Coronavirus

Police Violence, COVID-19 Lies, and the End of Legitimate Authority

Our leaders and institutions are failing us spectacularly. It's up to us to reboot society.

|

At first blush, the COVID-19 lockdowns and the protests over the police killing of George Floyd don't seem to have much in common other than chronological proximity: One came after the other and the frustration with the former might have intensified the anger of the latter. Yet separately, each represents a major blow to basic ideas about legitimate authority and together they represent nothing short of a crisis when it comes to having trust and confidence in the people and institutions that are supposed to govern us.

For the last half century, we have been steadily losing faith that the people in charge of government, law enforcement, business, religion, and nonprofits have our best interests at heart. If America was already a dumpster fire when we rang in the new year, the last few months have been a jug of lighter fluid squirted on the flames. We are in the midst of an ongoing horror show of bad, stupid, incompetent, and downright evil behavior by the folks who are in charge.

Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin didn't just choke out the life of George Floyd with his disturbingly nonchalant behavior. He helped to kill the once-widespread belief that the police can be trusted to be fair, especially when dealing with blacks. Six years ago, in the wake of police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, just 43 percent of us saw such deaths as "as indicative of broader problems in policing while 51 percent saw them as isolated incidents," reports The Washington Post. In the wake of the Floyd killing, which itself came on the heels of news of the shooting of Breonna Taylor, fully 69 percent of us see a systemic problem and just 29 percent of us write off such incidents as isolated. Three-quarters of us support protests against the police. Confidence in the law had already been sliding, with Gallup reporting last year in its latest annual survey of trust in institutions that 53 percent of us had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the police. That was already down from a recent high of 64 percent in 2004.

When it comes to responses to the novel coronavirus, it's hard to even know where to begin. Local, state, and federal officials continue to botch things at every stage, including the seemingly simple act of compiling semi-reliable statistics about cases, infection rates, and deaths. Every day seems to bring another reason to kick in the TV or computer screen, as with White House coronavirus task force spokesman Anthony Fauci's new admission that people were told masks were ineffective at stopping the spread of the disease because authorities were worried about shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Every bit as much as President Trump, governors and mayors have been lying and misspeaking out of both sides of their mouths, pushing contradictory policies without acknowledging reversals and mistakes. They've been abetted in their medical gaslighting by epidemiologists who have compounded wildly inaccurate predictions with transparently hypocritical defenses of protests as medically safe and a media that seems intent on killing any level of trust left among a dwindling readership.

It will surprise exactly nobody that, in Gallup's survey, confidence in newspapers is down from a high point of 51 percent in 1979 to just 23 percent last year. That's better than television news, which comes in at just 18 percent. It's safe to say that nothing that has transpired so far in 2020 is going to goose these numbers upwards.

From a libertarian perspective, it's tempting to think that universal cynicism toward authority, especially in the public sector, will create a consensus for smaller government. Nothing could be farther from the truth, though. As I've noted elsewhere, when high-trust societies shift into low-trust ones, citizens routinely demand more regulations and rules on economic, social, and political actions even as they know the rules will be enforced by bureaucrats who are some mix of stupid, incompetent, and corrupt. That's one explanation for why the size, scope, and spending of government has exploded over the past 50 years even as trust and confidence have cratered.

Looking forward, there's not a lot of reason for optimism. The 2020 presidential race hasn't really begun in earnest, but it will certainly be one of the meanest and ugliest in history and it will end with either Trump being reelected or Joe Biden, who is as responsible as any single politician for everything that is awful about contemporary America, taking office. We can look forward only to bigger and bigger growth-killing deficits, more deaths from COVID-19 and arbitrary restrictions on our social and economic freedom, and a hot war on free speech as conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats start chipping away at Section 230 and other guarantors of online expression.

We can take comfort in the fact that it's virtually certain that some meaningful reforms of police will take place at the local, state, and federal levels and that the next round of coronavirus lockdowns will be less enforceable than the previous ones. And we can perhaps take some comfort, naive as it might be, that Americans eventually figure out the right way forward after trying all the others.

Advertisement

NEXT: Business Licensing Makes It Too Easy for Politicians To Punish People They Don’t Like

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How about a constitutional limit on the number of federal employees, and a separate number for the military?

    1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.DSp I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details visit……….Read More

    2. Just implement those two things and all of government will be fixed. We did it!

    3. We already tried balancing the budget and capping the debt. All that did was create an incentive for some very creative accounting. What makes you think that capping the number of employees will be any less susceptible to abuse?

      For a counter-example, look at all the company’s that implement hiring freezes then suddenly find that their “consulting” budget exploded.

      1. Balanced budgets, even with cooked books, were better than what we have today. Of course, admitting that tax receipts has an effect on the government’s balance sheet is extremely controversial around here.

        1. Make 6150 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website… More Info

        2. It’s not “controversial,” except to those who remain in denial that the average receipts as a percentage of GDP since the end of World War 2 has only been about 17.5 percent in a very narrow range, and has only gone above 19 percent five times in that same stretch.

        3. There will never again be a balanced budget. MMT will guarantee that going forward. Thinking long-term, you will want your assets in classes that can hold their value.

    4. Constitutional amendment to limit spending to the prior year’s income. Only exception is a declared war.

      1. That’s good. You could also appoint a supreme court that actually enforces the 9th and 10th amendments- that would shrink the federal government by a good 90%- which should fix any spending problems.

        1. Only a SCOTUS appointed by the States would be likely to respect the 9th and 10th amendments. I think having the president make nominations is too much power to entrust in the Executive branch, and should be a State-driven process, instead. I don’t know if that means creating a new Judiciary of the States to replace SCOTUS, with the governors making appointments, or what. The 17th amendment fundamentally broke things, I think. Without a branch of the Federal government representing the states’ interests, the Federal gov’t has been permitted to grow itself unchecked at any level.

          1. “Only a SCOTUS appointed by the States would be likely to respect the 9th and 10th amendments.”

            If only there was a body of legislators appointed by the various states that could approve or disapprove such a justice! The founders intentionally had the Senate act in that capacity, and the senators were to be appointed by the states. Now that they’re just super-representatives, the states have no direct sway over the federal government at all, and that was not the system that we were supposed to have.

    5. “How about a constitutional limit on the number of federal employees”

      This won’t restore faith in legitimate government. The constitution is a victim of this loss of faith just as much as the news media is. The judiciary is as well, with judges being seen as political hacks and time servers.

      I’m heartened by the fact that issues like police brutality can still bring hundreds of thousands into the streets. Cynicism and apathy is not yet total. Change will come from actions like this rather than top men amending the constitution or passing new laws.

      1. In disheartened by the fact that what those protests demand is bigger government and more authoritarianism.

        1. Defunding or disbanding the police is smaller government and less authoritarianism. So I don’t understand your disheartenment. I suspect that the coalition of leftists and blacks, two segments of society conservatives have always been wary of, is the source of your anxiety.

          1. Idiot racist projects its idiot racism onto everyone else.

            1. A constitutional amendment isn’t going to change that.

      2. “The constitution is a victim of this loss of faith”

        Absolutely. Screw the constitution. It’s a document that purports to protect your rights, while allowing the party from whom you are being protected to interpret those protections away at its whim; then conveniently fails to prescribe any punishment for officials who wantonly violate it. “Congress shall pass no law” means nothing; doesn’t apply to completely arbitrary “hate speech.” “Shall not be infringed” means nothing; doesn’t apply to completely arbitrary “assault weapons.” The constitution means nothing; doesn’t apply to anything to which it would be inconvenient for officials to let it.

        1. “The constitution means nothing; doesn’t apply to anything to which it would be inconvenient for officials to let it.”

          A constitutional amendment is not the way to address the issues. You can’t legislate people to increase their faith in government.

    6. We had one.

      It was eliminated by the property tax.

    7. not flexible enough for reality.

      How about getting rid of 10 or 12 cabinet level agencies and all the rules, laws, and regulations they are guilty of promulgating?

  2. “If America was already a dumpster fire when we rang in the new year,”

    Wait, what? How was America a dumpster fire? Because psychotics refuse to accept anything less than the totalitarian power promised by their light-bringing messiah, and are super butthurt that he was replaced by a guy who likes America and fights back?

    “the last few months have been a jug of lighter fluid squirted on the flames.”

    What flames? Oh, you mean the sabotage of society the left demanded

    “We are in the midst of an ongoing horror show of bad, stupid, incompetent, and downright evil behavior by the folks who are in charge.”

    No shit. Welcome to the party, pal. You’re a bit late. How could you miss why Trump?

    1. Wait, what? How was America a dumpster fire?

      Oh right I forgot. Because America was doing just great until Obama was elected. That’s when America went to hell!

      1. We get it – you hate your country but refuse to leave.
        Fortunately, not everyone agrees with you. Some of us, contrary to your ilk, saw an economy that was booming and favored labor (including record low black unemployment), plus the roll back of regulations and a foreign policy prioritizing the US, as good things.

        1. You know who also thinks low unemployment is a good thing? Virtually everyone with a pulse.

          Why do you think your particular brand of right-wing ideology constitutes “real America” and people who disagree “hate America” and should leave?

          1. You just implied it was a dumpster fire

            1. Yeah America had a lot of problems even before the new year. Huge debt, a surveillance state, the welfare state, the warfare state, the list goes on. Low unemployment doesn’t make up for all of that. What precisely has Trump done to rein in those things, by the way? He has done a couple of things to reduce the warfare state (while still defending the presidential prerogative to bomb anyone he wants anywhere he wants, of course). What about the rest?

              1. I don’t particularly care why you think it’s a dumpster fire, I just disagree

                1. I don’t particularly care why you think it’s a dumpster fire, I just disagree

                  And this ladies and gents is how you win a debate!

                  1. With sockpuppets?

                    1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks….. SeeMore here

                  2. Nardz isn’t here to debate. He is here to shit on everything, because minorities and “ferners” took all the jobs and women that should be his by birthright.

                    1. Aww, eunuch’s butthurt

              2. Huh. Well, besides withdrawing the military from places it never should have been in, POTUS has also signed the criminal justice reform bill that Obama didn’t care enough about to even propose. Slowing illegal immigration also massively improved the job prospects of many low wage workers, as well as improving their wages.
                I’m also guessing that, once Barr is through, the surveillance state will be getting quite a looking at by Congress. I mean, when both the former heads of the CIA and the FBI go to prison, it might lead to some reform.

              3. Trump mainly just prevented Hillary from coming to power, someone who would have made all of those things much worse

                1. +1. For liberty lovers, it was a choice between having a loose cannon in the White House that would occasionally shell friend and foe alike, or having a laser designator trained between our eyes 24/7.

          2. You know who also thinks low unemployment is a good thing? Virtually everyone with a pulse.

            You must have missed the SOTU speech. When Trump mentioned record low lack unemployment all the Donkeys sat on their hands and yawned. Trump should make that clip a commercial – see how much Donkeys like blacks!!

          3. Why do you think your particular brand of right-wing ideology constitutes “real America” and people who disagree “hate America” and should leave?

            Because mine allows them to have theirs so long as they don’t force it on anyone else.

            1. Why do you think “real America” means adherence to the NAP?
              I hate to break it to you, but the LP isn’t exactly killing it in elections.

            2. For that matter, why do you think right-wing ideology means adherence to the NAP?

            3. Because mine allows them to have theirs so long as they don’t force it on anyone else.

              Like gay people that want to get married, business owners that want to hire Mexicans, consumers that want to buy cheap Chinese goods, black people that want to walk down the street without being harrassed by the police, or transgender folk that want to use a bathroom in peace? Like that?

              1. Don’t know that there was anybody ever against civil unions, but that issue was settled (the democratic way: by judicial fiat) years ago and everyone has moved on. Businesses can hire Mexicans, either in Mexico or after they’ve legally immigrated, but a government that can’t or won’t control its borders has no legitimacy. People can buy cheap Chinese goods, and some of that cost will be taxes specific to those goods – just like tobacco and alcohol. The majority of black people do walk down the street everyday without being hassled by police – and nobody’s ideology but yours says otherwise. Transgenders can use bathrooms in peace, as they always did before leftists made it a State issue.
                But you wouldn’t be eunuch if you weren’t here trying to score shallow, reflexively leftist points

        2. Why does Nardz think he is some kind of spokesman for everybody. Nardz, nobody agrees with you, so there.

          1. You’re desperate and boring

            1. And a fake. The real lc1789 is gone.

              1. Last I heard, lovecon89 was bragging about having a coronavirus party.

                1. And, in all sincerity, I hope the real loveconstitution1789 isn’t seriously ill (or worse).

              2. I’m dumping the handle. So, if you see more posts from Ioveconstitution1789 (with a capital I substituted for the lower-case l), it’s from Tulpa, not me.

      2. It’s funny how we can directly point to Obama policies and actions that have demonstrably made this country a worse place (surveillance, Obamacare, Arab Spring, Title IX, militarizing the police and tripling their funds and creating the current mess Democrats are blaming on literally everybody else), and all people like you can manage is, “Trump is Hitler for these policies that were actually Obama’s”.

      3. Wow!
        You managed to miss everything that happened in the decade between 2009 and 2019 !?!?!?!

    2. Trump fights back but his methods repel enough folks that his reelection is in jeopardy. (2018 results showed the trend). Buckley, Reagan knew how to fight back without acting like petulant middle school punks.

      1. Trump is an iconoclast, yes.
        But he’s also dealing with an unprecedented establishment campaign against him.
        Or have you forgotten all the dirty tricks of The State and corporate America/media constantly employed?

        1. So it’s the Deep State that makes Trump act like a petulant middle school punk?

          1. His style is a big reason he’s an iconoclast.
            But the people leveling the judgement of his behavior, such as yourself and BigGive down there, tend to exhibit to an even greater extent than Trump the things you criticize

            1. So you like him *because* he acts like a petulant middle school punk?

              If you had a child (God forbid), would you tell your child “you should grow up to act just like Trump”? Seriously?

              1. You’ve mistaken a strawman for me.

                There are things about Trump i like, some i don’t like, and a lot i find very entertaining

                1. What about Trump don’t you like?

                  1. Poor Lying Jeffy can’t ever get anyone to play his dishonest game.

                  2. Nardz can’t think of anything he dislikes about Trump at the moment. So sad!

                    1. Why does he have to respond to your idiot questions, cretin?

            2. One of the three people you name is friggin’ President of the United States. Maybe the one that is the President of the United States is the one whose behavior we should be most concerned about.

              1. And you’re nothing.
                Not concerned by your behavior, it’s just obnoxious and petty

          2. First of all, he doesn’t act like a petulant middle school punk. He acts like a petulant pre-K toddler.

            1. That level is still more emotionally and intellectually advanced than you’ve ever shown.

              1. Let me check, again… Nope, I’m still not the President of the United States.

                1. And still less advanced that a pre-K toddler.

          3. Hmm. Trump lead our economy to its fastest growth in over a decade, cut regulations, grew wages faster for minorities in 3 years than Obama did in 8 years, installed 2 constitutional supreme court judges, and has avoided multiple wars and escalations.

            You stalk people on internet message boards and comments sections. And create multiple “sock puppet” accounts to make your stalking seem like others approve of it.

            So whose acting like the petulant high school bully here?

            That’s right, it’s you! The stalker creep in chief!

            1. You’re the creepy one. I haven’t posted here in probably 2 weeks. I’m not stalking anyone. You are the creepy lying bully.

              1. Nobody believes you Lying Jeffy. Not one single person.

                1. I believe jeff. I also believe you are a racist piece of shit.

                  1. Weird insult. Oh wait, that’s what lefties do. Just randomly call people racist.

                  2. You should get a job at a drive-in movie theater with that case of projection you’ve got going there.

                    1. Love it !!!

            2. If you are gonna give Trump credit for how the economy was doing at the beginning of the year, you also have to give him credit for how the economy is doing now.

              1. Because Trump ordered businesses to close?
                I seem to remember governors doing that (while you defended them)

          4. No, it’s the deep state that allows only people like Trump to compete.

      2. Buckley and Reagan fought effectively for principles. Men of ideas.

        Trump cries and complains for his brittle ego. A tween girl having a tantrum.

        1. And yet, has accomplished more than either in reigning in the state. President Reagan was a favorite of mine, but Trump has rolled back the government more than St. Reagan ever did.

          1. And this rollback of government is measured by… the record debt?

          2. Reagan won the Cold War. Closest thing Trump has done to that is stomping ISIS/Daesh.

        2. Trump puts the bully in bully pulpit!

          Not the hero we want; the hero we need.

        3. Buckley and Reagan fought effectively for principles.

          LMAO–both of those clowns fell way short of any “principles” you’re ascribing to them.

  3. “From a libertarian perspective, it’s tempting to think that universal cynicism toward authority, especially in the public sector, will create a consensus for smaller government.”

    The problem is that people aren’t losing faith in the concept of government generally, they are losing faith in bipartisanship. Their problem isn’t with big government, its with the “other guy” getting to have a say in how that government takes shape

    1. I think this take is closer to the truth. The real casualty here is pluralism. “It’s my way or the highway” is no way to run a country.

    2. “BoTh SiDeS!” he cries as the leftist mob burns down his house and puts him on the train to the gulag

      1. Look man, I see people on the right calling for the government to force people to buy from the united states and calling for the state to govern what tech companies can and cannot allow on their platforms.

        I am sure you believe that those are important and appropriate uses of government force. I do not. And in fact I see attempts to have the government adjudicate what Youtube allows as bad as Liberals’ attempts to badger Federalist or google into who they let submit content.

        I also think leftists are worse- and are much closer to burning shit down. But both sides are trying to empower the state more, and neither side should be doing that.

        1. I’m with you on this. When conservatives say they want to give someone the power to police big tech to make sure they get heard, I say the same thing I tell leftists whenever they propose any new regulation or bureaucracy: This isn’t going to go the way you think and you’re not going to like what it actually looks like in practice. It’s also important to remember that once you give them that power willingly, you can almost never get it back.

          1. People on the right want to remove preemptive protection against lawsuits if those poor tech companies act as publishers.
            That is not telling them what content they have to host, it’s saying that if they want to behave as publishers they lose the extra legal protection they enjoy and will face the same liability all other publishers do.
            Notably, there are also plenty of people on the right who want to maintain the status quo.
            Facing liability for publication doesn’t even mean punitive action, it just means that they might have to defend themselves in court like anybody else.
            And that pales in fucking comparison to the overt Maoism and explicitly totalitarian actions and intentions of the left.
            But feel free to “both sides” yourselves into serfdom, since I won’t dox you and force you out of your job for doing so. Unfortunately though, that won’t be true with a leftist

            1. *the word “overt” above is not meant to be read as a reference in any way to the poster Overt

            2. Please explain how, if David Duke writes a tweet that says “kill the Jews”, and Twitter deletes that tweet, that somehow Twitter now becomes the publisher of David Duke’s tweet.

              1. They edited the content, hence they are a publisher. It has nothing to do with the text of a tweet, it has to do with their followup actions to it

                Of course you use an outlandish example. But a better one would be trump tweeting “mail in votes are ripe for fraud” and then twitter adding, aka publishing, a link and text below the text of the tweet.

                But you knew that, you’re just more concerned with stalking nardz and Jesse to be honest.

                Also, If you have children and they come across a pedophile like you, if you aren’t abusing them already you creep.

                1. He isnt a pedophile. He just thinks illegal pedophiles should be able to freely migrate here.

                2. It’s not that complicated under Section 230: Trump’s tweet was his words that he is responsible for, and Twitter’s comment on his tweet was their words that they are responsible for.

                  Twitter didn’t take any speech away, they added some of their own. They literally added more free speech.

                3. They edited the content

                  In this example, no they didn’t. They didn’t alter David Duke’s words.

                  I used a clear-cut example, not a fuzzy edge example, in order to make the point clear.

                  And fuck off with your pedophile allegations. That is disgusting.

              2. Now explain how YouTube had a co tract with content t creators that offered free airing of their viewpoints in exchange for ad revenue and then YouTube arbitrarily changed those terms with the creator on a whim.

                1. I have no idea, that wasn’t germane to my example. But you love to bring up non-sequiturs, don’t you?

              3. “Please explain how, if David Duke writes a tweet that says “kill the Jews”, and Twitter deletes that tweet, that somehow Twitter now becomes the publisher of David Duke’s tweet.”

                I don’t think anyone is claiming they’d be publishing David Duke’s tweet in that case.
                Indeed, they’ve exercised their editorial discretion to not publish his tweet.
                And therein lies the rub.
                They’ve chosen to remove Duke’s tweet and not to remove other tweets. They have selected which tweets they will make public, and those they will not.
                They have demonstrated both the ability and willingness to edit the content they present to the public (thus publish).
                Why should they be shielded from the liability of what they choose to publish, when other publishers aren’t?

                1. That isn’t how it works. ALL tweets are made public by default. (except if the user has a private account but that is another story)
                  There is no Twitter Editorial Board that reviews the tweets ahead of time. It is only after the fact that any content moderation may or may not take place. That is what makes social media platforms like Twitter fundamentally different from traditional publishers like newspapers. In a newspaper, an op-ed would only get published with the permission ahead of time from the editor. That is not how it works with Twitter. That is why this whole “platform/publisher” debate is so meaningless. Twitter and Facebook and the other social media platforms are more like a typical library. Libraries are free to choose to carry, or not carry, certain books without repercussion and without being accused of “publishing” the books in question. Libraries are free to put labels on books, i.e., putting kids’ books in the children’s section and putting romance novels in the adult section, without fear of being accused of “publishing” those books. That is what social media platforms are. They are not responsible for the words that people post in their tweets/posts. They moderate and categorize the content only.

                  1. “ALL tweets are made public by default. (except if the user has a private account but that is another story)”

                    But then some are kept public and some are removed. That is a choice.

                    “There is no Twitter Editorial Board that reviews the tweets ahead of time”

                    Ah, so if NYT just posts something to their website without previewing it, they’re in the clear!

                    1. “Ah, so if NYT just posts something to their website without previewing it, they’re in the clear!”

                      You mean like the comments section? Yes, they are not the publisher of their comments sections

                    2. “Ah, so if NYT just posts something to their website without previewing it, they’re in the clear!”

                      If they do that (like for a comment under one of their article) then they are not publisher of this content. And they are not “in the clear”, they still have some obligations (but not as a publisher).

          2. “When conservatives say they want to give someone the power to police big tech to make sure they get heard,”

            Except that’s not what they are saying. They are saying of those platforms choose to censor they should lose the excess legal liabilities they get for not censoring.

            Many also sent actual contract law to work correctly and not be swatted down in a silicon valley courthouse as part of 230 such as with Megan Murphy.

            I still find it weird some SV acolytes are fine with arbitrary contract changes at the whim of one side along with arbitrary enforcement.

      2. In this country there is about as much probability of The Left imposing gulags, as there is of The Right imposing Handmaid’s Tale.

        1. <blockquoteIn this country there is about as much probability of The Left imposing gulags

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

          Fuck you.

        2. Apologies for not closing the tag

          In this country there is about as much probability of The Left imposing gulags

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

          Fuck you. Twice.

          1. I meant “going forward”. Yeah the internment camps were terrible. It should also be noted that FDR was actually responding to the military and to public opinion on the matter, and there was virtually no public opposition to it. It was fundamentally motivated by racism.

            1. It was fundamentally motivated by racism.

              No, it was motivated by (irrational) fear of the Japanese. My grandfather, who was ethnically Ainu, was sent. My grandmother, who was ethnically Korean, was not. The decider was their origin papers. Race had nothing to do with it.

              Second

              It should also be noted that FDR was actually responding to the military and to public opinion on the matter, and there was virtually no public opposition to it.

              is supposed to what? Reassure us? Convince us that you won’t intern us because the last time you did it you were only responding to unopposed public outcry of the kind currently being seen amongst the left and related to racism? So your argument is that leftists have no spine and do evil because no one stands up? Ok. So who is standing up? Not you.

              You’re the kind of person who will see people put in train cars and still be making excuses.

              1. No, it was motivated by (irrational) fear of the Japanese.

                Aka racism.

                And look I’m not in favor of internment camps or gulags or anything of the sort. But this supposedly tangible fear that gulags are right around the corner is just ridiculous. It is fear mongering. Who is going to impose these gulags? Joe f’n Biden? Give me a break. Joe Biden is Hillary Clinton with a dick. Not some leftist radical.

                I’m not in favor of gulags, I’m also not in favor of hyperbolic exaggeration of these types of fears. I don’t think Handmaid’s Tale is right around the corner, I don’t think Venezuela is right around the corner, I think our Republic is strong enough to withstand these types of protests, it has survived much worse and endured. Have a little faith.

                1. So if we just solve racism, there probably won’t be gulags? Joe Biden, is he really that resistant to public opinion? Well, that puts me at ease.
                  Thanks for the hilarious thread chemjeff.

                2. Joe Biden is Hillary Clinton with a dick

                  Another one?

                3. Aka racism.

                  Only if you didn’t read my example.

                  My grandfather, who was ethnically Ainu, was sent. My grandmother, who was ethnically Korean, was not.</b The decider was their origin papers

                  But this supposedly tangible fear that gulags are right around the corner is just ridiculous

                  Tell that to my grandfather, who was in one.

                  I’m also not in favor of hyperbolic exaggeration of these types of fears

                  I’ll be sure to tell my grandfather that one of FDR’s fellow travelers finds his concerns about being put back in a gulag to be ridiculous hyperbole. I’m sure he’ll understand how 2020 that is.

                  1. Was your grandfather starved for weeks on end in the internment camps? Was he beaten almost daily until he suffered irreparable brain damage? Probably not, but that’s what happened to my great uncle in an actual Soviet gulag at the same time your grandfather was interred.

                    The internment camps were terrible, but comparing them to gulags is like comparing the immigrant detention camps (also terrible) to actual concentration camps

                    1. So then, imprisonment is OK as long as it is comfy. Noted.

                4. Who is going to impose these gulags?

                  The police will enforce any law they are told to. There will never be a lack of applicants for that job.

            2. I meant “going forward”. Yeah the internment camps were terrible.

              So your response to ‘the left has ALREADY set up camps’ is ‘I meant they haven’t done it again….yet’?

              Damn.

              1. The “camps” were (a) demanded by the military at the time and (b) had nearly universal support. They were a blatantly racist response to a blatantly racist demand by both the people and the military. It is just a lie to say that it was some sort of “leftist” gulag. It was horrible but it was not Stalin’s ideological prison camps. It was racist prison camps justified by wartime necessity. Both were bad, but they are not identical, okay?

                1. Will the Left’s next gulags be blatantly anti-racist?

                2. racist prison camps justified by wartime necessity.

                  Himmler would be proud!

            3. What about inner city schools in places where the idea of vouchers are anathema. Isn’t that trapping those kids and subsequent generations in a kind of gulag?

              1. Not a bad point, ersatz

            4. Jeffy excuses 150+ years of Democrat racism in one fell swoop.

              Fuck you, asshole.

          2. Those camps, has bad as they were, where nothing like Goulags.

        3. “In this country there is about as much probability of The Left imposing gulags, as there is of The Right imposing Handmaid’s Tale”

          Tell that to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn

          1. You mean, two individuals who broke the law? What should I say to them? “Don’t break the law”?

            1. Yes. Tell us how you think someone should get 4 years in jail for being a fabulist while the ex cia director lied about illegal spying and didnt even get a trial.

              Fuck off.

            2. “chemjeff radical individualist
              June.17.2020 at 6:53 pm
              You mean, two individuals who broke the law? What should I say to them? “Don’t break the law”?”

              Principals over principles, eh jeff?

            3. What law did they break?

        4. It’s hilarious to read paranoid comments about leftist radicals coming after everyone. How many violent radicals do you think the left has vs. latte sippers.

          1. “how many violent radicals do you think the left has vs latte sippers”

            I’ll put the over under at “as many sock accounts as you, aka Jeff, has”

          2. I know, right? It is simultaneously the case that leftist radicals are (a) pathetic soy boys who shriek at the sight of a gun and go running to their safe space, and (b) the vanguard of a violent Maoist revolution who will send all Republicans to death camps.

            1. Fanatics are a bitch.
              Unfortunately, those soy boys explicitly believe in State Supremacy and have the backing of corporate America, mass media, tech, educational establishment, international organizations, and a majority of unelected officials.
              If they can control the monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force (and look at municipal responses to the riots so far, asking just who is in control there), it doesn’t much matter that they’re soy boys.
              Lenin was a soy boy, as were Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler. Don’t know the background of Pol Pot or Mao, though Castro doesn’t seem like a soy boy.

              1. And you’re banking on Donald Trump as your champion against this overwhelming wall of progressivism. Like he’s the guy you are counting on to save you?

                1. Not exactly.
                  But he’s proven to be a pretty good fighter so far.

                  1. Fighting isn’t what our country needs.

                    1. Ok, Wormtongue.

            2. A pathetic vegetarian who wants to send political opponents to death camps…. I think the world already had one of those leftists.

            3. Lying Jeffy talking to himself again.
              #sad

            4. Pardon me, but which political group has currently taken over part of a major US city in an armed uprising? Which group has rioted to such an extent that it has a double digit death count?

              This might have been a valid comment a month ago, but I don’t think it’s rational now.

          3. Whatever they need the left to be at the moment to justify supporting Trump.

            1. Meanwhile Donald Trump could say the sky was blue, and you’d be insisting it’s green. Fuck off and die.

          4. How many violent radicals do you think the left has vs. latte sippers.

            Maybe you missed the recent RIOTS? At least tens of thousands by most accounts.

            1. And there’s something like 40 *million* registered Democrats. So, that’s pretty much 39.9 million latte sippers vs 10s of thousands of radicals.

              1. Except the violent radicals have the implicit support of big-city mayors, city councils, large corporations, the mainstream media, and one of the two major political parties.

                1. And conservatives have the support of big city mayors in red states, huge media companies such as FOX and AM radio channels, evangelical Christians and country music artists, police officers, and the party that is in the White House.

                  Conservatives look ridiculous every time they play the victim.

                  1. Literally nothing you wrote in that response is accurate.

                  2. “huge media companies such as FOX and AM radio channels”

                    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! One TV network, and a broadcast band abandoned by the rest of civilization. Yuge! What has the other side got? The big four networks, the big nine newspapers, and everything else in America.

                    Leftist fairness: “Stop complaining — I left you plenty of bones and gristle.”

    3. I tend to agree.

      This all boils down to culture, but the leaders also exploit it. A country where we do not allow others to “live and let live” is a country where we will demand the State to be the arbiter of what we put in our body, who we associate with and even whether or not we can leave our houses. This creates an ever larger state, which makes the stakes of losing control of the state more dire, which leads to more calls for the state to punish the other guy.

      1. Exactly. I’m not “both sidesing” this issue. I see this from the libertarian point of view. It’s the state vs everyone else. You can ask your representatives to intervene in private companies, the may even be abusing some of the protections being afforded them, but if you think that whatever legislation they come up with won’t be laden with unintended consequences, cronyist goodies that enshrine the companies you hate even further as monopolies and have enforcement that eventually used against your team, you’re fooling yourself. This is the whole game. This is why the leftists always win. They made the debate about the size of the club and who gets to swing it instead of whether it should exist at all. We’re better off if we throw the club in the fire.

        1. “We’re better off if we throw the club in the fire.”

          Historically, that leads to communism.

          1. I get what you’re saying, and largely agree.
            Unfortunately, that doesn’t really matter right now.
            The choice is totalitarianism (leftism) or not totalitarianism.
            We’ve been building to a breaking point for over a century.
            If we break the totalitarians, then we can get into working on the optimal maximum of freedom.
            But if the totalitarians break us… game over.

            1. Unfortunately, I’m starting to think you may be right about this. I just always have the concern that the right is going to pull another William F. Buckley. He claimed to love freedom and fight for small government, then the specter of USSR made him argue that we had to fight it with a massive central government of our own, just until we beat the red scare. Once the soviets fell, his followers were entrenched and drunk on the power of the state and basically became the neo-cons. The left is clearly completely out of control and terrifying right now, but if we have to create the next round of neo-cons with their complete disregard for human life and authoritarian tendencies, what do we really win? The left terrifies me right now, but if and when the pendulum swings back, it comes with its own set of problems. Sorry if I’m thinking past the next election cycle.

              1. It’s a good point, and definitely something to keep in mind.

            2. Did you forget to change your socks?

    4. On the bright side, many (perhaps most) people are not aligned with either if the major parties. It’s just that the partisans is the major parties are very vocal in decrying the awfulness of their opponents.

      1. Yes but those people who are not aligned with the parties either still vote for them because voting third party is a “wasted” vote” or don’t vote at all

        1. If libertarians are ever going to get anywhere, they need to soundly reject the wasted vote argument. It’s one of the main tools the man is using to keep us all down.

    5. I’m old enough to remember quite a few presidential elections in years when the population was deeply divided over issues like integration and the Vietnam war. After the election a majority always accepted the new president, no matter the party, and each enjoyed a “honeymoon” with the electorate and the press. Before Trump even took office the press told us they would not “normalize” his presidency. Billionaires bought TV time begging for faithless electors to deny him office. Mainstream media outlets were seriously advocating that the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment. The most prestigious newspapers in the country began floating the completely implausible story that a billionaire reality TV star was an agent of the Russian government. I could go on but suffice to say, no president in my lifetime has ever been treated like this president.
      During the post election honeymoon we generally saw congress negotiating the president’s various policy initiatives and oftentimes reaching a bipartisan consensus. The policies were always horrible but they were bipartisan. There has been no effort whatsoever by the opposition party to negotiate anything with this president. On the flip side Trump’s inability to control his Twittering
      is frankly embarrassing and makes it very difficult for his supporters to defend him. It’s been suggested that this is brilliant trolling of the press and his supporters love it. But these are serious times and if Trump can’t manage to be presidential 24/7 he’s going to hand the presidency to people much more evil than he is.

      1. It might have something to do with Trump publicly lobbying our cold war enemy for illegal assistance in getting elected. That really turned a lot of people off.

        Or it could have been the Trump tower fiasco, and the many iterations of lies from Trump and his son, including confirmed lies to congress which should have resulted in little Donny going to prison for perjury.

        Or it could have been his troubling relationship with foreign debt and his refusal to disclose his financial entanglements. This is a rather obvious conflict of interest that Trumplicans have never been able to justify. Trump and his family can’t even pass security clearance screenings, why should they be blindly trusted? Wasn’t Reagan the one who said to, “Trust, but verify,”?

        Trump is unlike any president we have had, as his fans are quick to point out. So don’t be surprised when he is not treated like other presidents. (Like being laughed at at the UN. Embarrassing.)

        1. No, what’s embarrassing is you claiming to be anything other than a leftist.

          -no sense of humor: check
          “It might have something to do with Trump publicly lobbying our cold war enemy for illegal assistance in getting elected.”

          -an odd mix of dwelling on the past while completely ignoring/altering history: check
          see above, then review Obama in 2012

          -belief in the supremacy of ruling-class mandarins: check
          “Or it could have been the Trump tower fiasco, and the many iterations of lies from Trump and his son, including confirmed lies to congress which should have resulted in little Donny going to prison for perjury”
          “Trump and his family can’t even pass security clearance screenings, why should they be blindly trusted?”

          -devotion to the narrative: check
          “Or it could have been his troubling relationship with foreign debt and his refusal to disclose his financial entanglements. This is a rather obvious conflict of interest that Trumplicans have never been able to justify.”
          While ignoring that Trump is the first president since Truman who will leave the White House poorer than he entered it, rather than getting much, much, much richer like Obama and Clinton

          -slavish, europhiliac need for international aristocratic approval: check
          “Like being laughed at at the UN. Embarrassing.”

          -principals over principles, with the end justifying the means: check
          “Trump is unlike any president we have had, as his fans are quick to point out. So don’t be surprised when he is not treated like other presidents”

          1. What’s embarrassing is you claiming to be anything other than a moron.

            Despite spending the majority of his time online in political sites, still doesn’t know what “leftist” means: check.

            Still fighting the culture war against imaginary ‘cultural marxists’: check.

            1. Lol

              Great comeback, bro
              Totes

            2. Another idiot leftist that doesn’t know they’re an idiot or a leftist.

        2. Bullshit from disreputable mainstream media is still bullshit.

        3. “It might have something to do with Trump publicly lobbying our cold war enemy for illegal assistance in getting elected.”

          Fucko still believes the lie that the Democrats whinged about for three years.

    6. Yes.
      A real (and looming) problem.
      Most people don’t have a problem with a more dictatorial government; They just think the wrong guy is in the driver’s seat. They want dictatorship and they think they can be the dictator.
      In this, they are mental hospital delusional.
      If they had a lick of sense, they’d look at the rulers they don’t like and conclude that maybe we shouldn’t let the rulers have so much power over the rest of us.

  4. Right way forward has been preached by LP candidates for 45 years. It will be again this year. And less than 1 percent of the voters will respond. Why? It’s hard to believe the message has been so incomprehensible for so many years. It’s easier to believe that 99 percent flat out reject it.Lamentable, but it is what it is and the American experiment in individual liberty is dying.

  5. It’s up to us to reboot society.

    Have you tried Ctrl-Alt-Delete?

    1. Ironically fitting that double-tapping Ctrl-Alt-Del actually hasn’t worked to reboot a Windows PC in almost 2 decades

      1. Format :\progressive

    2. Can’t seem to get as far as the Ctrl.

  6. >>When it comes to responses to the novel coronavirus

    the best option is to quit calling it novel.

    >>ongoing horror show of bad, stupid, incompetent, and downright evil behavior by the folks who are in charge

    only show on longer than The Simpsons.

    1. the best option is to quit calling it novel.

      Lots of words have been written about COVID, most of it fiction. Sounds like a novel to me!

      1. It was a dark and stormy night in the Wuhan Wet Market.

        1. Call me Ishmael. I’ll be your waiter, I recommend the bat soup!

  7. We are in the midst of an ongoing horror show of bad, stupid, incompetent, and downright evil behavior by the folks who are in charge.

    Really? The evil ones are not in charge, and would send us all to reeducation camps if they were.

    1. pics of the Press Sexretary would not be permitted.

      1. She is so HOT

        1. until she opens her mouth

          1. I don’t think you’re equipped to have an opinion on this subject

          2. Speaking from experience?

          3. And slaughters your precious leftist narratives.

            Donald Trump is still your President and will be until January 2025.

  8. “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

  9. Fonzie gets the first free helicopter ride. Dropped off into the wood chipper

  10. “And we can perhaps take some comfort, naive as it might be, that Americans eventually figure out the right way forward after trying all the others.”

    Yea, I’m sure the Maoists will change direction as they’re fully backed by corporate America, including you

  11. King Rat Trump!

    Trading DC swamp rats for NYC sewer rats has gotten us only even more septic rats.

    1. Ok.
      Time to be specific.
      Who and why is the basis for your assertion of “more”?

      1. Either more septic or more rats or both more rats that are more septic take your choice. King Rat Trump delivered more.

        To avoid getting way out in the weeds debating levels of proof, let’s take only the highest levels of contempt and crime. Holder was the first AG held in contempt in over two centuries. The NYC sewer rat Trumpies repeated the offense in the very next administration, and topped it with criminal Nat Sec Flynn, Advisors Stone and Papadopulos, and Lawyer Cohen. Neither the investigations nor the sewer rat administration is yet over, either – likely much more to come concerning the massive, secretive C-19 spending.

        1. “Neither the investigations nor the sewer rat administration is yet over, either…”

          Stuff your TDS up your ass, so your mouth has something to talk to.

        2. Lol

          I see you didn’t hesitate to drink the koolaid

    2. BigGiveNotBigGov
      June.17.2020 at 5:31 pm
      “King Rat Trump!”

      Stuff your TDS up your ass, so your mouth has something to talk to.

      1. There’s that tolerance Sevo is known for.

        1. Yes because you fucking leftists are well-known for your tolerance of other points of view.

          “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.” — Bill Buckley, 1959

  12. Our leaders and institutions are failing us spectacularly. It’s up to us to reboot society.

    Workin’ on it.

  13. “Our leaders and institutions are failing us spectacularly. It’s up to us to reboot society.”

    You guys know that neither BLM nor the Democrats nor their cheerleaders in the media are libertarians, right? If they reboot society, we’ll come out the other end without the First or Second Amendments intact and with new features like Medicare for All, Free College for Everyone, and the Green New Deal. Before COVID-19 and the lockdowns, we were doing quite well by all sorts of measures, especially in terms of job participation by minorities and the winding down of the drug war. I don’t see why we should jeopardize that and risk the Democrats inflicting their evil plans on the rest of us with a reboot. If none of them are anything but hostile to libertarian capitalism, why would we expect a reboot to achieve libertarian capitalist goals?

    1. But chemjeff assures us the leftists won’t put us in gulag or concentration camps (this time)!

      1. Seriously? You are that paranoid about liberals?

        1. History seems to indicate that it’s caution and not paranoia.

    2. Yes, I think we know that. Everyone here knows that Trump is not a libertarian, right?

      1. But he got us good judges, cut taxes, put more money in all our pockets, grew wages for minorities faster than Obama could ever dream, cut regulations, forced China to the negotiating table, avoided more wars, pulled troops from Syria, put us back in space, got our military technology back on par with our potential adversaries, and has done it all under a constant campaign of lies from the deep state and media.

        He’s by far the most libertarian president in my life. And he’s far more libertarian than either alternative, Clinton or Biden. He’s probably even more libertarian than that fucking retard Johnson would have been.

      2. Yes, and that’s okay. He doesn’t need to be a libertarian.

        He needs to denounce the Green New Deal as a socialist catastrophe, and support the First and Second Amendments against the incursions of the left.

        He just needs to be a significantly superior alternative to the authoritarian socialists that are driving the Democratic party, and considering that the Democrats are becoming more authoritarian and socialist all the time, that’s an easy hurdle to clear. Why, he could even launch an unnecessary trade war and be wrongheaded about his immigration goals–and still be head and shoulders above the Democrats in terms of libertarian capitalism.

        It isn’t that I support Trump per se. It’s that the Democrats are so very bad that I can’t just ignore them. We need Trump in the White House to frustrate all the evil shit they’d do if the only thing standing between us and the Democrats were the principles of Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

        1. “principles of Mitch McConnell”

          Hilarious!

          1. That’s the point…

      3. No Trump is no libertarian. But if the Covid scam has taught us anything it is that the leftists in power will enthusiastically impose their tyranny at the drop of a hat. They are far more dangerous than Trump. And by the way. The Libertarians will not win the presidency in 2020 shocking as that may seem. The choice is a non libertarian Trump or president Stacy Abrams. Take your pick.

        1. Didn’t every single governor, both R and D, “impose their tyranny” on the nation vis a vis Covid-19?

          Where does this nonsense come from that it was only “leftists” that imposed lockdown orders?

          1. In Ohio we have a Reprehensible R governor, but it was the commie twat Health Minister that BLOCKED an election. She should be dangling from a tree.

  14. As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I believe the only legitimate authority flows from people with net worths of at least $10,000,000,000. Indeed, all the problems our nation currently faces are the result of billionaires having too little political influence.

    #BillionairesKnowBest

  15. “Legitimate Authority”

    Legitimacy comes from protecting people’s rights. Even autocrats can be legitimate if they do that properly. There have been legitimate kings. Illegitimate democracies are another possibility. What the left is proposing right now is to stop protecting people’s rights with the police. That’s the opposite of legitimacy. It’s more like a low level pogrom, where the government refuses to protect people from criminal behavior as a matter of policy. There isn’t anything legitimate about that.

  16. From a libertarian perspective, it’s tempting to think that universal cynicism toward authority, especially in the public sector, will create a consensus for smaller government. Nothing could be farther from the truth, though.

    Thanks, Nick. It’s important to point this out and come to grips with it. The most popular political movement in the country right now, (universally supported by the very institutions we claim to distrust, BTW) is fully a fully Marxist one. Their website reads right out of the Revolutionary Trostkyist Playbook. Even the more thoughtvul, nonviolent elements of the movement are essential Marxists.

    Can you tell I’m depressed?

    1. I wish it were Trotskyist!

      George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens were Trotskyist.

      The most popular political movement in the country right now is authoritarian. It’s closer to Stalin than Lenin, too–they’d denounce Lenin for his New Economic Policy.

      The most popular political movement on the left right now is Chavismo. The only difference between the people driving the bus on the left and Chavismo is that they don’t have a Hugo Chavez.

      If Biden were the kind of leader who could inspire devotion like Chavez did, we’d be in for real trouble. We should all thank Jesus that Hillary Clinton didn’t win in 2016, or she’s have already used our current situation to do all sorts of evil shit.

      1. “[Trotsky] supported founding a vanguard party of the proletariat, proletarian internationalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat based on working class self-emancipation and mass democracy.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

        The left is elitist, anti-democratic, and supports minority emancipation through the oppression of the working class.

      2. George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens were Trotskyist.

        Peter Hitchens (Chris’s brother) also was a Trotskyist and he has said it’s something he’s incredibly ashamed of. He has said repeatedly in interviews that his former Trotskyism gives him two things:

        1. A tremendous amount of guilt that he has to carry around with him for the rest of his life.
        2. A deep understanding of how the leftist mind works.

        Peter has said that he would have done terrible things to his political enemies because the leftist mind is so completely imbued with a sense of righteousness, that any action that furthers the cause is justifiable.

        The Trotskyists wanted international borders removed “not because we gave a damn about immigrants” (as Peter has said on multiple occasions) but because they wanted to see the total destruction of the nation-state. BLM advocates (for some inane reason) the elimination of all national borders. Fuck ’em, I’m not on board, I’m not posting your stupid black square on my instagram. And to all the soy cucks in the Autonomous Zone threatening me with death of I don’t accept the revolution, come get me.

      3. Authoritarian: you must do this, you may not do that
        Totalitarian: you must BE this, you may not BE that

        If the left were simply authoritarian, we’d be in a better place.
        But the left is full on totalitarian, and only growing in psychotic ambition

    2. no your’re absolutely correct. This is embarrassing. Reason has officially left the reservation. The communists are out in force but the in chattering class crowd wants to excuse them and gaslight us and Reason has been happy to go the pox on both their houses routine for three years now. This country hasn’t had as much cultural unrest since the 60’s it brought fucking Nixon come in. There are no good scenario’s in store when the communists are out. I’m going to be honest with you if it’s between Pinochet and the marxists I’m going Pinochet all day. Trump is no Pinochet but he’s not a book burner, probably because he’s never read one but that’s still infinitely better than our intellectual class of fucking economic illiterate retards who just nuked the economy over a flu.

      1. There may come a time when the best bet for capitalism is a Pinochet type–and the Pinochet type does better than the left today at allowing free expression among other things. I bet the people of Venezuela would love to have found a Pinochet type when they were starving. Meanwhile, there isn’t anything the American far left isn’t promising that Chavez and Maduro didn’t already try to deliver. You know the definition of stupidity? It’s doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

        1. But you guys AREN’T fascists, right? You just praise them and like throwing around the same jingoes.

          You’d prefer pinochet to democrats, and you expect to be taken seriously?

          1. Pinochet would be the lesser of evils, so, yes.

          2. “But you guys AREN’T fascists, right? You just praise them and like throwing around the same jingoes.”

            If you think that’s what I said, then you’re a fucking idiot.

            1. He’s a fucking idiot even if he didn’t think that’s what you said.

      2. Oh good heavens. No one in their right mind should be defending either Marxism or Pinochet.

        1. But the Marxists “are out in force”! There’s no time for rational human society anymore! We have to choose a side in the Red vs Blue Team culture war, and the Republicans are clearly better because ???

          1. Noone’s saying anyone’s clearly better. Just one is clearly not socialist/communist.

            1. Umm I think you’re the one saying that the Pinochet-ists are better than the Marxists.

              1. Like he literally said that.

              2. Pinochetists are better than Marxists

              3. Didn’t Pinochet hold a referendum on his own rule and respect the results and step down when he lost the election?

                The correct answer is “yes”.

              4. Yes. Being a violent authoritarian and leaving your country with a decent economic prospect when you leave is better than being a violent authoriatarian and destroying the productive economy like Marxists do.

                I wouldn’t pick either, but if you look at the overall effect on a country and it’s people one outcome is clearly better.

                1. I wouldn’t pick either, either. Why are we even talking about this false dichotomy?

                  1. I don’t know. Why does anyone do anything?

                  2. “Why are we even talking about this false dichotomy?”

                    Because we have actual Marxists waging a mass cultural revolution, and left apologists around here are trying to paint a false equivalence to deflect from the current situation

                    1. There’s like two leftist apologist hanging out here: that American Socialist guy and maybe Buttplug. The rest of the people criticizing Trump are libertarians, but it’s hard for conservatives to realize that libertarians are critical of Trump, too.

                    2. You *literally* apologize for leftists constantly.
                      But I’m sure you have “good” intentions

        2. Is there anyone defending either? It’s diametric choice. The lefties are Maoists intent on bludgeoning and casting people out from jobs and from earning a living they deem undesirables or thought criminals. Meanwhile they are increasing talking about a full throat-ed revolution, is it not reasonable to be scared of fucking marxist ideas given where we are? We are an election cycle away from Venezuela dude look around. The dems are openly talking about stacking the supreme court and abolishing the electoral college because of foreign countries interfering in elections, the Maoists are out in the street and we are spiraling are way into catastrophic debt through our incoherent and catastrophic response to Covid. I’m sorry if I view Pinochet’s Chile preferable to Venezuela or any other failed south american state which is the path we are likely headed on. We’ll be lucky if this ends in a peaceful breakup or the fucking used car salesman wins.

          1. We are an election cycle away from Venezuela dude look around.

            In case you hadn’t noticed, Team Blue decidedly did not nominate the socialist, they nominated the milquetoast semi-senile centrist.

            The dems are openly talking about stacking the supreme court and abolishing the electoral college because of foreign countries interfering in elections,

            Actually, the Dems have been talking about stacking the supreme court and abolishing the electoral college for a while now.

            Tell me, what is so special about the number 9? And what is so great about the undemocratic Electoral College?

            I may not support the reasons why they wish to pursue those changes, but they do have a point.

            the Maoists are out in the street

            “Maoists” lol. this is just hyperventilating.

            Why not just call the protestors what they are: angry citizens, some of whom are very radical, some of whom are violent, but upset about police brutality and racism. The more radical crap and the violence isn’t justifiable, but their anger against racism and police misconduct certainly is. You don’t have to agree with abolishing police departments to find some of their complaints worthy of consideration.

            and we are spiraling are way into catastrophic debt through our incoherent and catastrophic response to Covid.

            You know what? the country was spiraling into catastrophic debt way before Covid came here.

            1. The 40,000 people marching in LA yesterday are all MAOISTS!

              And the electoral college should be abolished, if you like the union. The people will not keep tolerating popular vote losers as president, especially if republicans insist on nominating the most noxious and compromised people they can find.

              1. It’s obvious why Team Red supports the Electoral College, it benefits them more than Team Blue. But I don’t see the libertarian argument for the Electoral College. Honestly, when it comes to electoral processes in this country, it needs an entire revamp. Expansion of the House, ranked choice voting, abolish or heavily reduce ballot access laws, those are what libertarians ought to be fighting for IMO. Who gives a fuck about tinkering with the Electoral College. Of course it should go, but it is just one small part of sweeping electoral reform that ought to take place in this country.

                1. When they put you up against the wall, remember to tell them what a devout apologist you were

                2. Jeffy doesn’t see the inherent problems of trying to recount the votes of the whole damned country instead of just one state like Florida. Or maybe he does and he’s just lying to us.

              2. Tell me, what is so special about the number 9? And what is so great about the undemocratic Electoral College?

                9 is an odd number, and a CONSTANT number.

                We are the United STATES, not America, in case you failed 6th grade civics. Federalism is a blessing that is slowly slipping away from us.

            2. In fact, Team Blue pretty much openly sabotages the leading radical socialist candidate. They’ve done it twice now.

              1. It’s almost like they know the voters would reject their endgame, so lying is necessary, and they’re worried that Bernie isn’t an obedient enough to The Party

                1. Did you listen to yourself on anything you just said? You just undermined any argument that the Democratic Party is all about promoting Marxism.

        3. My god your reading comprehension is terrible. The context of their discussion was obvious.

          Quit obsessing over ken, Jesse, and nardz. Maybe youd think clearly if those 3 weren’t dancing in your head all day you obsessed creep.

  17. The fucking cultural maoists are out in force and this is the type of bullshit you come up with Reason? we should take comfort in what’s likely the democrats who have been openly talking about packing the supreme courts and dropping the electoral college running an election vs a used cars salesman? we should take comfort that our future is going to be rebooted by our fellow americans who are defacing statues, looting business’s, firebombing building and cars have 50% chance of winning? Fuck that.

    1. “cultural maoist”

      Please define that term for me.

      1. It’s redundant.
        He may have been going for “cultural Marxist”, which is also a bit redundant but emphasizes how the class war will be framed.
        Anyhow, maybe look up “the Cultural Revolution”. Maybe you’ll pick up some ideas. Surely yall can come up with something along the lines of Mao’s little red book

    2. The Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court with liberals and the Republicans want to pack it with conservatives. Not sure why you’d only mention half of the rules of the game.

      1. And is the “liberal” reading of a document, in this case the contract for legitimate American governance, not significantly different than the “conservative” reading of text?

        1. And neither one the reading I would give as a libertarian, so why would I favor one major party over the other? Why would I want to support either, since they are mutually playing a manipulative, divisive game with the country I love?

          1. So you’d read new meanings into the text, but not too many new meanings

      2. I think “packing” usually means adding seats when you have control over the whole process. I don’t hear Republicans talking about doing that.
        I don’t like everything that so called “conservative” justices do, but at the very least they have some sense that the constitution is supposed to restrain the government.
        I think at this point it is best that the court stay closely divided on the hot-button issues, with a majority for 1st and 2nd amendment rights being properly protected.

    3. Oh, please. The typical liberal is your Starbucks drinking, soccer game shuttling non-radical. They are not out burning and looting.

      1. No, they pay people to do that for them

  18. In addition to all of this madness, we’re being told that we must trade our distrust of these institutions with full-throated support of a angry political movement with warnings that if that full-throated support isn’t received, you will be executed. Meanwhile, my local daily runs soft-focus stories about the space where these death-threat speeches are made as a happy place where children draw with chalk on the car-free streets.

    1. And it can’t be said enough about the institutions that support this nascent political movement. It’s not a protest when every government agency, every institution, every corporation fully supports the ideals of what is essentially a Marxist movement.

      1. This is what scares me the most. People are just disregarding this fact. This cultural revolution is really fucking scary it would be like if IBM, Coke and Budweiser embraced the fucking black panthers and their politics in the 60’s.

        1. but worse I’d rather do business with the black panthers than these radical marxist white karens who have no idea what real hardship is.

        2. It would be more like if IBM, Coke and AT&T embraced the Weather Underground.

          1. And if the Weather Underground had had a half century to refine their approach, and let their ideology/brainwashing establish deep roots through total control of education and media

        3. You two have really built up a paranoid demonization of liberals in your minds.

          What you don’t realize is your own role in building more extremism on the left by supporting an extremist right that the left can then use as an excuse.

          This mutual demonization, and complete lack of any introspection or self-criticism, in the part of both major parties is a vicious downward spiral.

          Make no mistake, though. By picking Trump as your champion against the left, rather than acting as a rational adult and expecting more from your country, you are participating in and driving the downward spiral.

          1. ^the technique known as “concern trolling”

            1. It would be trolling, except every word was sincere and from the bottom of my heart.

              1. You’re sincerely a fucking idiot. And you don’t have a heart.

          2. Those people are not liberals.

          3. “By picking Trump as your champion against the left”

            Trump was the only one who actually asked us to the prom. Mittens just wanted to jump straight to the after-prom hotel room, and McCain wanted us to pay for the room.

  19. Thanks for the good cheer, Nick.

  20. Oh, and the people running this little encampment? They’re not much into transparency and openness. They keep blocking people from filming uncomfortable events that happen in the zone.

    1. Forget it, Diane. It’s Seattle Town.

  21. Eric Hoffer comes to mind “The movement begins with men of words, materializes by fanatics, and consolidated by men of action”

    Currently we are in the materializes by fanatics stage, hopefully the men of action don’t start hijacking this and it burns out.

  22. Not seeing what this calculus is that so many conservative-libertarians here are using to come to the conclusion that we have to ally with Trump and the Republicans because the left and Democrats are so awful:

    Trump and Biden — Both doddering/incoherent old men with accusations of corruption and sexual assaults against them.
    The left has Antifa and the right has white supremacists.
    The left has crazy ideologues and the right has crazy relgious fanatics.
    I can go on and on…
    Both sides support the drug war, domestic spying, foreign intervention, massive spending.

    1. I don’t think you should throw out the Republican party just because of Trumps Cares Act and a few others. The GOP platform doesn’t support Spying, Foreign Intervention, and massive spending (you should read the platform if you haven’t already) and there are still many Republican politicians (by far more) than Democrats who support that platform quite well like Rand Paul probably being the best example.

      1. Record deficits since Trump has been president. They are the party of massive spending. At least the Democrats try to balance the books when they increase spending. Republicans want to spend more than Dems but collect less in taxes. This is not a recipe for long term success.

        The fact that many here will deny that deficits matter now that the GOP is controlling 2/3 of government tells you all you need to know about the depth of knowledge typical of right wing voters. These same people were crying about Obama’s TARP and deficits, which are now dwarfed many time over by GOP led bail outs and highest all time deficits. The numbers are there for you to look up.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/benritz/2020/03/27/america-is-on-track-for-a-4-trillion-deficit-in-2020-should-it-matter/#23adf4f13660

        1. I’m always amused that leftists speak exclusively of deficits rather than debt.
          I had a colleague, a liberal but not passionate, I used to talk with. He liked to point out how Obama had reduced the deficit. When I mentioned that Obama had increased the debt more than any other president, he was confused.
          So I explained it to him like this: if I have $5 and lunch costs $20, I have a $15 dollar deficit. Tomorrow, I have $10 for that $20 lunch, and the next day I have $15. I’ve reduced my deficit from $15 to $5! Pretty awesome, I must be good with money. But I’ve had to borrow for lunch each of those three days. My total debt is now $30, even though I reduced my deficit every day. To his credit, he seemed to get it and gave it some thought.
          Anyway, yea: the debt and deficit situation sucks. Probably need to cut some things. Let’s hope both the president and congress become amenable to that…

          1. Oh, forgot the point about deficits vs debt – that speaking of deficits is convenient for those inclined to shift goalposts and are easier for narrative control because they’re annual rather than cumulative

        2. Like Democrats have ever been for lowering spending (the only way to reduce the deficit/debt) EVER.

      2. The GOP platform doesn’t support Spying, Foreign Intervention, and massive spending

        The GOP politicians do, however.

      3. Read a party platform? Why, when I am familiar with decades of their actual activities?

        1. Then you should well know Republicans are far more serious than Democrats – as if their very ideology wasn’t entirely opposite. Every curse-id thing Republicans do IS-ON the Democrats established wish list. Granite their “serious” level is a flat-out joke but there are still a few hopefuls on the right like Rand Paul.

      4. Both Antifa and white supremacists suck. Only one of them gets a pass by any media.

    2. Who the fuck are you and what have you done with that autistic retard lc1789?

      1. As for what I’ve done with him, it’s a simple trick learned from Tulpa.

        1. Actually, I think I’m going to abandon the handle. (Which means that Tulpa will swoop in and grab it and add it to his long list of fake accounts.)

          So, here’s what Tulpa does. The capital letter, I (as in India) looks like a lower-case l (as in libertarian) in the font that Reason uses on this website. There might be other letter combinations — Tulpa knows them all.

          The other technique Tulpa sometimes uses is to plain guess people’s passwords. So, make sure to use a secure one.

          So, like I said, Tulpa will probably add Ioveconstitution1789 to his list of sock puppets, so you’ll probably see some really crazy shit posted under the handle. But I’m going to move on to some other handle.

        2. The other amazing thing about Tulpa is if you say his name three times in a row while looking in a mirror he materializes. Often within minutes. Here, I’ll demonstrate:

          tulpa tulpa tulpa

    3. We’re driving towards a cliff. The Democrats control the gas pedal and the Republicans the brakes. No one is steering.

      The way I see it lately is that Ds and Rs are certainly different. But they are part of the same process. Neither is willing to change the direction of “progress”.

  23. “From a libertarian perspective, it’s tempting to think that universal cynicism toward authority, especially in the public sector, will create a consensus for smaller government.”

    That’s actually the very laughable irony in the latest protests… If these protesters were out there giving a message that government has become tyrannical then perhaps I could relate… But the real kick-er is their “demands” were ALL about making the government bigger, more encompassing and authoritarian. THE VERY AUTHORITARIAN they’re suppose to be rioting against.

    Every banner is but a stupid stick until their message can actually not contradict itself.

    1. Every demand? I think “defund the police” is a confused slogan that reflects fuzzy thinking, but it is clearly expressing a desire for less encompassing, less authoritarian government.

      1. Just like the lockdowns, they totes have “good” intentions

        1. Actually, they do have good intentions.

          1. No, they don’t.

      2. Google their demand list – there’s far more than just de-fund the police among-st which resides Gov Housing, Gov Education, Gov Medical, Gov retrials, Gov Social Services, etc.. etc.. etc..

        1. To have a serious discussion about this, we’d have to be more specific about which “they” we are talking about.

          1. Right.. The CHAZ group is the one I was speaking about all along.

            1. OK, noted that you were just talking about the CHAZ (now CHOP?) occupiers. The actual words you used were “these protestors”, which didn’t make that clear.

    2. “their “demands” were ALL about making the government bigger, more encompassing and authoritarian”

      Yep.
      This is astroturfing on an unprecedented scale, and the counter-“revolution” to the worldwide rise in populism since 2014ish.
      Make no mistake: these anti-police demonstrations are really aimed at the people, against the people

    3. Yeah. I think a lot of it is down to the narrow focus on race. If you try to add any nuance, you are being racially insensitive. This can only be about racist cops, never about the problems of a government that is involved in so many aspects of people’s lives.

  24. We can take comfort in the fact that it’s virtually certain that some meaningful reforms of police will take place

    Hilarious

    1. No I think he’s right on this score, the critical mass seems to be there for some type of reform. I just hope it’s enough and not just token reform.

      1. Hope you are right.

      2. I’m not holding my breath.

        1. I’d bet your not out in the streets demanding them, too.

  25. ONLY the Libertarians who have never had to run jack shit so they can easily call everyone out because they’ve never had any responsibility can save us!

  26. I like the new LC1789! Not douchey like the old one.

    1. I’m wary of your comment. Even I think I’m a bit douchey. 🙂

  27. Remember the days when Gillespie used to insist that life was generally getting better and better despite government fuckups because the supermarket had four different varieties of eggplant on the shelves and all that kind of shit? That our “Libertarian Moment” was at hand? Of course you do, it was that day after Block Yomomma got elected and the next few years after that!

    Boy, he sure went from being Positive Polly to Negative Nellie. Gee, I wonder what changed exactly?

    1. He’s given his reasons for his turn toward pessimism many times: COVID-19, out of control government spending, growing divisiveness, media turning cowardly, only two choices for President both being awful, virtually nobody in the country acting like a grown up.

      1. Because out of control government spending, divisiveness, cowardly media and only two choices for president are recent occurrences?

        1. No, but Gillespie has noticeably taken a turn toward glum recently. Seemed to start with Amash backing out of running for President, which seemed to be the last thing that Gillespie was being optimistic about.

  28. fully 69 percent of us see a systemic problem

    How many have a coherent idea of what “systemic” means? Does the survey mean anything if you don’t check on what people think “systemic racism” actually means? Every response could mean something different.

    1. “How many have a coherent idea of what “systemic” means?”

      Do you? Here’s mine: There is systemic racism when the system, in this case the justice system, incentives brutal treatment of a particular race. The US has about a quarter of the entire planet’s prison population, and keeping those cages filled is a full time job. The poor and downtrodden make the easiest targets. The racism comes in with the fact that blacks are disproportionately among the poor and a long history of harsh treatment. Even by the police, like setting dogs on peaceful protestors.

      1. The racism comes in with the fact that blacks are disproportionately among the poor and a long history of harsh treatment. Even by the police, like setting dogs on peaceful protestors.

        A history as long as the party they keep electing to rule their cities and themselves.

  29. “Top Bananas

    Trump is, in addition to being president of these United States, the nation’s leading conspiracy goober, having been a prominent Obama birther, a dabbler in anti-vaccine kookery, an endless whiner about the “deep state” that opposes him, a trafficker in ridiculous lies about Joe Scarborough’s supposedly murdering an employee, a Seth Rich truther, a Jeffrey Epstein truther, a Vince Foster truther, etc. Donald J. Trump thinks Ted Cruz’s father helped assassinate John F. Kennedy.

    Donald J. Trump thinks windmills cause cancer.

    Trump often couches his idiotic accusations in cowardly terms: “many people are saying,” etc.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/07/06/top-bananas/

    Trump’s insanity and cowardice have combined with a widespread intellectual laziness and un-American dependence on government that has made many place much too much political and cultural power in presidents to leave America very un-American in feel and a shambles in function.

    Trump is America’s broken clock. Don’t ignore the 1338 minutes a day of Trump being crazily wrong to cheer for the two he is almost right.

    1. As opposed to Hillary Clinton, who kills her enemies.

  30. Libertarian moment! Ba ha ha ha.

  31. “Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin didn’t just choke out the life of George Floyd with his disturbingly nonchalant behavior. He helped to kill the once-widespread belief that the police can be trusted to be fair, especially when dealing with blacks.”
    I stopped reading after this. With the above utterance Reason put more butane on the fire.

  32. let hope We can take comfort in the fact that it’s virtually certain that some meaningful reforms of police will take place

  33. “Our leaders and institutions are failing us spectacularly. It’s up to us to reboot society.”

    until you realize that to too many people this means just getting the ‘right’ top men running things, and giving them MORE power over everyone. believing in .gov is pretty much the same as believing in god for these people.

  34. “Once widespread belief that cops were fair to blacks??”<–When was this widespread except among racist white folks? More right-wing conservative MAGA bullshit from Nick Gillespie.

  35. Coercive govt. would be fine if we could limit it with the right laws.

    What’s wrong with this approach to resolve the constant conflict between govt. and citizens?

    “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one hacking at the root.” HDT

    And, attacking the chronic corruption doesn’t work. Institutionalized violence can’t be fixed. It’s fatally flawed. It’s the root of the problem.

    The solution is a voluntary system of governance based on reason, rights, choice. That would be new, require a lot of cooperation and a commitment to respect the individual over all else.

    Can a society change its primitive public policy and act civil, be a beacon for humanity?

  36. Yes, gvt is less than fully competent. Yes, there are still some racist people at large and in police departments. The data shows there is very little actual racism in policing, and certainly when it comes to killing blacks the police proportionately do not kill blacks more than any other color.

    Yet you and the majority of pundits avoid fingering the true culprit, the true evil entity here. You present statistics showing how the media has lost approval and trust. Why don’t you come out and say it, it’s not simply that they have become a bit less trustworthy, THEY ARE AN ACTIVE FORCE FOR EVIL in the world. They pit race against race by their never ending stream of lies. They pit party against party by their never ending stream of lies. They pit “us” against “us” by their never ending stream of lies.

    Don’t tell me “well it’s not all of the media”. No, it’s not all of them. But not all of “us” are racist either, very few are. Yet our leaders and the media pursue the minority of the “bad us” relentlessly for even the slightest deviation in thought from what they approve of and which they can claim is RACIST.

    It is the media that needs to be pursued relentlessly for their evil and misdeeds and lies. They don’t even try to hide it anymore yet you ignore them and blame everyone else. Of course many of “us” do problematic things, who do you think is filling the minds of those “us” with the lies that cause the problems? You have the NYTs painting the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US and most of the current white population as RACISTS trying to kill their black neighboors.

    Focus your attention where the problem is. The country is being destroyed and it’s being done largely by the media with a big assist from the democrats and liberals. As you realize, this won’t turn out good for the libertarians either.

    1. “even the slightest deviation in thought…”

      Nobody knows what you think. We judge whether you talk or act like a racist. If you don’t want to be tarnished as a racist, my advice, don’t act like one.

      1. Like assuming blacks are incapable of getting photo ID?

        I know of no black who doesn’t have it and most would be insulted that Lefties assume they cannot get it.

        1. I don’t know anyone who assumes blacks are incapable of obtaining photo ID. You are likely misinformed. I have repeatedly advised my readers here to obtain a passport. That also goes for my readers of all creeds and colors even black. A passport makes international travel much easier.

          1. You don’t know any Democratic politicians? Oh that’s right, you’re a lying dumbass.

            1. I don’t know anyone who assumes blacks are incapable of obtaining photo ids. I assume you don’t either but parroting something you saw on TV.

              If you don’t want to be labeled a racist or bigot, don’t act like one.

      2. Depends on how you–oh self-appointed judge–define to “talk or act like a racist.” Who’s “we?”

        Much of the modern calling-out of people as racist is mostly a political manipulation, created in the spirit of Alinsky’s shitty tactics. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” and “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” for two.

        If you can make people believe that growing cauliflower is a racist act (AOC), you can destroy any political opponent for their supposed racism.

        The progs have wisely and purposefully changed the language and discussions–incrementally over decades and through many forums (including statist education)–to set themselves as the ultimate judge & arbiter of All Things Racist. (The conservatives, who have enough of their own real racist issues, have stupidly rolled over to the thought police in a feeble attempt at appeasement.)

        People are deemed racist for deviating from current progressive norms, whatever they happen to be at the moment, and never mind how long ago the transgression was.

        Except… when it doesn’t politically suit the progs. Northram, Robert Byrd, FD Roosevelt (internment camps), Farrahkhan (“satanic Jews,” as recently as 2018), Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Hillary (“colored-people time;” “I know they all look alike;” etc.), Bill (“”this guy would have been carrying our bags”) and so on, and so on, including the deeply racist Biden.

        (Where to begin with the bizarro-world candidate, who has managed to one-up Trump with his corruption, plagiarism / academic dishonesty, bullying, opportunism, racism, sexism, mental instability, possible rapism, and general creepiness. Trump & Biden are the best the mob-like dominant parties can give us?)

        I heard a screed a few days ago on CNN by “black Oklahoma newspaper editor” Jim Goodwin in which he referred to *polacks*–a deeply offensive ethnic slur. Jake Tapper neither blinked nor called him on it. Whatever. The current counter to racism is… turning the tables and preaching hate about whites, in order to foster an attitude of revenge. Brilliant.

        Pretty much the entire history of the Democrats was overtly racist–up until the point that they realized addicting poor minorities to government was a path to power. Now they run an implicitly racist scheme for votes–making poor minorities dependent on handouts is a far worse form of racism.

        I’ll believe in your sincerity, and that of the left, when you & they excoriate and destroy these people. Selective shaming is even more repulsive than blanket judgment.

        1. Name calling is part of the cut and thrust of political conflict. Language and society’s behavioural norms are in constant flux. This puts conservatives at a disadvantage due to their propensity to clinging to the past. Adapt or die is the choice before them.

          1. Your fellow travelers got a Hispanic guy fired because they believed the 4chan OK hoax. Fuck off and die.

            1. If this Hispanic guy had listened to me and my fellow travelers in the first place, he’d have joined a union which would protect him against the arbitrary and unjust actions of greedy employers.

  37. wildly inaccurate predictions

    This is rich, coming from a place that published Richard Epstein’s nonsense.

  38. “No man has any natural authority over his fellow men.” ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  39. People in power are not supposed to lie, yet this article continues the lie that Michael Brown was innocent and did nothing to provoke the deadly use of force.

  40. You’re joking, right, Nick? You mention the trust in newspapers and miss the elephant in the room–that the masses in the US have been increasingly manipulated by a progressive movement that has grown to dominate the language.

    “And we can perhaps take some comfort, naive as it might be, that Americans eventually figure out the right way forward after trying all the others.” Yeah, good luck with that.

    What’s the “right way?” There’s no chance in hell it would go toward police privatization. Apparently you would be ok with the current progressive notion of complete abandonment. I’m absolutely anti-authority, and police abuses (power => abuse == inevitable) disgust me, but this is perhaps the most naive idea I’ve ever heard . Well, until I heard yours. What’s sad is that theirs is actually happening.

    We’ve already seen a glimpse of the world that abandonment would produce in today’s progressive-dominated climate: A shift to vigilante justice prosecuting thought-crimes over actual physical transgressions. Antif*ck smacks of worse than Hitler youth: privileged white kids hiding their faces, roving the streets with clubs and breaks, trying to destroy the livelihood of any/all capitalists. Shades of Kristallnacht. Or the stinking KKK.

    The sad part is that these people have no glint of “free minds & free markets” in their eyes. They seek a new government whose first major initiative would be to severely punish those they view as the creators of all evil in the world–namely, white men. They’re already changing the language to demonize white males–“people of color;” “mansplaining,” “manspreading,” “white privilege,” etc. They’re already shaming and getting people fired for not kneeling to their power.

    This all ends badly, until enough people have the balls to stand up to it. What these people are doing represents a modern-day McCarthyism, just ten times worse.

    As much as I distrust the police, we could actually minimize the problem if we cared. At least they’re not a movement. You should probably fear the fascististic progressives far more. Pay attention.

    1. Yes, we should be demanding less truncheon-wielding abuse from our police.

      But it doesn’t stop at prosecuting the blatant murders of blacks. It starts with unions & police departments not protecting people like the killers of people who posed no real deadly threat, like Kelly Thomas, Tony Timpa, David Page (a mentally-challenged 20-year old who was firing what was obviously a BB gun at people), or Daniel Shaver. Who? Oh wait, these were ignored because they were white. Or John Crawford, black man shot in a Wal-Mart for having a BB gun slung on his shoulder.

      It continues with fixing serious additional issues that further engender distrust: banning police from being able to deliberately lie to suspects (just the facts, ma’am); eliminating no-knock warrants (a death sentence for someone trying to rightfully defend their home from armed entry, and at least a couple have died because the warrant was for the wrong address, a commonplace occurrence); ending civil asset forfeiture–basically theft from a person supposedly “innocent until proven guilty”).

      The last one is so blatantly unconstitutional, and yet it bizarrely survives in our corrupt political world.

  41. Let’s examine the three cases you trot out to demonstrate police misconduct.
    COnveinience store gets robbed, large sized punk roughs up the dimunitive eastern shopkeeper, runs off. Report called in, cop on street notices someone matchint description of robber, attempts to contact him to check further. Punk rushes cop, reaches in through patrol car door, attempts to steal the cop’s duty weapon, in the tussle it discharges, injuring the perp AND doing some relatively moinor damage to cop. Punk runs off, goes some distance away, turns and begins a full on charge on the cop, who is recovering from what just happened. He draws his duty weapon, trains it upon the rushing perp, orders him to halt, he keeps on charging, closing the distance rapidly. Officer fires, and again, and again, perp continues to rush the cop. Perp does not ave his hands up, refuses to heed the command to stop, does ot say “don’t shoot” or anything else. After taking the fifth round, perp collapses in a heap, leaking red fluid from multiple perforations of aobut three eights of an inch diameter. Perp, post expiratin date, was positively ID’d as the robber and batterer at the store. His list of cries: robbery of the store. Assault and battery of the proprietor. Failure to obey lawful order of LE officer. Attempted assault with a deadly weapon, the officer’s side arm, attempted theft of firearm, attempted theft of officer’s duty gun, aassault on office,r fleeing thescene of a crime, apparent attempt to assault officer again, refusing multipe times to obery lawful order of cop, and faiing to possess sufficient intelligence to realise that if he did NOT stop hismad charge against the office,r the cop COULD< and most likley WOULD< fire upon him pehaps even kill him if he continued his attack. Hands up don't shoot is a lie. Officer was tried in open court ahd found to have fired in self defense. No conviction. Perp was buried somewhere, and idiots rioted across the nation for weeks. A part of Fergusoin Missouri remains a wasteland, most of the businesses burned and/or looted into oblivion have never come back, nor will they.
    Few folks are intelligent enough to realise that most insurance claims will be rejected as not covere event" if riot insurrection or civil disturbance are the root of the cause of the damage.

    Next we have a man who bouthg a pack of cigarattes, at retail, and PAID the stinking confiscatory tax on the foull things. They were HIS bought, taxed, paid for. Yes, that stinking city have a law prohibiting selling single cigarattes. But he did NOT evade paying the tax, as HE paid it at retail. Ya'd think he rented a big van, drove down to Alabama, loaded it up witn $40K in smokes, and brought them back to NYC to resell without the tax being paid to Nea York…. NOT the case. SO yea, he DID break a law, and yes he WAS "justly" contacted….he died because his multiple serious health issues cound not tolerate the "load" of the struggle with the cop. A normally healthy person likely would have. Freddy did not. Yes he broke that law. But MY questino is WHY are cities and states enacting to many stupid laws that impose hardships on the very people they purport to serve/govern? WHY is selling single cigarattes face to face a crime in NYC? Stuff like tha,t I refuse to even GO there. I will not even fly through either of their airports. NOr will I fly into Newark, right next door, same stining thinking and over the top nannie state thinking.
    And Mr. Floyd…. he HAD just passed a bogus twenty dollar bill. a federal felony and most lilkey a state crime as well. Contacted by police and ID's, then arrested, he refused to get into the patrol car, physically contesting for some time. He had complained "I cna't breathe" and video shows him foaming at the mouth. BOTH OF THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT as will be shown shortly. Apparently weakening, still refusing to cooperate and get in the car after his arrest, he is taken to ground, where he is further restrained by handcuffs and knee on neck. Other officers, now on hand, help to restrain him. After less than ten minutes he stops breathing.
    How many reading this have read even the summary of the autopsy report? I have. NO signs of as[hyxiation, stranguation, muscle damage in the region of the neck. Massive heart defects and compromised respiratory system issues.
    NOW let us consider the toxicology report, released abut a week after his death. Fentanly.. at FOUR TiMES what is considered a lethal dose. WHAAAT!!??!!?? He'd have been dead if he'd gone home and sat down in his living room. Speed. not sure how heavy a dose, bit signficant. Elevates heartrate, messes with oxygen transport, elevates blood pressure. Marijuana, so what. Caffeine. signficant levels. Elevates heartrate, blood pressure, blood sugar levels… most of which can put excess load on cardiovascular system.

    I have no doubt the toxicogy report will play heavily in an acquittal at trial. In fact this should be handed to a gand jury to review and rule… No Bill will be the likely outcome. ,
    You wanna talk about police corruption and brutality, talk about the total fabricatin of "evidence" that resulted in the no knock raid on the suburban home of a middle aged couple been there twenty years, well known and liked in their neighbourhood. coppers bust in, firing away, both man and wife killed in the gunfire, along with their dog. Lead lying officer takes one for the team, is in hospital, so HE can;t manage the crime secne… NO DRUGS< the wapon ths husband had was lawfully possessed, and now the dirty copper has been charged two counts murder, AFTER a through walk thourgh ALL the evidence, and not as sifted by the lead cop on the bust, as he's out of commissioni from his wounds. The alledged drug purchase was fabricated, the material witness never existed, and some fourteen thousand other cases with this cop's tain are being reexamined. Already quite a few of them have been tossed, the accused's record now wiped clean. Ya wanna talk about dirty coppers, DON"T leave that one out. But Michael Brown? Nah. And even now I'm not very convinced that Floyd would have NOT died very close to the time he did…. no matter what the police did/did not do to him.

    1. We also have a man sitting in a drive-thru asleep, high / drunk on something (where the heck is MADD nowadays?) who rabbited and fired a taser (which may have looked like a lethal weapon to the 2nd policeman from that distance, particularly since there’s a claim that the victim said “I have a gun”).

      Brown’s shooter was almost certainly acting legitimately in self-defense. Garner’s & Floyd’s chokers, no; they didn’t deserve to die, particularly not Floyd. If someone says they can’t breathe and you’re still on them after 8 minutes (and they’ve been immobilized that long), that’s sadistic to start with.

      Still: They were all partly to blame for how things ended up, as you attest. Roof was not treated poorly because he was white; it’s because he didn’t resist arrest. Wise up when getting arrested–you’re going to lose that battle 10 times out of 10.

      And yes we need to shut down some of these laws… but that’s a whole other topic.

  42. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

  43. “Might have been intensified?” One follows the other as night follows day. This is like the Sunday after Thanksgiving on steroids.

  44. “He helped to kill the once-widespread belief that the police can be trusted to be fair, especially when dealing with blacks.”

    Can you stop beating that dead horse already? Blacks are not singled out for police brutality. They’re merely singled out when it comes to the stories the media will report nationally. We have a police brutality problem, not “especially” when dealing with anyone.

    In the very next sentence, you use the example of the killing of Michael Brown. That was a justified killing! He attacked the officer, much smaller than him, and tried repeatedly to take the officer’s gun. For those who do not know, going for a gun (whose it is does not matter) while fighting a cop is a quick way to die.

    If you’re going to make the case that we have an overly brutal police force (which I agree that we do), use examples of brutality, not self-defense, wouldja!

Please to post comments