to is an application to lease government property, in this case, the child.
If the parents were denied the privilege but chose to ignore the government’s wishes, the child would be forcefully placed in a school or dealt with however the government deemed appropriate. It need not be theorized what would happen to the parents.
What should be learned? Academics, social values, sports, religion, self-realization? Who should teach it, and how?
For nearly a century, the trend in the current education system has been to centralize authority on these matters.
Kevin Ryan, founder and director emeritus of the Center for Character and Social Responsibility at Boston University, notes that in 1932, there were some 128,000 school districts in America. Today, there’s about 13,500, effectively a consolidation of 90 percent of districts in about as many years.
Parallel to that pattern has been the ceding of power from local school boards to state and federal boards. These producers of the curriculum are detached from their consumers, the parents, and children, more and more. At the same time, administrative jobs and costs have exploded.
One local school board member in Nashville, Tennessee, recently revealed their priorities after Covid-19 lockdowns forced steep budget cuts.
“We have to prioritize where those funds go,” Amy Frogge said. “We can choose to open charter seats or we can choose to pay our teachers and our staff members.”
Needless to say, some 3,000 new charter school seats were denied in favor of sending checks to teachers and administrators.
With no incentive to lower pay to afford more teachers, it’s no wonder classroom sizes are still so big! That brings up another curiosity. If it’s good that classroom sizes shrink so that individual students can get one-on-one time with their instructor, doesn’t that make another good case for homeschooling or another custom alternative?
The U.S. Department of Education’s bureaucracy has grown substantially over its 40-year reign. The U.S. spends more per student than most of the rest of the world, yet it falls behind in math and science.
The American education system didn’t used to be this way. Its failure makes clear that the status quo can’t be relied upon to succeed in the long term.
An argument could easily be made to scrap the whole compulsory public school model. Abolish all government schools, and go back to what raised America’s founding generation to such high literacy that the Federalist Papers were considered easy reading by the masses.
How about a reasonable compromise at least? Create a level playing field between the public school system and the alternatives like homeschooling. Make the latter just as accessible by respecting parental rights and free enterprise.
This would mean more competition, but it wouldn’t be winner-take-all. Under political systems like centrally planned education, if a board votes 50 percent plus one for a curriculum, the other curricula are no longer available at all.
At least under free enterprise, the minority vote would still have options. Just as there are fewer consumers of some movies, cereals, and clothing, there would be more to choose from in learning and teaching services.
Hopefully, a silver lining in this period of COVID-19 lockdowns is that parents, teachers, and officials come to realize the value of freedom in determining the best education for children.
Mayor ‘Kane’ Questions Covid-19 Lockdown After ‘Utterly Shocking’ Suicide Spike
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, known worldwide as Kane, recorded a heartfelt video message for his constituents after eight committed suicide within 48 hours. His sober take on the human cost of the Covid-19 lockdown is too rare in today’s politics.
The coronavirus crisis and the government’s response are not going away anytime soon. Everyday that is becoming clearer.
Last week in Knox County, Tennessee, within a 48-hour period, eight suspected suicides were reported. That amounts to nearly 10 percent of 2019’s total of 83 for the county.
“That number is utterly shocking,” Jacobs said in a weekly video update. “It makes me wonder, is what we are doing now really the best approach?”
“How can we respond to Covid-19 in a way that keeps our economy intact, keeps people employed, and empowers our people with the feeling of hope and optimism, not desperation and despair?” he asked.
Jacobs, who has libertarian tendencies and a very impressive grasp of Austrian economics, explained to his constituents that many so-called experts are offering them a false choice: healthy people or an open economy.
“In fact, we must have a healthy economy if we expect to have healthy people,” Jacobs said. “We don’t have a choice.”
In the same week that Knox County experienced its uptick in suicide, the jobless claims across America reached a record-shattering 6.6 million. That broke the previous record by a factor of five.
Flattening the curve may (or may not) be preserving hospital beds and resources, but as Jacobs keenly observes, “The unintended consequence is that we are creating another massive curve, a tidal wave that will overwhelm social services.”
Jacobs may be the most well-spoken politician on this impending national tragedy. In a saner society, he would be heralded as “America’s mayor.” Maybe one day he’ll have a bigger influence on Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, there is a growing stereotype regarding who would be against the lockdowns around the world. Such a person must not care about the elderly or sick, but only about economic growth. This caricature is based in some truth, sadly, but not at all in the case of Jacobs.
Jacobs does not conceive of the economy as figures on a graph or mere busybodyness to keep dollars circulating. Rightly understood, the economy is about people, complete with their hearts and free will.
Two social commentators who get this are Brendan O’Neill and Peter Hitchens, both of the United Kingdom, where a similarly extreme stay-at-home order is in place.
“The problem with catastrophe is actually that you survive it,” Hitchens told O’Neill on the latter’s podcast. “It’s not like nuclear war where everybody’s dead. Economic catastrophe leaves people alive, staring into space, ghosts of their former selves wondering what on earth has happened.”
O’Neill remarked that the economy isn’t about a line going up, but how people live, and whether or not they live sometimes.
“What they say is that this is a question of lives versus the economy, and they talk about the economy as if it’s just some kind of abstract machine, just numbers and money and profits, when in fact, the economy is people’s lives,” he said.
Killing the economy is killing people. Those who insist on social distancing and closing down everything “nonessential” should no longer be allowed to defend their position from an untouchable moral high ground.
The coronavirus crisis and the government’s response are not going away anytime soon. Everyday that is becoming clearer.
Last week in Knox County, Tennessee, within a 48-hour period, eight suspected suicides were reported. That amounts to nearly 10 percent of 2019’s total of 83 for the county.
“That number is utterly shocking,” Jacobs said in a weekly video update. “It makes me wonder, is what we are doing now really the best approach?”
“How can we respond to Covid-19 in a way that keeps our economy intact, keeps people employed, and empowers our people with the feeling of hope and optimism, not desperation and despair?” he asked.
Jacobs, who has libertarian tendencies and a very impressive grasp of Austrian economics, explained to his constituents that many so-called experts are offering them a false choice: healthy people or an open economy.
“In fact, we must have a healthy economy if we expect to have healthy people,” Jacobs said. “We don’t have a choice.”
In the same week that Knox County experienced its uptick in suicide, the jobless claims across America reached a record-shattering 6.6 million. That broke the previous record by a factor of five.
Flattening the curve may (or may not) be preserving hospital beds and resources, but as Jacobs keenly observes, “The unintended consequence is that we are creating another massive curve, a tidal wave that will overwhelm social services.”
Jacobs may be the most well-spoken politician on this impending national tragedy. In a saner society, he would be heralded as “America’s mayor.” Maybe one day he’ll have a bigger influence on Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, there is a growing stereotype regarding who would be against the lockdowns around the world. Such a person must not care about the elderly or sick, but only about economic growth. This caricature is based in some truth, sadly, but not at all in the case of Jacobs.
Jacobs does not conceive of the economy as figures on a graph or mere busybodyness to keep dollars circulating. Rightly understood, the economy is about people, complete with their hearts and free will.
Two social commentators who get this are Brendan O’Neill and Peter Hitchens, both of the United Kingdom, where a similarly extreme stay-at-home order is in place.
“The problem with catastrophe is actually that you survive it,” Hitchens told O’Neill on the latter’s podcast. “It’s not like nuclear war where everybody’s dead. Economic catastrophe leaves people alive, staring into space, ghosts of their former selves wondering what on earth has happened.”
O’Neill remarked that the economy isn’t about a line going up, but how people live, and whether or not they live sometimes.
“What they say is that this is a question of lives versus the economy, and they talk about the economy as if it’s just some kind of abstract machine, just numbers and money and profits, when in fact, the economy is people’s lives,” he said.
Killing the economy is killing people. Those who insist on social distancing and closing down everything “nonessential” should no longer be allowed to defend their position from an untouchable moral high ground.
Trump and Pelosi Ready to Spend Another $2 Trillion on Infrastructure
Who says there’s not enough bipartisanship in Washington? President Donald Trump is praising House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and urging Congress to follow her lead by passing yet another $2 trillion coronavirus bill that would “invest” in infrastructure.
What a sight to behold, a country in crisis inspires its leaders to come together for the common good. Even better, by forcing more debt and inflation on Americans, the economy can finally get roaring again!
That demented logic prevails in Washington, D.C., and the swamp-drainer-in-chief is no exception.
Fresh off signing the most expensive bill in American history, more than twice the cost of FDR’s New Deal, Trump is ready for whatever Pelosi throws at him next, as long as it also costs at least $2 trillion.
On Monday, Pelosi unveiled her wishlist for what she called “Phase 4” of Congress’s response to COVID-19. This fourth bill could very well be bigger than the previous three, setting a new price tag record.
The San Francisco Democrat listed “more direct payments,” “more opportunity for family and medical leave,” and an infrastructure megaproject.
“She wasn’t bad,” Trump tweeted after watching Pelosi’s press conference.
“With interest rates for the United States being at ZERO, this is the time to do our decades long awaited Infrastructure Bill. It should be VERY BIG & BOLD, Two Trillion Dollars, and be focused solely on jobs and rebuilding the once great infrastructure of our Country! Phase 4,” Trump wrote, adopting Pelosi’s term for the forthcoming proposal.
Sadly, a large quantity of Americans seem eager to take the fast lane on this road to serfdom, even as the economic and civil liberties restrictions pile up under the guise of a public health emergency.
Economist Peter Schiff, who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, has been sounding the alarm that another crash is imminent since the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to zero, promising to monetize debt without restraint or limit.
“President @realDonaldTrump thinks it’s the perfect time for the government to borrow trillions more to improve our infrastructure. That’s like a guy who just lost his job deciding it’s the perfect time to take out a second mortgage to put in the swimming pool he’s always wanted,” Schiff tweeted.
To extend the analogy, Trump is gaining support for the project by promising the biggest pool party ever. All politicians and special interests are invited.
There is no opposition to this profligate spending. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just wants to wait “a few weeks” to see how the other $2.2 trillion stimulus bill plays out first.
It doesn’t actually matter what happens in a few weeks though. When government policies go horribly wrong, a bureaucrat knows that just means the policy wasn’t enacted with enough gusto.
The coronavirus pandemic remains the sole focus of the country to the detriment of the people. Worse than the disease is the government’s cure.
What a sight to behold, a country in crisis inspires its leaders to come together for the common good. Even better, by forcing more debt and inflation on Americans, the economy can finally get roaring again!
That demented logic prevails in Washington, D.C., and the swamp-drainer-in-chief is no exception.
Fresh off signing the most expensive bill in American history, more than twice the cost of FDR’s New Deal, Trump is ready for whatever Pelosi throws at him next, as long as it also costs at least $2 trillion.
On Monday, Pelosi unveiled her wishlist for what she called “Phase 4” of Congress’s response to COVID-19. This fourth bill could very well be bigger than the previous three, setting a new price tag record.
The San Francisco Democrat listed “more direct payments,” “more opportunity for family and medical leave,” and an infrastructure megaproject.
“She wasn’t bad,” Trump tweeted after watching Pelosi’s press conference.
“With interest rates for the United States being at ZERO, this is the time to do our decades long awaited Infrastructure Bill. It should be VERY BIG & BOLD, Two Trillion Dollars, and be focused solely on jobs and rebuilding the once great infrastructure of our Country! Phase 4,” Trump wrote, adopting Pelosi’s term for the forthcoming proposal.
Sadly, a large quantity of Americans seem eager to take the fast lane on this road to serfdom, even as the economic and civil liberties restrictions pile up under the guise of a public health emergency.
Economist Peter Schiff, who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, has been sounding the alarm that another crash is imminent since the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to zero, promising to monetize debt without restraint or limit.
“President @realDonaldTrump thinks it’s the perfect time for the government to borrow trillions more to improve our infrastructure. That’s like a guy who just lost his job deciding it’s the perfect time to take out a second mortgage to put in the swimming pool he’s always wanted,” Schiff tweeted.
To extend the analogy, Trump is gaining support for the project by promising the biggest pool party ever. All politicians and special interests are invited.
There is no opposition to this profligate spending. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just wants to wait “a few weeks” to see how the other $2.2 trillion stimulus bill plays out first.
It doesn’t actually matter what happens in a few weeks though. When government policies go horribly wrong, a bureaucrat knows that just means the policy wasn’t enacted with enough gusto.
The coronavirus pandemic remains the sole focus of the country to the detriment of the people. Worse than the disease is the government’s cure.
Coronavirus Being Used to Scare You Away From Using Cash
Cash has been the target of the banking and financial elites for years. Now, the coronavirus pandemic is being used to frighten the masses into accepting a cashless society. That would mean the death of what’s left of our free society.
CBS News, CNN, and other mainstream outlets are fearmongering again. Alarmism is nothing new in the media world, but this time, it’s not about triggering panic buying or even pushing a political agenda.
The war on cash is about imposing a new meta-narrative. As economist Joseph Salerno explains, the cashless society forces all payments to be made through the financial system. It doesn’t end with monopoly control over transactions, though.
Being bound to computers for transactions kicks the door wide open to hardcore surveillance of personal activity and location data. Being eternally on the grid means relentless taxation and negative interest rates, which the Federal Reserve is already gearing up for.
None of this bothers the well-heeled boosters of a cashless society or their lackeys in the media. They want Americans reading about the threat of coronavirus cooties on their cash, which is absurd.
Germs, of course, can loiter all over credit and debit cards, smartphones, ATMs, and every other cash alternative device. Too bad implanted microchip technology isn’t further along, the banksters must be thinking.
In another CNN article, readers are practically shamed for withdrawing cash to save during a crisis. Every sentence, every word, every letter of the article is nuts.
It begins by reassuring the reader that their bank account is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). There’s no mention of moral hazard from CNN. The fact that the federal government guarantees every bank account up to $250,000 encourages reckless financial and banking behavior. Not worth mentioning, CNN?
Prior to the end of World War II, there were $500, $1,000, and $10,000 bills in wide circulation. This cash was dissolved by the Federal Reserve in the name of fighting organized crime. This same argument is now being made against $50 and $100 bills by Harvard economics professor Kenneth Rogoff.
In the Wall Street Journal, Rogoff also wrote that a cashless society would offer such benefits as “greater flexibility for the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy when necessary.”
He wrote those words in 2017. And these too:
“The Federal Reserve should be able to implement negative nominal interest rates vastly more effectively in the absence of large bills, which could prove quite important as a stimulative tool in the next financial crisis.”
Prophetic. And indeed, negative interest rates would require the assistance of outlawing cash, so that banking customers don’t cheat by simply drawing out on their accounts.
Pardon the pun, but it’s absolutely sick how COVID-19 is being used now as a launching pad for this cashless agenda. There’s nothing to fear about using cash during this time of social distancing.
Wash your hands after handling cash, but don’t give up your moolah. Preserve your health, your privacy, and your liberty.
CBS News, CNN, and other mainstream outlets are fearmongering again. Alarmism is nothing new in the media world, but this time, it’s not about triggering panic buying or even pushing a political agenda.
The war on cash is about imposing a new meta-narrative. As economist Joseph Salerno explains, the cashless society forces all payments to be made through the financial system. It doesn’t end with monopoly control over transactions, though.
Being bound to computers for transactions kicks the door wide open to hardcore surveillance of personal activity and location data. Being eternally on the grid means relentless taxation and negative interest rates, which the Federal Reserve is already gearing up for.
None of this bothers the well-heeled boosters of a cashless society or their lackeys in the media. They want Americans reading about the threat of coronavirus cooties on their cash, which is absurd.
Germs, of course, can loiter all over credit and debit cards, smartphones, ATMs, and every other cash alternative device. Too bad implanted microchip technology isn’t further along, the banksters must be thinking.
In another CNN article, readers are practically shamed for withdrawing cash to save during a crisis. Every sentence, every word, every letter of the article is nuts.
It begins by reassuring the reader that their bank account is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). There’s no mention of moral hazard from CNN. The fact that the federal government guarantees every bank account up to $250,000 encourages reckless financial and banking behavior. Not worth mentioning, CNN?
Prior to the end of World War II, there were $500, $1,000, and $10,000 bills in wide circulation. This cash was dissolved by the Federal Reserve in the name of fighting organized crime. This same argument is now being made against $50 and $100 bills by Harvard economics professor Kenneth Rogoff.
In the Wall Street Journal, Rogoff also wrote that a cashless society would offer such benefits as “greater flexibility for the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy when necessary.”
He wrote those words in 2017. And these too:
“The Federal Reserve should be able to implement negative nominal interest rates vastly more effectively in the absence of large bills, which could prove quite important as a stimulative tool in the next financial crisis.”
Prophetic. And indeed, negative interest rates would require the assistance of outlawing cash, so that banking customers don’t cheat by simply drawing out on their accounts.
Pardon the pun, but it’s absolutely sick how COVID-19 is being used now as a launching pad for this cashless agenda. There’s nothing to fear about using cash during this time of social distancing.
Wash your hands after handling cash, but don’t give up your moolah. Preserve your health, your privacy, and your liberty.
The Way Home: ‘Defend the Guard’ Strategy Can End Unconstitutional Wars
Gone are the days of the anti-war protest movement, and good riddance. Now there’s real promise of bringing home the troops thanks to the “Defend the Guard” effort, which stands to roll back the empire by reminding America it’s a republic first.
The website bringourtroopshome.us tracks the latest news of what’s probably the most important and patriotic national cause in America today.
Dan McKnight, founder of Idahoans to Bring Our Troops Home, created the site after serving in the Marine Corps Reserve, completing three years active duty in the Army, and 10 years in the Idaho National Guard, of which he spent one year deployed to Afghanistan.
McKnight’s messaging is effective, but it’s the methodology that packs the most punch. Without relenting on pressuring Congress, McKnight’s efforts focus on state-level action.
In nine states, “Defend the Guard” legislation has been introduced. The bills would require the state and its governor to withhold National Guard support to unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
Those states are Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In 20 other states, there are ongoing efforts to find sponsorship.
Foreign policy is made in D.C., but if just a few Americans exercise their powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they will no longer be treated as passive participants in endless warmaking.
And this strategy can actually end wars.
Most of the U.S. troops in Syria, for instance, are South Carolina National Guard.
That’s not the purpose of the National Guard. It was established to repel invasions, quell insurrections, enforce domestic law, and help out during a national emergency.
Like so many other institutions nowadays, the National Guard is a hollowed out version of itself. It’s a sign that Americans are losing their country and the civic fabric that holds it together.
The same can be said about the federalist system of government as a whole. The states are supposed to be a constitutional check on the federal government, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
The beauty of this Defend the Guard movement is that it not only aims to halt runaway American foreign adventurism, but along the way it strengthens Americans’ hold on their own state and local representatives.
This is how we bring the troops home. This is how America comes home.
The website bringourtroopshome.us tracks the latest news of what’s probably the most important and patriotic national cause in America today.
Dan McKnight, founder of Idahoans to Bring Our Troops Home, created the site after serving in the Marine Corps Reserve, completing three years active duty in the Army, and 10 years in the Idaho National Guard, of which he spent one year deployed to Afghanistan.
McKnight’s messaging is effective, but it’s the methodology that packs the most punch. Without relenting on pressuring Congress, McKnight’s efforts focus on state-level action.
In nine states, “Defend the Guard” legislation has been introduced. The bills would require the state and its governor to withhold National Guard support to unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
Those states are Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In 20 other states, there are ongoing efforts to find sponsorship.
Foreign policy is made in D.C., but if just a few Americans exercise their powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they will no longer be treated as passive participants in endless warmaking.
And this strategy can actually end wars.
Most of the U.S. troops in Syria, for instance, are South Carolina National Guard.
That’s not the purpose of the National Guard. It was established to repel invasions, quell insurrections, enforce domestic law, and help out during a national emergency.
Like so many other institutions nowadays, the National Guard is a hollowed out version of itself. It’s a sign that Americans are losing their country and the civic fabric that holds it together.
The same can be said about the federalist system of government as a whole. The states are supposed to be a constitutional check on the federal government, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
The beauty of this Defend the Guard movement is that it not only aims to halt runaway American foreign adventurism, but along the way it strengthens Americans’ hold on their own state and local representatives.
This is how we bring the troops home. This is how America comes home.
Rand Paul Proves Once Again He Is Too Good For Us, As He Upsets All the Right People
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is notorious for being a principled voice for limited constitutional government. Even better, he amuses us with how swiftly he induces tantrums among the political establishment’s flunkies.
Aside from President Donald Trump, it’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is usually the face of evil for liberals. But on Tuesday night, an NBC News story, based on two anonymous McConnell-linked sources, redirected the ire squarely on Paul.
What did the libertarian ophthalmologist-turned-politician do to deserve this? He did his job.
Paul proposed an amendment to the coronavirus bill being rushed through the Senate after passing the House 363-40. For those keeping track, libertarian-leaning Republican Thomas Massie didn’t vote, and libertarian-leaning Independent Congressman Justin Amash voted present.
Paul’s amendment, according to NBC News reporter Julie Tsirkin, was officially summarized as: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for the purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.
Twitter is littered with righteous indignation constantly, but Tuesday night, it was mostly directed at Paul. And it was mostly thanks to the NBC News story poorly co-written by Tsirkin.
Before getting into the catty tone of the article, let’s consider the actual concerns people have with Paul’s amendment.
First, isn’t there a national emergency going on? Now isn’t the time for nitpicking what’s legal under the Constitution or how Congress appropriates funds. There’s no time for delay, we’re led to believe.
The answer to this critique is short, because there simply is no delay in voting beyond a few minutes just because an amendment is proposed. All of this drama is just political theatre, with McConnell aides directing the show.
Second, and perhaps more reasonably, it may be asked what the war in Afghanistan has to do with this coronavirus. That almost begs the question though. Why is Congress leaping to this hot new political commodity known as a coronavirus when they’ve skirted their true duties for so long?
Beyond the deadly Afghanistan misadventure being a drain on financial resources, it’s worth investigating how human resources are wasting away, mired down in that desert. In Syria, most of the U.S. troops are from the South Carolina National Guard. Might be nice to have them here!
Here Paul is doing the job all the other senators are supposed to be doing. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t fit into the narrative most comfortable for the political and media elites.
As a result, we end up with junior high school level journalism weaponized against patriotic dissent.
“Paul is notorious for forcing votes on amendments he knows will not pass,” the NBC News story goes.
It concluded in a similar fashion: “He even briefly caused the government to shut down in 2018, using a procedural tactic to block the Senate from meeting the deadline to keep the government open because he objected to the price tag.”
Both of these statements are lies, though the authors probably believe them. It’s a sure sign of the deep divisions in the country.
Whether it’s the 9/11 Victims bill, the Ukrainegate impeachment failure, or foreign aid, Paul consistently upsets the right people by doing the right thing. This doesn’t mean Paul is perfect, but it does mean Americans should appreciate his special role in Washington, DC.
Aside from President Donald Trump, it’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is usually the face of evil for liberals. But on Tuesday night, an NBC News story, based on two anonymous McConnell-linked sources, redirected the ire squarely on Paul.
What did the libertarian ophthalmologist-turned-politician do to deserve this? He did his job.
Paul proposed an amendment to the coronavirus bill being rushed through the Senate after passing the House 363-40. For those keeping track, libertarian-leaning Republican Thomas Massie didn’t vote, and libertarian-leaning Independent Congressman Justin Amash voted present.
Paul’s amendment, according to NBC News reporter Julie Tsirkin, was officially summarized as: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for the purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.
Twitter is littered with righteous indignation constantly, but Tuesday night, it was mostly directed at Paul. And it was mostly thanks to the NBC News story poorly co-written by Tsirkin.
Before getting into the catty tone of the article, let’s consider the actual concerns people have with Paul’s amendment.
First, isn’t there a national emergency going on? Now isn’t the time for nitpicking what’s legal under the Constitution or how Congress appropriates funds. There’s no time for delay, we’re led to believe.
The answer to this critique is short, because there simply is no delay in voting beyond a few minutes just because an amendment is proposed. All of this drama is just political theatre, with McConnell aides directing the show.
Second, and perhaps more reasonably, it may be asked what the war in Afghanistan has to do with this coronavirus. That almost begs the question though. Why is Congress leaping to this hot new political commodity known as a coronavirus when they’ve skirted their true duties for so long?
Beyond the deadly Afghanistan misadventure being a drain on financial resources, it’s worth investigating how human resources are wasting away, mired down in that desert. In Syria, most of the U.S. troops are from the South Carolina National Guard. Might be nice to have them here!
Here Paul is doing the job all the other senators are supposed to be doing. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t fit into the narrative most comfortable for the political and media elites.
As a result, we end up with junior high school level journalism weaponized against patriotic dissent.
“Paul is notorious for forcing votes on amendments he knows will not pass,” the NBC News story goes.
It concluded in a similar fashion: “He even briefly caused the government to shut down in 2018, using a procedural tactic to block the Senate from meeting the deadline to keep the government open because he objected to the price tag.”
Both of these statements are lies, though the authors probably believe them. It’s a sure sign of the deep divisions in the country.
Whether it’s the 9/11 Victims bill, the Ukrainegate impeachment failure, or foreign aid, Paul consistently upsets the right people by doing the right thing. This doesn’t mean Paul is perfect, but it does mean Americans should appreciate his special role in Washington, DC.
On the 2020 Campaign Trail, Where’s the Truth on the Economy?
The Federal Reserve’s bag of tricks is now empty. Politicians, however, always have more lies to tell about the economy. Voters might get a shot at hearing the truth, however, if the Libertarian Party nominates the right candidate.
It’s consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.
The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter— the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of America’s middle class.
Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the government’s growth in power. Thanks to the Fed’s easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.
It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.
In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the party’s nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.
Hornberger’s track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.
“End the Fed and separate money and the state,” reads Hornberger’s campaign website. “The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.”
Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”
His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.
The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.
Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.
Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he won’t be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isn’t quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.
It’s consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.
The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter— the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of America’s middle class.
Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the government’s growth in power. Thanks to the Fed’s easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.
It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.
In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the party’s nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.
Hornberger’s track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.
“End the Fed and separate money and the state,” reads Hornberger’s campaign website. “The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.”
Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”
His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.
The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.
Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.
Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he won’t be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isn’t quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.
Not a Bright Future for Liberty When Political Foes Are Always ‘Racists’
When accusations of racism are allowed to persist at the highest levels of politics, none of us are safe. In an age of corporate censorship and government overreach, this favorite tactic of both the left and right isn’t being called out enough.
It used to be that political correctness was a momentary nuisance to be shrugged off. Now the whole political environment and most of the mainstream culture is awash in it. More and more, however, the right is joining in with the left, unable or unwilling to stand up to this affront to liberty.
Last month, President Donald Trump tweeted that Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was a “TOTAL RACIST” after audio leaked of Bloomberg speaking in support of stop-and-frisk, a policing practice also supported by Trump. Trump quickly deleted the tweet, but his associated campaign account kept up the attack.
If Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is a racist, then it should be very difficult to find someone who is not.
What’s critical to understand is, the tandem powers of corporations and the state are quickly becoming enforcers of this ridiculous standard. Be it a fine, jail time, being banned from social media or losing a bank account, more people are likely to face some consequence for “hate” or “racism” in the future.
There are many who are inclined to agree with this, but they quibble and say that racism largely exists in systems rather than people. That supposedly moderate position, however, inevitably fuels hysteria over such bogeymen as “white privilege,” “cultural appropriation,” and the like.
Unfortunately, the libertarian publication Reason just let the allegation that Bloomberg is “racist” stand without any pushback. It’s a missed opportunity and represents an underestimation of the threat to liberty posed by normalization of this sort of attack.
Let’s look at Bloomberg’s 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute that has been so controversial in recent days, in both left and right circles.
“Ninety-five percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg only slightly overstates the statistics, which do show suspects and victims are non-white 94 percent of the time. Bloomberg continues:
“Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods,” he says. “One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Obviously, the marijuana issue stands out. That’s a policy debate. But saying “minority neighborhoods” are “where the crime is” is not racist unless facts are racist.
Bloomberg then says, “throw them up against the walls and frisk them,” to get guns off the streets.
Putting stop-and-frisk and gun control aside as debatable policies, his language here is reckless, and of course police abuse exists. But again, there’s no racism to be found, unless it’s also fair to say New York City murders are racist since 94 percent of victims are non-white, even as 94 percent of suspects are non-white.
As long as phony charges of racism persist and become normalized, there won’t just be a greater risk of corporate and government enforcement of these flimsy standards. We can also expect that fewer and fewer people will be willing to discuss and work on the problems of concentrated violent crime in the country.
Liberty will suffer, and state power will thrive if this trend continues.
It used to be that political correctness was a momentary nuisance to be shrugged off. Now the whole political environment and most of the mainstream culture is awash in it. More and more, however, the right is joining in with the left, unable or unwilling to stand up to this affront to liberty.
Last month, President Donald Trump tweeted that Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was a “TOTAL RACIST” after audio leaked of Bloomberg speaking in support of stop-and-frisk, a policing practice also supported by Trump. Trump quickly deleted the tweet, but his associated campaign account kept up the attack.
If Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is a racist, then it should be very difficult to find someone who is not.
What’s critical to understand is, the tandem powers of corporations and the state are quickly becoming enforcers of this ridiculous standard. Be it a fine, jail time, being banned from social media or losing a bank account, more people are likely to face some consequence for “hate” or “racism” in the future.
There are many who are inclined to agree with this, but they quibble and say that racism largely exists in systems rather than people. That supposedly moderate position, however, inevitably fuels hysteria over such bogeymen as “white privilege,” “cultural appropriation,” and the like.
Unfortunately, the libertarian publication Reason just let the allegation that Bloomberg is “racist” stand without any pushback. It’s a missed opportunity and represents an underestimation of the threat to liberty posed by normalization of this sort of attack.
Let’s look at Bloomberg’s 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute that has been so controversial in recent days, in both left and right circles.
“Ninety-five percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg only slightly overstates the statistics, which do show suspects and victims are non-white 94 percent of the time. Bloomberg continues:
“Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods,” he says. “One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Obviously, the marijuana issue stands out. That’s a policy debate. But saying “minority neighborhoods” are “where the crime is” is not racist unless facts are racist.
Bloomberg then says, “throw them up against the walls and frisk them,” to get guns off the streets.
Putting stop-and-frisk and gun control aside as debatable policies, his language here is reckless, and of course police abuse exists. But again, there’s no racism to be found, unless it’s also fair to say New York City murders are racist since 94 percent of victims are non-white, even as 94 percent of suspects are non-white.
As long as phony charges of racism persist and become normalized, there won’t just be a greater risk of corporate and government enforcement of these flimsy standards. We can also expect that fewer and fewer people will be willing to discuss and work on the problems of concentrated violent crime in the country.
Liberty will suffer, and state power will thrive if this trend continues.