Anarchism

Resolve the 'Anarchist Jurisdictions' Dispute With Less Government Meddling

Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.

|

If only all it took to sweep away intrusive and incompetent governments was a declaration that they're "anarchist jurisdictions." Suffering residents of these communities might then be spared authoritarian laws, high taxes, and unreliable services without needing to move elsewhere, battle authorities, or break the rules. Instead, though, the three cities named this week by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as places "Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction" are overgoverned, if ineptly so.

The designations are nothing more than the latest political battle in a country that's rapidly fragmenting into warring factions. And it's a conflict that will end only when the factions stop using government to screw with each other.

Monday's tagging of New York City, Portland, and Seattle as "three jurisdictions that have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities" comes in response to last week's presidential memo along the same lines. That memo threatened to deny federal funds to "anarchist jurisdictions" that "have contributed to the violence and destruction in their jurisdictions by failing to enforce the law, disempowering and significantly defunding their police departments, and refusing to accept offers of Federal law enforcement assistance" in the course of protests and riots resulting from the Black Lives Matter and police-reform movements.

"We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance," Attorney General William P. Barr warned.

That can mean a big hit—New York City receives billions of dollars from the federal government every year—assuming that the executive branch is allowed such discretion over spending. The courts have split on the issue but been mostly unreceptive when it comes to withholding money from so-called "sanctuary cities" that decline to enforce federal immigration law.

In fact, the "anarchist jurisdictions" spat is best viewed in the context of the tussle over sanctuary cities as well as the spread of "Second Amendment sanctuaries" across the country. Just as many majority lefty cities chafe at what they see as unfair federal immigration restrictions, so many mostly righty counties object to state and federal gun laws they see as oppressive. (Libertarians might consider giving them all a big thumbs-down.)

And, just as the federal government has threatened cities that step back on law enforcement during anti-police protests as well as those that won't enforce immigration laws, so some governors have gone up against local officials who take similar positions on self-defense restrictions.

"Of course, there is power in the local community and in local government specifically. That power can be exercised in the form of discretionary policing or other forms of local under-enforcement," Richard Schragger of the University of Virginia School of Law wrote earlier this year for the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "These more recent conflicts represent more than 'uncooperative federalism,' however. What has emerged instead is something that could be called 'punitive federalism'—a regime in which the periphery disagrees with or attempts to work around the center and the center seeks to punish those who do so, not just rein them in."

Schragger distinguishes between the constitutional basis for localities resisting federal laws versus localities ignoring state laws. The argument certainly matters to legal scholars—but is probably meaningless to regular people resentful of rules they despise from whatever source. Schragger also, tiresomely, tries to smear Second Amendment sanctuaries as flirting with racism.

But Schragger's larger observation about the periphery at war with the center stands on its own. It's a sharp observation about conflicts among communities with very different beliefs and values, populated by Americans who may share a nationality, but are truly sick of each other's shit.

"My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones," President Donald Trump charged last week. His message resonates with voters who support law enforcement and see cities beset by protests-turned-riots as violent and radical.

"What the Trump Administration is engaging in now is more of what we've seen all along: shirking responsibility and placing blame elsewhere to cover its failure," New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan fired back. They appeal to advocates of police reform who view the administration and its base as insensitive and reactionary.

True anarchy doesn't play a role here; jurisdictions without governments don't have sniping elected officials. They also don't depend on federal largesse to keep their bureaucracies malfunctioning and turning people's lives upside down.

It takes a lot of government to cause the chaos New York City has inflicted with its city-run schools' repeated about-face decisions on starting classes, delaying them, or just keeping families guessing. It also takes a lot of government to squeeze residents dry funding monopolies on keeping the peace that inspire protests against excessive policing and then surrender some areas of the city to subsets of troublemakers who displace peaceful demonstrators.

At the very least, real "anarchist jurisdictions" wouldn't extract so much in taxes.

Instead, what we're seeing with the Trump administration's attacks on New York City, Portland, and Seattle—as with its conflicts with sanctuary cities, and state governments' corresponding battles with Second Amendment sanctuaries—is part of the country's fragmentation into feuding factions. Those factions control different communities and competing levels of government and they're at war over who gets to impose their preferences on their enemies.

It's impossible to imagine what victory would look like in this war. Does one faction imagine it'll get to rest its boots on opponents' throats forever? That's not going to happen.

To get past these escalating disputes, we need to back off "punitive federalism." That means learning to accept that other people get to live their lives by different values and rules. Ultimately, peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us. That may not mean getting entirely rid of government intrusions in our lives, but real "anarchist jurisdictions" look increasingly attractive when compared to the alternatives.

NEXT: Pentagon Uses Pandemic Response Cash To Pay Defense Contractors for More War Toys

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. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

  1. “Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.”

    And if they don’t leave us alone then we bury our heads in the sand and scream “Both sides!”

    1. “Leaving people alone” obviously doesn’t cover “keep shoveling piles of money at them to bail them out from the consequences of their bad decisions”.

      1. Wrong. Consequences are a white racist oppressor construct.

        Those poor, suffering people have the right to reparations from anyone who questions their righteous cause.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…MGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. I can think of nothing quite so ‘meddlesome’ as Federal dollars.

      Stop distributing them and stop collecting them.

      1. Best idea I’ve read all day.

    3. Police and other Municipal Terrorists don’t know how to leave people alone. They think everything we do is their business, they ignore their oath of office and make a fortune specifically by those criminal actions. The municipal monarchs are never going to just walk away from the power they’ve usurped, the castles they’ve built themselves with our money and the obscene fortunes they’ve reaped by doing it. I don’t care how nice you want to be, there is no amount of logic and reason you can bring to bear against criminal, sociopathic monarchs that is going to change anything. It’s time for the people to either rise up or get comfortable with your shackles.

  2. If “If’s and but’s were candy and nuts”, it would be Christmas everyday!

    1. If my aunt had nuts, she’d be my uncle.

  3. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone……………Visit Here

  4. Yeah it’s hard to know what victory looks like. Cities that are safe without hordes of rioters burners and looters would be a start. You know, like when Republicans ran NYC and the crime rate was lower than it is (and was) under democrats. But if reason thinks that daily violent protests, illegal aliens, drug gangs, rampant crime, and a city government that panders to the far left is good for us, I can see why victory seems elusive to you.

    1. It is easy to see what victory looks like. Cities enforcing the law and protecting their citizens from criminals. What kind of a dumb ass can’t understand that?

      1. Apparently the kind of dumb ass that likes to run for mayor of major cities.

        1. not t mention the dumb assess that VOTE for these cretins…..

          repeatedly. Second terms for the likes of most of them? InconcEIVAble.

    2. The looting has been going on unabated, every day for several decades it was just being done by criminals on blue costumes looting the peoples trust, wealth and liberty.
      The B.A.R. Association has been looting our justice system & our “self governing” political system since before the civil war.
      The Public Fool system has been looting our childrens intellect and capacity for critical thinking since the early 1900’s.

  5. [ USA ONLY ]Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Copy Here……..Visit Here

  6. “Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.”

    That is not true in Portland. They’re burning Portland down for something that happened in Minneapolis.

    I’m as sympathetic to pacifism as the next Christian, but if you want to pitch turning the other cheek, you really need to do it in religious terms. It may well be the moral imperative of individuals to sacrifice themselves to show that the world is unjust like Jesus did, but I’m not so sure that’s the appropriate purpose of government.

    The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights–from arsonists and looters among others. When the arsonists and looters are left alone, they loot businesses and burn them down.

    1. 1. Jesus wasn’t a pacifist, even if the whole “turn the other cheek” thing would make you think so. He did drive the money changers out of the Temple (twice) with a whip of cords. He also didn’t call his followers to die peacefully as was his mission (Luke 22:36-38).
      2. Jesus didn’t sacrifice himself to show that the world was unjust, that was well known. He did it to save us from the well-deserved consequences of the bad things we do. He took on the eternal consequences of our just punishments on himself so we don’t have to suffer them, if we so choose.

    2. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights–from arsonists and looters among others. When the arsonists and looters are left alone, they loot businesses and burn them down.

      Nope. Got that one dead wrong.

      God’s Word declares He gives the civil magistrate to bear the sword against those who do harm”.
      If looting, burning, assassinating, lasering people’s eyes, throwing frozen water bottles and pavers, use of commercial grade high powered fireworks, dragging people from their cars and beatingthem senseless, burning down buildings, smashing store windows out, entering those stores and stealing anything in sight, smashing out car windows, pumeling them with large rocks, slashing tyres, tipping over and or burning cars, whacking people on the heads with those lethal skateboards, obs chanting obsceneities on people’s front yards and porches, blastingt hem awake at oh dark hundred, slapping and punching people at random, are not “doing harm” then we are all lost.

      And THIS is the daily conduct of the hordes of vermin infesting Portland, Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles… as their cities fall apart at their refusal to DO THEIR JOBS (bear the sword against those who do harm) and yet continue to expect FedBux, the blood and sweat of hard working Americans, some of them the very people who are continually harmed by thse bad actors…. is something beyond sanity. I’d expect a world like that to be portrayed in a distopian novel, or even a drug-induced fnatasy like Through the Looking Glass….. but not in daily “normal” life in these United States.
      The ones that need to start with the stopping are those destroying, burin,gnlooting, beating, killing. As long as that continues NO ONE is safe anywhere in the vicinity.

  7. [ USA ONLY ]Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Copy Here……..Visit here

  8. Leviathan is always hungry. The mobs are easily manipulated. Not a good combination. Government will grow until it topples over from its own weight.

  9. WhiteAntifa and BLM are a heavily-funded “wing” of a major political party, and are dedicated to meddling in other people’s lives and policing other people’s behavior and thoughts, enforced with threats of arson, looting, rape, violence, and murder.

    Could we do with less of them?

  10. To get past these escalating disputes, we need to back off “punitive federalism.” That means learning to accept that other people get to live their lives by different values and rules.

    That is nice except that the values of the people who are rioting include burning and looting and terrorizing anyone who disagrees with them. You can’t live with the far left. You can’t have a civilization with them.

    This article is another example of reason’s refusal to see the far left for what it is. It is not the same as the right. You can disagree with the right but still live with them. The left is a totalitarian movement. It cannot tolerate dissent and will seek to destroy anyone who doesn’t conform.

    1. Not so fast there. The totalitarian right banned gay marriage, porn, prostitution, alcohol, and pot using money taken by force from citizens (property tax) with disastrous results to civil liberties.

      The power the left is exerting today was built by the right. The right just lost control of it during the culture war and the lefties have turned the bazooka around.

      There is no living with a right wing government exerting coercive power over citizens any more than there is with the left. The only way to pull this off is to eliminate the power of government to coerce people.

      End the property tax and everything it funds. End immunity to the law at EVERY level. Force a balanced budget amendment and impose, with whatever violent force is needed, the US Constitution upon government.

      If we wish to live in peace, government needs to exist in a state of perpetual fear of violating the law.

      1. No one banned gay marriage you fucking moron. Gay marriage didn’t even exist until the 1980s. And then nothing stopped gays from marrying. They just couldn’t get the government to put a gun to people’s heads and force them to recognize their marriage.

        And the Progressive Left were the ones who were behind prohibition in the 20s and drug prohibition as well. The drug war was started by the Progressive Left and became bipartisan.

        You need to take your meds.

        1. Ad hominem much?

          Buddy, I agree with most of what you say on these forums, but attacking people over politics isn’t worth the cost. Have a Snickers. You’ll feel better. 😉

          Prohibition started with the Whiskey Rebellion in 1780. Not sure George Washington was much of a leftie but he didn’t seem to mind using the military power of the state to impose upon people for religious reasons.

          Gay marriage as a political thing didn’t start until the 1980s because before then gays were politically disenfranchised.

          The Civil War was a Progressive tax grab. That evil concept (Progressivism) spans BOTH the left and the right. It wasn’t the people of the north who won. It was the Progressives on the right who won by suspending the US Constitution and imposing taxation by force of arms under the guise of ending slavery. It ended government by consent in this country for the past 150 years, set the stage for the authoritarian swamp we have today and enslaved the entire nation to the government.

          Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act. Prohibition enforcement by use of arms was always championed by the religious right.

          The answer is to eliminate the Anti-American concept of Progressivism which is rooted in the idea that individual rights have no place in modern society and that every citizens owes his life to the state upon birth.

          1. In all fairness, Donald Trump and Dick Cheney publicly came out in favor of gay rights decades before Bush-Clinton-Obama tested the political winds and dared to publicly support them.

            Getting rid of the anti-individualist slant is complicated by the consolidation of power resulting from the merger of the previously antagonistic neo-progressives and neo-conservatives over the last few decades. They are entrenched in the institutions and dominate the deep state. Antifa and subsidiaries are their dogs, off leash.

            1. ^^This^^

              The corruption is deep in both parties.

          2. It’s really not much of an ad hominem to call you a moron when you say things that are blatantly false and expect people here you believe you.

            Gay marriage as a political thing didn’t start until the 1980s because before then gays were politically disenfranchised.

            Bullshit. There was no prohibition on gay people voting, you fucking liar. That’s what “disenfranchised” means, moron.

            The Civil War was a Progressive tax grab.

            Except for all the documents of secession from the southern states that openly said it was about slavery, you fucking moron.

            Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act.

            The only reason he did that was on technical grounds covering wartime prohibition, you fucking moron. He supported Prohibition otherwise.

            And Prohibition as an analog to rioting and burning in the streets? That definitely wasn’t an ad hominem by John, just an accurate descriptor as to the quality of your analysis.

            1. If you came out as gay in 1960s they killed you. Gays had no political platform because they were beaten or murdered if they came out. Gays could vote for sure, but if they tried to have a voting coalition of gays, you were disenfranchised by being beaten or shot to death. Just ask Harvey Milk.

              Lincoln said it himself very clearly, he started the war to preserve the union whether or not slavery was an issue. The states had a right to secede for whatever reason they chose, slavery or otherwise. Lincoln suspended the Constitution to preserve the tax base and his personal power and only used slavery as an excuse (like King George did) when he was losing.
              http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm#:~:text=I%20would%20save%20the%20Union.&text=If%20I%20could%20save%20the,I%20would%20also%20do%20that.

              Wilson supported the idea of not partaking but not enforcement of prohibition. The Volstead act was a way to impose during a time of war (after the war but the US had not ratified the Treaty).

              The problem with prohibition is not the law if you can ignore it (nullification such as during the Underground Railroad). The problem with prohibition that has caused all the damage is the enforcement of that law. Enforcement of prohibition has always been a darling of the right.

              In either case, forcing people to obey a law they do not agree to obey is fundamentally anti-American per the Declaration of Independence. It is root cause for the trouble today and has been root cause of our troubles since 1780 and both parties do it.

              Would you rather face rioters in the city or a swat team in your home? Me, I’ll take the rioters. It is an easier defense in court when you kill them.

              1. If you came out as gay in 1960s they killed you. Gays had no political platform because they were beaten or murdered if they came out.

                Yes, and what did the American left do about it? Nothing. In fact, the idea that homosexuality and brown people were a threat to US society was primarily the brainchild of progressives and their deplorable ideas about evolution and society.

                Homosexualitiy was decriminalized and gay marriage became accepted because the culture changed. Legalization of homosexuality and gay marriage was not accomplished by politicians but by judges. Even Clinton and Obama opposed gay marriage until polls showed that it was expedient to flip on the issue. The only presidential candidates before Trump who supported gay marriage were Libertarian.

                And these days, if you are a white gay man, you are persona non grata at LGBT+ events. On the other hand, Republicans and conservatives now welcome you with open arms. Even conservative Christians by and large just don’t care anymore, as long as they don’t have to participate.

                Leftists use homosexuality and race strategically; that’s been true for communists, fascists, progressives, and whatever the Democratic party is. As soon as us faggots and minorities have served our purpose in installing the brownshirts and socialists into power, the left turns on us. Each and every time.

                1. Lefties got marriage equality and some measure of social acceptance for gays without firing a shot. You do better. Oh wait, you were allied with the authoritarian religious bigots the whole time.

                  Stop telling other people they are fascists. It makes you look like a joke.

                  1. Stop lying. Obama opposed marriage equality; Hillary and Biden voted for DOMA.

                    Gay marriage only happened once the majority of Americans were for it, including the majority of Catholics and many other denominations. That’s when the courts flipped and that’s when politicians flipped.

                    I wasn’t “allied with the authoritarian religious bigots”; I used to be a Democrat and considered myself a progressive until I finally realized what kinds of liars and frauds those people were. Hillary’s stance on gay rights issues was one of the things that opened my eyes.

                    1. Oh, so it’s only now that most of the country is behind gay rights that you’ve decided to ally yourself with the theocratic fascists.

                    2. “Gay rights” used to mean “equality under the law”. We have that.

                      Now “gay rights” means violations of freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of contract; you bet I ally myself with religious people against the fascism you favor.

                    3. Shorthand is: bake me a cake, bisch.

                    4. That would be all the civil freedoms that religious authoritarians have offered you?

                    5. Tony, as a gay man, my interaction with Christians has been overwhelmingly positive: they are overwhelmingly kind, tolerant, and non-judgmental, even those who disapprove of homosexuality. I wish I could say the same about progressives, intellectuals, or the left.

                    6. I don’t think you interact with any intellectuals

                    7. You don’t need to interact with intellectuals to know their attitudes: they are broadcasting it 24/7.

                      And you’re right: I try to avoid intellectuals as much as possible; most of them are just not very smart.

                2. This is all accurate. I totally agree with you.

                  But how did we get here?

                  Until judges decided that homosexuality was legal and gays were protected by the Constitution, Americans treated gays as less than human. Both sides did it.

                  Now we have laws that create class warfare based on sexual orientation. These are not and never were needed. All we ever needed to do was impose the Constitution in the first place.

                  The gay rights movement was created when the left saw an opportunity to punish the Nation for crimes the right committed. This is similar to the Civil War being used by the right to punish the Nation (property tax) for slavery being committed by the Dems.

                  Both are opportunistic and wrong but rooted and hard to assail because of the original criminal act of not treating people like people due to some religion.

                  1. The gay rights movement wasn’t “created by the left”, it was created by people who were tired of hiding in the shadows, showed their fellow citizens that they were not a threat to society, and said “this is who I am”. The left again and again takes false credit for the achievements of others and behaves opportunistically.

                    Both are opportunistic and wrong but rooted and hard to assail because of the original criminal act of not treating people like people due to some religion.

                    No, that’s just wrong. Homosexual conduct was generally tolerated under many Christian denominations and under many other religions for centuries/millennia.

                    The vicious persecution of homosexuals in the 19th and 20th century was primarily due to (pseudo-)science and collectivist ideologies, not religion; they just happened to overlap with some of the more puritan and intolerant Christian denominations.

                    1. I think you and I are actually saying the same thing.

                      Homosexuals wanted equality under the law but weren’t getting it. The left created a narrative that gays needed extra protection “gay rights”.

                      Equal under the law is correct and true. “Gay rights” is opportunistic, leftie division. It’s not that communists tolerate gays. As you noted above, they don’t. They used them like they are using blacks today as cover to promote class warfare.

                      I’ll say the same for the Police Officers Bill of Rights and laws that protect cops as a class. Equal under the law is correct. Anything else is tyranny. This is our problem today as it was in 1863. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

                      However, the left today is a nihilistic, death cult. It cannot tolerate the Constitution and the Republic cannot tolerate that. I’m for the Republic regardless of who’s in the foxhole next to me.

                      I have never seen any church accept homosexuals. It’s been a long time since I darkened the door of a church unless I was under arms so times may have changed. I grew up in a church that condemned the gay lifestyle and gays were not accepted in the military when I was there.

                      However, I am not gay so I may not know the larger picture and will defer to your assessment.

                    2. Christianity and Christian churches have always accepted homosexuals as human beings. They just considered homosexuality to be one of many sins that harms the individual, no different from pride, envy, promiscuity, and adultery. The way churches address sin is to convince people to abstain from it in the future.

                      That’s fundamentally different from the left, for whom homosexuality is an inborn and unchangeable orientation in a human being, regardless of behavior, and needed to be suppressed because it was a threat to the collective interests of society.

                      Practically, post-WWII, most Christian churches became less and less concerned with homosexual behavior and official same sex blessings started in the 1970’s.

              2. If you came out as gay in 1960s they killed you.

                Maybe. The telltales to this being untrue are the ‘they’ and the universal ‘you,’ implying everyone you came out was killed. I call bullshit. Ditto for beaten. If you claimed sometimes, or often, you’d be telling the truth.

                1. I would think the total lack of gay political parties in the 60s would attest to this.

                  In 1978 Harvey Milk was murdered for being gay. He was the very first openly gay politician and he was assassinated for it.

                  So maybe not all gays were murdered or beaten for being gay. But certainly any gay politicians were right up through 1978.

      2. @Jeb Kerman Gay marriage was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans, including Obama, Clinton, and Biden. Trump has been the first US president in US history who did not oppose gay marriage.

        The American left (progressives in particular) were in large part responsible for the persecution of homosexuals in the US in the 20th century. Alcohol and drug prohibition, likewise, were progressive policies. Segregation, forced sterilization, and 20th century racism were progressive, supposedly science-based policies. Other progressive policies and regulations, such as minimum wage and unionization, also were motivated by racism.

        Abroad it’s been even worse; socialist countries have been viciously anti-gay and anti-drug, and views both homosexuality and drug use as decadent, capitalist vices; they supported it in the West in hopes of speeding the destruction of liberal democracies.

        The property tax has been around since before the US was founded. It pays for local, property-related services. It’s the one sensible and defensible tax we have.

        If we wish to live in peace, we should start by rejecting the lies, hatred, and racism people like you preach.

        1. Jeb Kerman Gay marriage was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans, including Obama, Clinton, and Biden. Trump has been the first US president in US history who did not oppose gay marriage.

          My point exactly.

          The property tax was officially sanctioned by the 16th amendment well after the Civil War. Jefferson and Madison specifically only created a sales tax because you could avoid paying it by not buying taxable things like unprocessed food.

          My point is that both sides the left and the right engage in malfeasance. Both sides use oppressive government to abuse the citizens of our Republic.

          How that is racist, only you can answer.

    2. Without “punitive federalism” the dems would still have their slaves.

      1. Maybe, maybe not.

        Without punitive federalism we might not have the property tax and then the whole nation might have liberty and justice.

        But who can say?

        If the feds hadn’t taken over the highway system might we have flying cars?

        What I can say is that punitive federalism caused much grief. We could not have the IRS without it.

        1. The property tax is a local tax, not a federal tax. It predates the federal government. Furthermore, property taxes went along with voting rights just for property owners, same way that only property owners get to vote in HOAs.

          What the federal government created is the income tax and the capital gains tax, taxes that are destructive, irrational, and about as anti-liberty as you can get.

          1. When the battle for income tax was fought, the ruling that permitted it was that income is property and property tax was granted by the 16th amendment.

            In the early days of the Republic only property owners could vote. That made the tax just. Once the vote rules were changed to allow non-property owners to vote, the property tax became unjust.

            To your analogy, why should someone outside my HOA be able to vote to raise my HOA dues? They shouldn’t. But the property tax and the income tax created by the 16th allows just that and there is root cause.

            1. Sir, that red mailbox you put out needs to come down.

              1. red mailbox?

                not sure the implication here. 🙂

                1. Anything noncompliant with HOA rules. I don’t live in your neighborhood. But I sometimes drive by. And have asked that your HOA enforce the rules. 🙂

                  1. lmao Thanks Chumby. 🙂

                    I thought it was some kind of social media buzz word…

                    LMAO.

            2. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

              And you’re the guy who thinks he gets to murder people who disagree with him, right? Christ. Where are the literate freedom fighters?

              1. But the 16th creates slavery without eliminating the 13th.

                The 16th is invalid.

                1. Among all the other attempts to rhetorically invalidate the 16th amendment, this surely seems like the least frivolous.

            3. Property taxes per se are not unjust. What’s unjust is forcing people to pay property taxes while allowing non-owners to vote on how those funds are used. Keep in mind that this is not a problem in much of the US, where the majority of residents are owners.

              No matter how you look at it, I think we should return to a principle that only the people paying taxes get to vote on how those taxes are used.

              1. “No matter how you look at it, I think we should return to a principle that only the people paying taxes get to vote on how those taxes are used.”

                And abolish the income and estate taxes and all the bureaucracy they support and I’m in.

    3. “Silence is violence”
      “Say her name”
      Only 2 of many examples of the left forcing speech from everyone

    4. Christianofascism is no less totalitarian. To God’s Own Prohibitionists failing to enforce the law means passing up a chance to shoot kid in the back on grounds you “thought you smelt weed.”

  11. That means learning to accept that other people get to live their lives by different values and rules.

    Now explain that to the socialists. We’ll stand back and watch.

    1. Exactly how did the 1500 business burned down by BLM and antifa in Minneapolis not accept living with people of different values and rules?

      What the fuck does that even mean? Just what rules am I supposed to let other people live by? That they can come and burn down my business and home and murder me whenever they feel the urge to “protest”? I am unaware of what rules you are not allowed to live by in this country except those that involve burning and looting and committing a crime.

      This is a new low for reason. It really is. They just keep finding a new rock bottom.

      1. It’s the belief that socialists would live by the NAP.

        1. So, the total denial of the nature of socialism.

          1. Yes. Kindergarten logic.

        2. That goatfucker mtrueman was actually defending Josef Stalin’s stealing of food at gunpoint from starving people as a social good yesterday. Libertarians cannot ally with Marxists against government overreach for any cause. The American middle class ‘working man’ is not the proletariat in the Marxist scenario. He is a kulak.

          1. I saw that yesterday. Can’t say I’m surprised.

        3. That’s because they think the socialists are just misguided, instead of evil.

          They think there’s a good person inside and that they’re just choosing the wrong means to achieve a noble end. Which just means that they missed the entire point of authoritarianism addressed by Orwell in “1984”…they’re only doing it for power and power alone. Power is the only end and they don’t give a shit who they hurt to get it.

          Socialists are evil. There’s no redeeming them, there’s no negotiating with them, and there’s no co-existing with them. You fight them or you get crushed by them. That’s it.

          1. Yeah- the entire marxist core is that if I peacefully own a business and employ you at will, I am stealing from you by exploiting your labor. It is a stupid theory that has been debunked ten ways to sunday, but it persists. There is no living peacefully with those people because according to them, I am committing violence, not working for myself.

            1. The entire “live and let live” philosophy of libertarianism is incompatible with authoritarian ideology. There is no happy middle ground between “I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone” and “You will do as I say or I will destroy you”. The only option when confronted with the latter is to fight back and win. Otherwise, you will lose…and probably lose everything.

          2. Libertopia is gonna be rough for you people. Each generation you’re going to have to violently suppress anyone whose ideas you don’t like. Doesn’t sound very libertopian at all, really.

            1. Oh, I’m far more anti-communist than libertarian. “Pure” libertarians who tolerate communist fuckery are nothing but easy marks headed for a brutal end via a rail car.

              And I have no problem with violently suppressing socialists and communists. Historically, that’s the most effective way to deal with them once they start trying to murder government officials and overthrow the government through violence. You don’t negotiate with them, you throw them in a prison cell or (if that deterrent isn’t sufficient to convince them to stop) throw them out of a fucking helicopter as a warning to all of their buddies about what will happen if they don’t go back to being law-abiding citizens.

              The leftist rioters are going to find out how anti-communist counterinsurgency really works if they try to extend their revolt after the election.

              1. And if Democrats win the election by any legitimate measure? Do you still get to murder people whose ideas you don’t like? Do I?

                1. Since that won’t happen, you’ll find out what will happen if you’re one of the authoritarian rioters out looting and burning once Trump wins.

                  Sounds like you’re already booking your ticket on that helicopter. A smart man would ask themselves “Is this really worth it so I can fight as a proxy for a bunch of tech and finance billionaires who just want cheap labor from China?”. My advice to you would be to think very carefully about how you proceed after Election Day…because throwing your lot in with the looters and arsonists will come with a hefty cost.

                  1. I’m just trying to figure out when it’s OK to murder people whose ideas I don’t like.

                    1. When they attack you or the citizens of the Nation or the US Constitution, kill them.

                      At that point, it’s not murder. It’s housecleaning.

                    2. You could just try having ideas people want to vote for, you know.

                    3. You could just try having ideas people want to vote for, you know.

                      We already do that. It worked great, until the people you vote for started rigging elections and engaging in widescale vote fraud, followed by looting and arson, because they couldn’t win honestly.

                      As I said, choose wisely when your party loses this year.

                    4. You seem to have me confused with the party who has only won the popular vote once since the 1980s and who employed the Russians to help them cheat for two elections in a row.

                    5. Yeah, the Clinton campaign created the Russia lie by conspiring with a foreign national and still lost the election so badly she didn’t bother to contest the results.

                      Why didn’t she contest the results when she won the popular vote? Because had she done so, the massive fraud would have been exposed and she would have lost the popular vote by millions.

                      Hillary, a politician so bad she lost TWO presidential candidacies in elections rigged on her behalf…

                      Trump’s election is a direct repudiation of the Obama and
                      Bush failed presidencies.

                    6. You haven’t been defending murderers here in the comments whenever their views align with yours, Tony?

                    7. Tony, it is socialists who believe that committing crimes and killing are OK when it advances their ideology.

                      Conservatives reject that idea.

              2. I think pure libertarians are armed to the teeth and will fight totalitarianism regardless of the flavor. Libertarians aren’t pacifists and pacifists aren’t libertarians, IMO.

                1. So when do you start shooting? Or is it only tyranny when Democrats do things by legitimate democratic means?

                  I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well.

                  1. Probably when a woke socialist breaks into the house or business of a libertarian.

                  2. When my local sheriff musters, I will be there with armor, ammo, a rifle and a sidearm.

                    I am 50+ but I can still run my 2 miles in < 12 minutes and ring steel at 700 yards.

                    I have kept the faith. I have remained sharp for war.

                    1. That puts me to shame. My cardio has dropped given my intense dislike for people -the uptick of busybodies, Karens, whatever, with this low-grade pandemic has been marked.

                  3. Trump is trying to steal the election, he’s not even being coy about it, but you’re waiting for tyranny?

                    I don’t think you’re the best judge of tyranny.

                    1. How is Trump trying to steal an election?

                      I see the dems making threats and bribing felons to rig the election but I don’t see Trump stealing anything.

                    2. Here’s where I say he just said at a press conference that he won’t promise a peaceful transition of power unless all the mail-in ballots are thrown away AND he wins.

                      And then this is where you say “But mail voting is full of fraud!”

                  4. So when do you start shooting? Or is it only tyranny when Democrats do things by legitimate democratic means?

                    The smart-ass faux-libertarian mostly peacefully protesting who pointed a rifle at an Uber driver in Austin is lying in the morgue, and the man that killed him is not being charged. Sounds like the shooting has already started and your side is losing.

                    1. The driver was über justified…

            2. Libertopia is gonna be rough for you people. Each generation you’re going to have to violently suppress anyone whose ideas you don’t like. Doesn’t sound very libertopian at all, really.

              Not at all. We just remove people like you from our property. No suppression/oppression involved.

        4. Socialists intend to live by the NAP. Just as soon as they have killed off anybody who disagrees with them.

          1. Maybe say that again without the cock of armed government goons in your throat?

            1. Tony, you’re projecting.

          2. And since the real philosophy of socialism is “Always find another scapegoat to blame for socialism’s failures”, that point will never come.

      2. Exactly how did the 1500 business burned down by BLM and antifa in Minneapolis not accept living with people of different values and rules?

        I don’t have a problem with the people of Minneapolis choosing to live in a postapocalyptic burned out shell of a city with violent street gangs roaming the streets if they like. I just don’t want to be forced to subsidize that choice.

    2. Socialists call those “Former persons”…

  12. “What the Trump Administration is engaging in now is more of what we’ve seen all along: shirking responsibility and placing blame elsewhere to cover its failure,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan fired back.

    Projection (n): The attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects, especially the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility.

    1. Why is it the federal government’s responsibility to pay for these people refusing to enforce the laws and allowing mobs to burn down their cities?

    2. Seems like the blame was placed appropriately, in New York, Portland and Seattle. You left out Chicago.

      1. The mayors aren’t placing the blame on themselves, they’re blaming Trump. Their statements are classic projection.

        1. Do you people even notice how far down your throats you have this politician’s cock shoved? Is Trump even capable of doing wrong, to you?

          I guess I can be comforted knowing that libertarianism was a sham cover for fascism the whole time. I have been saying it for years.

          1. Do you have an argument or just vague insults?

            1. If you want my insult to be more specific, Stormy Daniels had provided a detailed description of the cock in question.

              1. You seem obsessed with President Trump’s member.

                1. Of all the parties to this discussion, “libertarians,” Stormy Daniels, me, I’m the only one who has never had Trump’s cock in my mouth.

                  1. Your obsession is disturbing. Get help.

          2. Much like the city mayors, your statement is also classic projection.

            1. Do you you consume Republican propaganda by the throatful because you are incapable of judging reliable sources and have no capacity for independent thought, or do you just think Tucker Carlson is sexy?

              1. Do you think this is a Republican site?

                With all the people bashing your posts and this Reason article as ludicrous, I think we have independent thought and judgement down pretty well.

              2. Now you’re deflecting.

          3. See? Toe-knee cannot imagine any existence outside the Venn bubble labeled “looter sozialismus” any more than republican bigots. This only underscores they are the same thing: coercive altruists who insists that rights are alienable and divisible by the proper initiation of force.

  13. “Peace will come only from leaving other people alone”

    Uh, sure. If only millions of years of human (and primate (and animal)) evolution was not focused on fucking with other individuals. And if only major political factions were not equally dedicated to fucking with others.

    1. Just because it has never happened in all of human history and if it did, we would live in Utopia, doesn’t mean reason can’t offer it as a solution to this problem rather than letting Orange Man Bad cut their funding.

  14. If people stop doing it all wrong and everyone starts acting exactly like Reason writers wish they would, then Reason writers would be right about things.

    Where were you guys in WW2? You could have told Germany to chill.

    1. They did chill. Mostly during Russian winters.

      1. Where their guns were taken from their cold dead hands.

  15. …protests and riots resulting from the Black Lives Matter and police-reform movements.

    What “police reform movements?” I don’t see any police reform movements anywhere. All I see are a bunch of violent wannabe red guards and communist revolutionary LARPers acting like overgrown toddlers having a massive hissy fit.

    1. The violence eclipsed the police reform movement as it was intended.

      Can you imagine if Trump had ended QI or ended the War on Drugs? The left would have come unglued. They had to start burning things down to provoke a ‘law and order’ response to kill off any type of reform.

      And it worked like a charm because the right can’t admit fault for years of drug war enforcement.

  16. “Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.”

    Except BLM, Antifa and their cheerleaders in the Democrat Party, news media and tech companies have explicitly rejected peace and leaving other people alone during the past 4 months, which is what prompted Trump to take federal action against these uncivilized rioters and their supporters.

    1. Peace will only come when the people regain the right to defend themselves and their property.

      Antifa is bold because Kyle is in trouble. If Kyle were back on the streets, thousands of patriots would be too and this would end yesterday.

      Personally, I think Trump should give Kyle Rittenhouse a medal and that DA should be burnt at the stake (figuratively) for violations of title 18 section 241 and 242 of the US Federal Code.

  17. That’s not how anarchism works in practice. In practice, rival gangs shoot it out until a warlord/strongman emerges. If you’re lucky, he’s only interested in power and takes a reasonable cut for himself off the top, then lets everyone else go about their business. Worst case, he’s a true believer in some system and will keep wrecking things and killing people until he’s replaced by some other true believer in some other system.

  18. Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.

    The “anarchist jurisdiction” designation means that we “are leaving them alone”: specifically, we are relieving those jurisdictions of some of the burden of having to accept federal funds and the restrictions that go along with them.

    Apparently, in Reason’s New Libertarianism, there is some kind of natural right of dysfunctional left-wing cities to federal taxpayer handouts.

  19. The psychoperv doesn’t have authority to unilaterally withhold the money. He wants you talking about anything but the 200k dead Americans.

    1. But 2 million were going to die. He’s saved 1.8 million lives.

      1. Sounds like the makings of a good campaign commercial.

      2. Yeah, by the ‘science’, Trump reduced the expected death rate by over 90%.

    2. Yes, Trump has the authority to determine whether cities are complying with the rules and conditions set up for federal programs.

      As for COVID, the US did pretty well compared to other nations; we would have done even better if it weren’t for the idiotic choices of predominantly Democrat-run states.

      1. If by pretty well you mean the worst.

        You morons will believe anything Putin shoves down your stupid throats.

        1. …yet it’s the son of your Presidential candidate who is getting millions sent to him by Russian millionaires.

          And anybody saying we did the worst is too stupid to take ser….oh, wait, it’s Tony. Figured.

          1. It’s the son of your president who is being deposed right now.

            1. It’s also the son of your president, Tony.

              And these prosecutions are a warning for what Americans can expect if Democrats gain more power.

        2. No, I mean what I said, based on deaths per million.

          The moron here is you, who falls for Chinese/Democrat propaganda.

    3. “…psychoperv…”

      Q: Why do fucking lefty ignoramuses spend their lives making up nicknames which embarrass 1st-grade kids?
      A: Those kids are smarter.

  20. The designations are nothing more than the latest political battle in a country that’s rapidly fragmenting into warring factions.

    FYI, one of those ‘warring faction’s absolutely positively does not want to ‘leave you alone’. I’ll let you figure out which one.

    1. He wants the Federal government to leave them alone…but leaving them alone apparently means continuing to send them funds? What he’s doing now is somehow the opposite of leaving them alone?

    2. It’s not the one that is one court case away from forcing the US federal government up every uterus in the land, is it?

      1. You’re aware that abortion was legal in several states before Roe v Wade, right?

        Oh wait, it’s Tony. No, you did not.

        1. Will it be after your friends are done squirting freedom all over us?

          1. The only “force” is that Democrats want to force me to pay for other people’s abortions.

      2. How did the fetus get into the uterus in the first place? Immaculate conception? Phone sex?

  21. That means learning to accept that other people get to live their lives by different values and rules.

    I’m imagining the woman at the outdoor cafe explaining that carefully to the screeching hair-dyed, body positivity activists demanding she hold her fist in the air in solidarity with their social justice movement…

    Remember when Brett Favre was the first to stop clapping?

    1. Great post. Great link. Thank you for that.

    2. Did the old gunslinger fire Jenner a Few texts of his junk later?

  22. Seems you’re stuck on horseshoe theory. It’s really more of a circle. Anarchy and totalitarianism occur at the same time and place because the only society that can permit anarchy is a totalitarian society that forbids resistance and enables anarchy to the point of it being state-sanctioned violence against the individual. If we were truly free, these riots would have ended in a week because hundreds of thousands more Americans would feel safe using their guns to defend their property and their communities without risk of imprisonment. Did you notice how the riots calmed down a bit after Rittenhouse domed those degenerates in Kenosha? The greatest fear of any slaver is resistance.

    Both anarchy and totalitarianism have zero respect for the individual.

  23. >>At the very least, real “anarchist jurisdictions” wouldn’t extract so much in taxes.

    no but someone would come and take all your stuff so tomato/tomatoe

  24. These people will literally come into your restaurant, interrupt your meal and yell in your face until you give some token of solidarity with them.

    I don’t think “leaving us alone” is in their playbook.

  25. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>ReadMore.

  26. Perhaps these local government should do some more meddling with peaceful protesters that are burning buildings down and murdering people and less meddling with the people that try to defend themselves from peaceful protesters.

    Daily reminder that anarcho-tyranny is still anarchy and tyranny.

  27. This is a really weak analysis and kinda pathetic from a libertarian aspect. The ‘anarchy’ designation stems from the local and states hard refusal to protect the civil rights of all citizens.
    Freedom of speech…fine. But one of the absolute, core reponsibilities of the ‘state’ is to provide equality under the law and protect the core civil liberties of all citizens.

    A state that does not enforce its own laws voids its legitimacy.

    1. Some free speech (with violence sprinkled in) is more equal than other free speech.

  28. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? CLICK HERE FOR FULL DETAIL

  29. The states are enforcing the laws as long as the far left isn’t the one violating them

  30. I was told that the gun nuts would protect the country should it ever devolve into tyranny. But the only ones even protesting the cops are the liberals, and the gun nuts are all sucking cop dick. I so confused!

    Don’t get me started on the total lack of armed insurrection to protect migrants from brutal government force. Y’all suck ICE dick too!

    Why did we bother letting you keep your guns if you were going to pussy out when tyranny actually does happen?

    1. Well, that kid in Kenosha did a terrific job dealing with tyranny in the streets. Only downside was that only two of the rioters died instead of magnitudes more.

      1. And your friends the cops arrested him anyway, and your friends the prosecutors charged him with intentional homicide. Sad.

        1. Police are a Progressive Socialist construct. These cops and DAs are traitors and should be dealt with as our Constitution instructs.

          Kamala Harris is a dirty cop. I can’t imagine anyone here considers her a friend.

        2. He turned himself into the police. Watch the extended video. He wasn’t old enough to legally carry, so the charges aren’t surprising. The extended video also shows someone standing over him brandishing a handgun just before he shoots.

      2. I thought Kyle demonstrated very good trigger discipline, better than most cops and as good as any soldier I ever served with.

        The only thing he missed was the double tap on the pedo with a pistol.

        1. Even that one… he eliminated the threat and then moved on.

    2. The gun nuts won’t “protect the country”, they will merely protect themselves.

    3. Tony says America is now a tyranny and apparently “gun nuts” have a moral obligation to follow up on their words start shooting cops.

      I would pay put on a virtual reality headset that lets us see the world as Tony does. In that world, white people basically drink the blood and energy of colored people to live and cops hunt them down for sports. The black gang members that kill most minorities and commit probably half of all murders are replaced by Nazi super soldiers.

      Meanwhile ICE prevents desperate immigrants from escaping to Sweden or Cuba, which are fine examples of “Maximum societies” in Tonyverse.

      OMG I’m not white, what the FUCK am I doing in this country? Is there an underground railroad to Canada for people like me? Surely if I go to Manitoba I’ll finally discover empowerment and wealth that white people denied me in America, because in Canada healthcare is FRRRRRREEEEEEEE

      The libs are right, white people like Tony are the real problem. Tony, reject you white privilege and sell all your worldly possessions and give the money to black people. And don’t have kids either, your only add to the whiteness of society by reproducing.

  31. As long as the man gets his cigarette tax revenue, the beatings will continue.

  32. Make America States Again. Dissolve and reboot the federal government as purely a common defense and foreign policy function.

  33. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily……. Read More   

  34. You are right that “anarchist” is not the correct term for these governments.

    But what is the correct term for a government that intentionally foments violence among its citizens by promising to forbear all prosecution for violence committed on behalf of their preferred political team? What do you call a government that withholds police protection from its citizens because they want to see violence and disruption on behalf of their favored team? Is there a proper name for a government that selectively prosecutes people who try to defend themselves against such violence, while continuing to refuse any protection from the violence?

  35. What is fascist? Thanks. I will take Hipsters for $400 Alex.

    1. Religious socialism is fascism. See NSDAP platform and enabling act speech. See also the Mussolini & pope Lateran Agreement for catechism in government schools and Franco’s proud title of “God’s Own Martinet.” Same as communism, but with extra Jesus added.

  36. Funny how nearly all the states that receive the most money from the feds in comparison to what they pay out in federal taxes are red states

  37. Again, as long one cabal decides that rioting and looting is an acceptable response to perceived or real injustice, and the local government fails to address it, you are not going to have a “just leave people alone” situation, which seems to be the default libertarian response to anything.

    Voluntary exchanges and contracts require both parties to commit to an agreement. If one side breaks it, then you have effectively have anarchy. Reason plays semantic with the term by noticing that the nation hasn’t descended into a total dystopia.

    Police brutality concerns are merely incidental to these riots. The left already sees most of the world in stark “us vs them” terms and have already rioted or physically lashed out at the opposition. The Floyd protests just happened to be the biggest one of all.

  38. First temptation ever to disagree with Tucille; then again, not so fast! I am enjoying watching the looters fight over the legalization of murder, with gouging and biting facultative. Anarchists clearly want to want to legalize and institutionalize murder above all. A laissez-faire Libertarian state with individual rights protected and taxation gradually phased out is what they DON’T want. Hence their interference to the point of putting a communist anarchist up for veep. A real anarchist would help the LP get votes in hopes of making a transition from freedom to legalized murdering communism later on–if they weren’t lying from the get-go.

  39. This article is bullshit. Defending individuals from violent and property crimes is government’s absolute duty. Federalism cannot ever justify letting a city or county look the other way when terrorists shoot at you or burn your property just because the mayor or police chief is a traitor who sympathizes with the thugs.

    President Trump, send in the Marines now. Or don’t expect us the people to continue to leave law enforcement up to the professionals.

    1. “Defending individuals from violent and property crimes is government’s absolute duty.”

      No. That is socialism.

      Government is created by men to defend human rights including the right to defend ourselves.

      We have no obligation to wait for government to protect us and government has no obligation to defend the people.
      https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

      You have been lied to.

      It is your duty to defend and provide for yourself and your family.

      All of this is covered in the Declaration of Independence. Check it out!

  40. Reason site give me a thousand of dollars $….READ MORE

  41. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially Abe rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hrHeres what I do Visit site

Please to post comments