Equity

The Equity Mess

Despite their professed goals, Democrats' pandemic policies have widened disparities between races, classes, and genders.

|

Two days before the 2020 election, Kamala Harris could have picked from any number of campaign themes. The number of COVID-19 cases had doubled over the previous month. At home, violent crime was up; abroad, negotiations with the Taliban over U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan had bogged down. And ominously, Harris' opponent, Vice President Mike Pence, was refusing to state clearly whether Donald Trump would accept the results of the election.

Instead of any of those closing arguments, Harris and her campaign team chose to emphasize, in a tweet, speech, and animated video, a single portentous word that in a remarkably short time has escaped the laboratory of academe, spread through newsrooms and human resources departments, and now lodged itself firmly inside the White House: equity.

"There's a big difference between equality and equity," a slightly bemused, slightly exasperated-sounding Harris explained over the image of an animated young white man vaulting his way confidently through a rock-climbing course after having started out in a more advanced position than his discouraged black counterpart. "Equitable treatment means"—the two hikers, now joined in success after the disadvantaged one was given a boost up, gaze confidently at the horizon from atop the summit—"we all end up at the same place."

For decades, these two divergent philosophical and public policy concepts were represented by a battle over adjectival phrases. Should we strive for equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? Though intellectual and political enthusiasm for the outcomes-based approach did have some high-water moments in the 1970s, the long twilight struggle against 20th century totalitarianism produced a rough if sometimes reluctant governing consensus that states powerful enough to promise economic and racial parity were far more likely to produce mass immiseration. Striving for equality under the law—removing legal discrimination by government—was less ambitious, but more doable.

That laudable goal, particularly in the United States, is being elbowed aside. The 21st century rebranding of equality of outcome into the shinier and more malleable term equity, with its redolence of ownership and fairness, gave activists a linguistic workaround to what had previously been a public relations obstacle of utopian unattainability. You can't and probably shouldn't just wave a magic wand to erase observed inequality. But inequity? That sounds to the ear more like an immediate and surmountable wrong, deserving of intervention.

The incendiary racial and gender politics of the past seven years—from Ferguson, Missouri, to George Floyd; #MeToo to Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump to Andrew Cuomo—has only increased demand for (and reaction against) identity-based analysis and activism. Democratic politicians have learned that embracing equity is now a campaign prerequisite. And though Joe Biden among the 2020 presidential primary field was arguably the least fluent in the language of identitarianism (notably clashing with his future vice president over their respective views on court-ordered school busing to achieve racial integration), his administration nonetheless codified the e-word into policy literally on Day 1, with an executive order titled "Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government."

"I believe this nation and this government need to change their whole approach to the issue of racial equal—equity," the president said five days later, while signing some follow-on orders. It was a revealing slip of the tongue. The customary aspiration of leveling the playing field is being supplanted by a more ambitious promise to audit the validity of the final score. The administrative state is being explicitly tasked with rooting out the "unbearable human costs of systemic racism" by subjecting all regulations, federal agencies, and spending initiatives to the test of whether their impacts are spread equitably across populations.

But if we are indeed now assessing government activity not just by the flowery rhetoric of the salesman but by the bloodless exactitude of the auditor, then the Biden/Harris White House, along with Democratic-run states and big cities, may find themselves among the first against the wall. That's because no category of policies since the beginning of 2020 has failed that test worse than the government's attempts to cope with COVID-19. Donald Trump zig-zagged ham-fistedly on both policy and messaging, and his Food and Drug Administration threw up disastrous early obstacles to testing and vaccines. These mistakes cost lives. But Democrats are now in charge in Washington and have been mishandling the response elsewhere.

The very name of Biden's signature legislation, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, is an attempt to elevate purported intent over actual content. (Most of the funds will be disbursed long after the pandemic is over.) With their pivot to equity, administration officials are inviting all of us to judge them by their works, not their words. We should take them up on the offer. After all, the results of government COVID exertions to date, particularly for traditionally disfavored communities in Democratic-governed polities, have been demonstrably brutal.

Unequal Unemployment

On February 12, Vice President Harris took to the pages of The Washington Post to sound the alarm about a clear and present crisis. "About 2.5 million women have lost their jobs or dropped out of the workforce during the pandemic," she lamented. "That's enough to fill 40 football stadiums. This mass exodus of women from the workforce is a national emergency, and it demands a national solution."

Indeed, the share of adult women in the workforce had just hit 57 percent, a 33-year low, erasing hard-fought gains particularly for black mothers of minor children. Prior economic calamities, including the Great Recession of 2008–09, had primarily hurt men, but the COVID contraction was overwhelmingly female. As the headline on a November 2020 Dallas Federal Reserve study put it, "Pandemic Disproportionately Affects Women, Minority Labor Force Participation."

For Harris, the economic wreckage from this borderless virus was self-evidently a federal issue. "The American Rescue Plan addresses these urgent challenges," she tweeted February 16. "It's time for Congress to act."

But a closer look at state-by-state unemployment numbers reveals not uniform damage but striking variation. And the determining factor seems to have less to do with the pathogen and more to do with politics.

From February 1, 2020, when the pandemic really started to hit the United States, through the end of December, the net number of jobs decreased in 48 out of 50 states, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But when you sort the results by the drop in the percentage of employment, a startling pattern emerges.

Each and every one of the 18 states that suffered the worst job losses during that span, ranging from Hawaii's 13.6 percent to Nevada's 6.9 percent, voted in November for Joe Biden. In 11 of those, Democrats control the statehouse and both chambers of the legislature.

Meanwhile, the 18 states with the lowest rates of employment change, ranging from Oklahoma's 4.4 percent loss to Utah's 0.3 percent gain, share their own anomalous political characteristic: They each feature unified Republican executive and legislative control of government. Only two of those 18, Arizona and Georgia, voted for Biden, and by the slimmest of margins.

What explains this partisan pattern in COVID-era jobs reports? Certainly not the virus itself. Hawaii is not just the job-loss leader; it's also the state with the least mortality from the pandemic—30 deaths per 100,000 residents as of late February 2021, according to Johns Hopkins University. Job-growth leader Utah has the sixth-lowest death rate, with 57 per 100,000; New York is third in job loss, second in death rate; Mississippi is fifth in death rate, fourth from the bottom in unemployment. The explanation for the disparity lies elsewhere.

There are meaningful differences in governing styles and results between the two major parties on the state and local level. As a general baseline, GOP states tend to have "right to work" laws (prohibitions on mandatory union membership), lower taxes, lower minimum wages, and lower unemployment rates (4.6 percent was the December 2020 median for the 25 states with unified Republican governance). Democratic states tend to have higher taxes, higher minimum wages, higher cost of living, and higher unemployment (7.8 percent was the median for the 15 states controlled by Team Blue).

So it's little surprise that the coronavirus response, too, has diverged sharply along partisan lines. Blue-state governors in California and New York and Michigan have been far more strict about shutting down economic and physical activity than their red-state counterparts in Florida, South Dakota, and Texas. The comparative death tolls are roughly the same (California tracks with Florida, New York with South Dakota, and Michigan with Texas); the economic performances are anything but.

These inarguably poorer employment results under Democratic governance, which do not correlate with any measurable COVID-related health improvements, start looking much worse when you follow Harris' prompt to focus on females.

"Women with children, particularly Black women and those without a bachelor's degree, faced the sharpest declines and have recovered at much slower rates relative to those without kids," the Dallas Fed found in its November study. Why? "Because many mothers are unable to work while they oversee remote learning and lack child care."

Parents of the country's 50 million public K-12 kids, and particularly of the 18 million who had not returned to regular in-person schooling as of early March 2021, haven't been able to make basic plans for more than a year. Women in two-parent households (including my own) have overwhelmingly borne the brunt; single mothers are scrambling to stay afloat. The severity of this lopsided labor-force dropout could last far beyond the pandemic itself, the Dallas Fed warned: "The slow recovery from the Great Recession tells us that declines in participation rates, particularly for vulnerable demographic groups, can take years to fully recover, and they hinder overall economic growth."

Harris in her op-ed highlighted the American Rescue Plan's proposed solutions to the gendered recession, mostly amounting to the federal government writing checks—$3,000 per child, plus housing assistance, unemployment insurance, and expanded child tax credits. "Job loss, small business closings, and a lack of child care have created a perfect storm for women workers," she noted.

But the vice president gave only passing reference to the single biggest factor keeping mothers of minor children out of the labor force: the ongoing closure of, and uncertainty surrounding, public schools. And like economic restrictions, school closures are jarringly partisan.

"There is no relationship—visually or statistically—between school districts' reopening decisions and their county's new COVID-19 cases per capita," the Brookings Institution found in a July 2020 study. "In contrast, there is a strong relationship—visually and statistically—between districts' reopening decisions and the county-level support for [Donald] Trump." A follow-up study in the fall by Education Next found the exact same leading correlation, with the second-biggest factor being the political strength of the local teachers union.

As with the economic lockdowns, these blue-state school closures have disproportionately harmed poor and minority children. "The blunt fact is that it is Democrats—including those who run the West Coast, from California through Oregon to Washington State—who have presided over one of the worst blows to the education of disadvantaged Americans in history," wrote New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, nobody's idea of a conservative, on February 24. "The result: more dropouts, less literacy and numeracy, widening race gaps, and long-term harm to some of our most marginalized youth."

Yet instead of confronting and attempting to roll back that glaring inequity, the Biden administration has actively made it worse.

'Stakeholder' Science

When Rochelle Walensky was Massachusetts General Hospital's Chief of Infectious Diseases last July, the mayor of Newton, Massachusetts, emailed the doctor about the contentious issue of school openings. She was particularly concerned about the March 2020 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that kids and teachers alike be separated by an average of 6 feet, as opposed to the 3 feet advocated by the World Health Organization and most governments worldwide.

"I do think if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet," Walensky replied. "I think this is very viable for the middle/high schools and even late grade schools and would improve the feasibility. I suspect you may want to be at [6 feet] for some of the very young kids who can't mask."

That recommendation fit squarely with the emerging consensus of epidemiologists and pediatricians studying COVID-19. Whereas researchers were scrambling to understand the virus during the initial outbreak, fearing that snotty young children would become superspreaders through not just air droplets but physical surfaces, by summer enough time and international observation had passed to declare a few findings with confidence. Pre-teens, praise be, were disproportionately not catching, spreading, or suffering from the coronavirus. People also were not catching it from leftover gunk on inanimate objects. Outdoor play was not just safe but essential for reducing the spread of the virus and increasing the well-being of children. And as long as there was good masking, schools and day cares were considerably safer than the outside world.

And yet blue states like California kept police tape around playgrounds well into the fall. The few big-city school districts that were even partially open, such as New York's, instituted—after torturous negotiations with locally powerful teachers unions—automatic-closure triggers based on overall community testing, despite in-school positivity rates that consistently came in at a fraction of those of the outside world. And even though a majority of the country's private schools found a way to safely reopen five days a week by ignoring the 6-foot rule, public districts in Democratic-run cities and states continued to use that initial, panicked global outlier of CDC guidance to drastically reduce class sizes, thus making daily in-person schooling a logistical impossibility.

So a lot was riding on the extensive new CDC school-reopening recommendations slated to be released February 12. Biden, after all, had promised repeatedly and pointedly on the campaign trail to "follow the science" on COVID. He had further vowed in December 2020 that most K-12 schools would be open within his first 100 days (an ambition hurriedly scaled back to K-8). American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten and National Education Association (NEA) President Becky Pringle, who met with first lady (and teachers union member) Jill Biden on Day 2 of the administration, were both repeatedly stressing that the CDC guidance would be critical to getting their memberships back in school buildings.

And the president also had a respected new CDC director: Rochelle Walensky.

You would think that the stars would have been aligned to follow the science, scrap the 6-foot rule, and delink school-reopening from community spread. But Democrats had a different idea.

Back in her days at Massachusetts General and Harvard, Walensky had been free to follow the science and speak her mind. In Washington, she soon found out that both science and speech need to be vetted. Eight days before unveiling the updated school guidelines, the new CDC director was rebuked by White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki for having let slip the incontrovertible truth that "there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated." Retorted Psaki: "Dr. Walensky spoke to this in her personal capacity."

The process for producing what was billed as the CDC's "science-based reopening" plan looked like this, according to a Washington Post preview: "In a sign of how carefully the administration is tending to the many stakeholders, the CDC met with more than 70 organizations as it crafted the upcoming guidelines." Union presidents Weingarten and Pringle "met directly with Biden's CDC head," the paper reported, and both received phone calls from the president himself.

The final results? Not only did Walensky reaffirm the 6-foot rule she had previously opposed, but she took the further step of asserting that schools currently operating under a 3-foot standard were objectively unsafe. Even more aggressively, the CDC recommended that buildings remain at least partially shuttered in communities that have 100 COVID cases a week per 100,000 residents, a standard that upon issuance disqualified more than 90 percent of American schools.

As Ohio State's Vladimir Kogan and University of California, San Francisco's Vinay Prasad observed tersely in a detail-rich analysis for Stat, "The two core pillars of the guidelines…aren't supported by science" and "will keep schools closed much longer than necessary, harming kids."

In an excruciating post-guidance interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Walensky made a hash of explaining her about-face, saying that "a lot's changed since July." (One of things that has changed: There's now considerably more evidence, including studies conducted by the CDC, showing that kids in school settings are not disease vectors.)

As for letting community spread dictate reopening policy, the director, who had only months before advocated that "schools should be the last thing to close and the first thing to open," now made a circular argument: "If there's more disease in the community, there will be more in school….We really don't want to bring community disease into the classroom." Thus, the CDC in 11 months boomeranged from ignorantly (though understandably) worrying that kids might be superspreaders to fretting that school settings are vulnerable by virtue of being so safe.

Later in the Tapper interview, Walensky hinted at what might be really motivating the stakeholder-massaged science: "The American Rescue Plan has resources, $130 billion of resources, to facilitate and help schools get there," said the government's leading disease scientist. "And that's really why…we're pushing…the Rescue Plan."

In truth, less than 5 percent of the legislation's overall $200 billion K-12 component goes toward physical mitigation such as ventilation upgrades and protective equipment. A whopping 80 percent—the vast majority of which is estimated to be spent long after the virus is in the rearview mirror, according to the government's own projections—is simply aimed at hiring and retaining personnel. That's where the fingerprints of the teachers unions start to stand out on the page.

After Biden had been safely elected, the AFT's Weingarten reversed her longstanding opposition to opening classroom doors and started saying things like, "Reopening schools is vital for the health and education of our children." That is, she said, if schools were given enough resources.

Districts adhering to the 6-foot rule require massive staffing increases to keep classes, and even buses, half-full. The Rescue Plan, which comes on top of the $69 billion in extra (and still largely unspent) funding Congress appropriated to K-12 in 2020, bankrolls this hiring binge. All at a moment when families are abandoning the public school system in record numbers.

As an understandably exultant Weingarten said after the CDC recommendations were released, "The stage is now set for Congress and the Education Department to make this guidance real—and that means securing the funding to get this done." Her wish, in March, became Congress' command.

By disregarding the science, Biden's politicized CDC gave unions the leeway to present themselves as being in favor of school reopening while on the ground remaining practically opposed. Meanwhile, the mounting parental frustration helped smooth passage of a massive K-12 payday with no evident strings attached. Only under withering criticism from scientists did the CDC in late March revise its 6-foot rule to the global standard of 3 feet, though the agency kept its community spread guidance intact. Predictably, Weingarten and the unions attacked the correction as being unscientific.

And how have America's heavy-handed school closures affected kids? Here, the lens of equity reveals an especially grim snapshot of historically underserved communities.

"For approximately 3 million of the most educationally marginalized students in the country," concluded the nonprofit Bellwether Education Partners in an October study, "March [2020] might have been the last time they experienced any formal education—virtual or in-person." Kids without computers, or internet access, or an adult at home to supervise attempts at distance learning, have just fallen off the map: "The long-term consequences of this crisis are difficult to estimate without seeming hyperbolic."

Among students who haven't disappeared, the ones stuck in distance-learning environments are slipping behind their in-person counterparts at an alarming rate. A December study by McKinsey & Co. estimated that the shift to remote learning just from mid-March to June last year cost students of color three to five months of education and white students one to three months. When it came to the new school year in the fall, the Associated Press and Chalkbeat found that "districts where the vast majority of students are white are more than three times as likely as school districts that enroll mostly students of color to be open for some in-person learning."

Concluded McKinsey: "The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an especially heavy toll on Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities. Along with robbing them of lives and livelihoods, school shutdowns could deny students from these communities the opportunity to get the education they need to build a brighter future."

And not only did Democratic politicians and teachers unions inflict harm on minority kids by keeping schools shut; many had the gall to do so in the name of fighting racism.

'Culture of White Supremacy'

On March 1—350 days after closing down all public K-12 schools in his state—embattled Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom finally announced the most tentative of reopening plans for California.

"We expect all of our transitional kindergarten to grade-two classrooms [to] open within the next month," said Newsom, who is facing a possible recall election over his handling of the coronavirus. Though the details were foggy, Newsom's price tag was not: an additional $6.6 billion from the state budget. "Our core belief is this: Once you dip your toe in…once you build trust, then we will start to see a cadence of reopening across the spectrum."

Exhausted California parents were certainly hoping for more than a "cadence of reopening" for just three grades in a state with a milder year-round climate than the comparably COVID-afflicted Florida, where public schools have been open five days a week since September. Yet even that extremely modest ask from the governor was a bridge too far for some teachers unions.

"This is a recipe for propagating structural racism," responded United Teachers Los Angeles President Cecily Myart-Cruz.

It may seem counterintuitive to advocate, under the guise of anti-racism, the continuation of a policy that has overwhelmingly harmed poor and minority populations most. Yet that's what union officials have been doing from coast to coast.

"The push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism, and misogyny," the Chicago Teachers Union charged in December. "The culture of white supremacy and white privilege can be seen…in regards to the decision to reopen schools," wrote 140 members of the Pasco (Washington) Association of Educators in January. "The process the District has undergone, as well as the plans they have put forth for reopening, are rooted in white supremacy norms, values, and culture," asserted a subset of the Cambridge (Massachusetts) Education Association in January. "All the rich white parents suddenly concerned about mental health can take a seat," tweeted the secretary of the Oakland (California) Education Association in February.

Many of these claims can sound disorientingly pyrotechnic to those who haven't kept current with the prevailing culture of big-city educational institutions. But such jargon is increasingly commonplace. Those "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" workshops that have suddenly become ubiquitous in corporate H.R. departments got their start on college campuses a decade ago and in K-12 not long after. Throughout the public education system there are Black Lives Matter curricula for students, "implicit bias" seminars to help white employees get in touch with their unconscious privilege perpetuation, and the relentless invocation of a word that some Americans might have thought had been retired decades ago: desegregation.

"We will not wait to dismantle the segregated systems we have," said Richard Carranza upon taking the chancellorship in 2018 of the New York City public school system, which is 41 percent Hispanic, 22 percent black, 18 percent Asian, and 16 percent white. Carranza's signature initiative before his resignation this March was "Equity and Excellence for All," an approach that mostly involved assessing the racial breakdown of the city's perceived bastions of achievement (gifted and talented programs, specialized high schools), and, where black and Latino students were underrepresented, scrapping the selection criteria. Mayor Bill de Blasio put it most transparently when announcing in December that New York middle schools would no longer screen applicants for grades, attendance, or test scores: "I like to say very bluntly: Our mission is to redistribute wealth."

But using the hammer of government to pound out equality hurts more than just the high-achieving outliers. The very communities such policies are intended to boost tend to get stuck even deeper in a mire of mediocrity.

George Mason University education professor emeritus David J. Armor, in a September 2019 paper for the Cato Institute, analyzed the outcomes of six large school districts that use the rapidly proliferating K-12 admissions process known as "controlled choice," in which families list their ranked preferences for schools and then administrators ultimately choose based in strong part on leveling the demographic distribution across a given system.

"None of these districts has demonstrated significant closing of achievement gaps between higher- and lower-income students, one of the main justifications for these plans," Armor concluded, citing the flight of upper-middle-class parents after admissions changes were made. "Controlled choice for economic integration is not working as intended. It is still controversial, and it may be contributing to growing racial and economic isolation among some larger school districts."

Something similar happened under Richard Carranza's leadership in one of his previous positions as well. "San Francisco Had an Ambitious Plan to Tackle School Segregation," ran the headline of an April 2019 New York Times article examining the effort in depth. "It Made It Worse."

In practice, the contemporary push for educational "equity" requires a near-constant thrum of demonization against those groups—rich, white, and Asian, mostly—who are perceived to be hoarding privilege. Carranza was notorious for calling parents who opposed his policy preferences racist. This intentionally confrontational strategy, coupled with policy changes that sand down standards and achievement, has had a predictable effect: Families are leaving the public school system.

The first middle-school district in New York to try out controlled choice happens to be the one my oldest daughter attends in Brooklyn. Results? There was indeed a welcome initial increase in mobility to desirable schools among kids from poorer neighborhoods. But for the first time in more than a half-decade, overall enrollment declined, and by a significant amount: 7 percent (evenly spread among racial groups, which supporters of the plan oddly considered to be a point in their favor). All of this was pre-pandemic, mind you.

Responses to COVID have sped up familial secession. The nation's overall public school enrollment numbers are down around 5 percent in the 2020-21 academic year. Anecdotally, I have seen considerable evidence that ongoing uncertainty over whether schools will be reliably open five days a week come September 2021 is driving still more parents away from government-run schools.

As those with long enough memories can testify, this type of flight can create a vicious circle for those kids—again, predominantly poor and minority—who are left behind. Fewer students mean less funding, less public support, and invariably lesser quality. Educators may soon find themselves in a double bind of their own making. In the name of equity, they have kept schools shut and alienated families who have the means to leave.

Meanwhile, by inviting parents to view policy through the prism of racial conflict, they have loaded a weapon that may soon be aimed back at them.

The San Francisco Unified School District drew local and international ridicule this winter for expending valuable time and energy preparing the removal of allegedly racist names (including "Abraham Lincoln") from shuttered schools rather than working to reopen them. Not only were these ostensible anti-racists pilloried for their slipshod historical work (one name was slated for removal because a museum named after the man commissioned a racially controversial statue 20 years after his death), but they also found themselves hoisted on their own r-word.

"This is racist," said outgoing San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Sandra Lee Fewer, tearfully, in a December Board meeting discussion about how school shutdowns disproportionately damage minority students. "This is a disservice. It is one thing to say 'Black Lives Matter.' It's another thing to be saying 'While they're alive.'"

Know Them by Their Fruits

Minimum wage laws were initially championed at the beginning of the 20th century by segregationist white unions who sought to thwart competition from black workers. High minimum wages in the 21st century price out the unskilled labor of legal immigrants, who tend to be from Latin America or Asia, and put pressure on small businesses, which are disproportionately run by immigrants and women.

Biden at press time was still urging Congress to pass a $15 federal minimum wage. When one of the chief backers of that idea in the House of Representatives, Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), was asked in February about the effect on small businesses, he replied: "They shouldn't be doing it by paying low wages. We don't want low-wage businesses."

The Biden agenda is filled with such initiatives: invented originally to marginalize out-groups, applied in 2021 unequally on populations. Gun restrictions, which Biden aims to expand, trace their roots to the post-Civil War South's infamous "Black Codes" (which barred newly freed slaves from owning firearms, among other things) and are in the 21st century enforced in a more racially disparate way than just about any other category in the federal code. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which the president strongly supports, would, in the name of enhancing labor rights, jeopardize the employment status of tens of millions of freelancers and gig workers, many of whom are mothers struggling to create flexible part-time schedules.

State and local policies, even more than those from Washington, tend to demonstrate the chasm between rhetoric and reality. Los Angeles and New York City are graveyards of "affordable housing" policies that have made rents and mortgages anything but; meanwhile you can still buy cheap houses in plenty of stimulating cities where politicians rarely utter the phrase. There's a reason Texas and Florida are projected to gain a combined five congressional seats after the post-2020 Census reapportionment, while blue states California, Illinois, and New York will likely lose one apiece.

It's tempting in the face of Democratic misgovernance and progressive-activist overreach to simply hit the laugh track. Lord knows there's always a new presentation somewhere (as there was in Carranza's New York school system) warning that the hallmarks of "White Supremacy Culture" include such pathologies as "individualism," "objectivity," "perfectionism," and "worship of the written word."

But the equity fad also offers an opportunity. Focusing on results rather than intent is what citizenship (and political journalism) should be about, but too rarely is. We're all better off treating the intent of powerful actors with default skepticism and demanding that they show their work.

It will take years, decades even, to sort through comparative governmental culpability in coronavirus mitigation. As of March 12, the United States was still ninth highest in the world for overall COVID death rate, suggesting that the presidency of Donald Trump has plenty to answer for. But the U.S. was also 21st and dropping rapidly in death rate over the prior seven days, thanks to the country's impressively rapid rollout of vaccine distribution, a feat for which both Trump and Biden deserve some share of credit, though not as much as the pharmaceutical companies in the private sector. Journalists, politicians, and political consumers are, even more than a year into this health crisis, relentlessly seeking to affix partisan blame, suggesting that policy choices and individual behavior are the leading factors in comparative coronavirus lethality. But any good look at the death-rate map suggests that geography and climate, much more than opening/closing variation, correlates with COVID damage. The greatest impact of government policy may be on those who never got sick.

In its best application, the modern political notion of equity can be an invitation to assess how policies impact historically disfavored populations, perhaps leading to discoveries that the more appropriate goal of equality under the law is being thwarted either by bad actors or bad design. So if the 46th president wants to subject his own actions, particularly the massive American Rescue Plan, to a results-based analysis, let us help him with the task. Track what happens to poor and minority kids as a direct result of the CDC's school guidelines. See whether Biden and Harris follow through on their campaign pledges to scale back criminal justice overreach that has disproportionately harmed generations of black men. Measure whether economic opportunity at the lowest rung of the economic ladder has been expanded or legislated away.

"We have never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation," Biden said while signing his racial equity order on January 20. "That all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives." Let's make him live up to that promise.

NEXT: Brickbats: May 2021

Equity Class War Unemployment Coronavirus Minimum Wage Kamala Harris

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.

Please to post comments

325 responses to “The Equity Mess

  1. I’m just glad this nonsense stayed on college campuses.

    Just think if this kind of thought got into government and corporations.

    1. Or popular sports and other entertainment.

      Nah, it’ll never happen here.

      1. Or the toddler section of Target

        https://twitter.com/karol/status/1388673110224916480?s=19

        Saw these the other day at Target. Note sizes. This is some creepy stuff to put on kids’ shirts.

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. My 7 yr. old son asked/pointed out to me in Target last week:
          “Why are there fat girl mannequins but no fat guy mannequins?”

          I tried to come up with an honest answer that wasn’t gender shaming and couldn’t. I blame Target.

        3. What the hell is the one on the right trying to say?

          The left one is just all kinds of racist. But perfectly encapsulates the idiocy of woke white people.

    2. The real problem is the matriarchy, and always has been.

      https://mises.org/wire/tobacco-smokers-americas-most-persecuted-minority

      “..the most fanatic crusaders were Yankee women, especially spinsters”
      “[post-millennial evangelical pietism] attitude toward the State: “Government is God’s major instrument of salvation.” After all, how are liquor or Catholics to be stamped out by persuasion alone? (5) (the crucial icing on the cake): You will not be saved unless you try your darndest to maximize everyone else’s salvation”
      “over the years, the PMEPs married theology and Science in their crusade.”
      “After all, if as a Christian activist, your major focus is not on creed or liturgy but on using the government to shape everyone up and stamp out sin, eventually Christ fades out of the picture and government remains. The picture of the Kingdom of God on Earth becomes secularized or atheized, and, in the Marxist version, the secular sin-free Kingdom is brought about by the terrible swift sword of the “saints” of the Communist Party. We have arrived at the grisly land of Left Puritanism, of a Left Kingdom which proposes to bring about a perfect world free of tobacco, inequality, greed, and hate-thoughts.”

      1. the radical Femi- Nazimovement in the US came from the Womens Temperance movement of the late 1800s.

        “we all end up at the same place.”

        Yep, its all about picking winners and determining outcomes.

        With Harris, a political whore none the less

    3. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its jes an easy and simple job to do and its earnings A are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    4. Which one of you slack-jawed, right-wing clingers is Bobby Paul Edwards?

      1. Tony.

    5. OT: Report: Illegal Alien Sex Offenders Freed into U.S. Due to Biden ‘Sanctuary Country’ Orders

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/02/report-illegal-alien-sex-offenders-freed-into-u-s-due-to-biden-sanctuary-country-orders/

      Chemjeff has advocated for this exact thing, right here in Reason’s comment section. He must be so excited.

      1. Am I mistaken in that the title is slightly misleading? They aren’t being identified as sex offenders at the border and being allowed in, it’s that they’re being arrested for sex offenses inside the US and, despite being illegal, are being prevented from being deported.

        Not that I think the 55% of Americans that Reason claims support a path to legal immigration (given certain requirements) would be happy about the first part, but I think an even larger portion actively oppose the second. At the very least, I’d think they’d raise their ‘requirements’.

    6. I’m also glad we prioritized stopping mean tweets. Who cares about this anyway. The tweets aren’t mean!

    7. All the economic ruin blamed on the virus is misdirection based on the assumption that the rulers forced only what the M.D.s advised. But, who allows the initiation of violence, threats thereof, i.e., edicts? The populace. And those who resist, who think for themselves, who ask for clarification that authority cannot give? They are ignored, or worse, cancelled. The consensus is manufactured by authority (MSM), enforced by authority, for authority. Authority loves to use its sovereignty over the populace to see how far the populace can be pushed, how much crap they will submit to before they reach their breaking point, and how that will be expressed. Some do it by riots. Some by suicide. Some by open defiance. Are they finally finding their dignity, their self respect, their confidence, their bravery? Do they realize the pandemic was a Pan-hoax? Do they realize that coercive govt. is not moral or practical? Do they want to reclaim their sovereignty and self-govern? How long will it take to make the American Dream manifest?

    8. Speaking of colleges, essentially the last two high school graduating classes have been, at least partially, the product of “virtual” learning. How are they doing in college, or have the colleges that still use the SAT and other scores had to dumb them down. Excuse me the politically correct term should be “re-norming” them.

  2. “Despite their professed goals, Democrats’ pandemic policies have widened disparities between races, classes, and genders.”

    Hmmm. If only someone had coined a term to describe the Democratic Party’s tendency to campaign on an “eat the rich / help the poor” platform — then govern in an objectively pro-billionaire manner.

    Oh wait! Someone already did. It’s called OpenBordersLiberal-tarian’s First Law. And it provides all the justification we Koch / Reason libertarians needed to endorse Biden. In the first 100 days, the Biden Administration has created exactly the billionaire-friendly economy we hoped for. Our benefactor Charles Koch, for instance, is already up over $6,000,000,000 this year.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires

    1. He writes as if this was not the intended consequence. Funny.

      1. They write this schtick like it’s the compulsory portion of some proggy competition.

  3. “Despite their professed goals, Democrats’ pandemic policies have widened disparities between races, classes, and genders.”
    -Matt Welch

    To accomplish their actual goals, Democrats’ pandemic policies have widened disparities between races, classes, and genders.
    -Reality.

    1. Exactly.

      The goal is political power. The policy is to foment poverty and misery and then weaponize them to achieve the goal.

      1. And make mr. Koch richer.

        1. #GetReadyForTheKochComeback
          #InDefenseOfBillionaires

          1. Would that be called New Koch or Koch Classic?

            1. Are we supposed to be boycotting homonyms too?

              1. “Boycotting” has a gender component and therefore now identifies as “personcotting.”

                1. But that’s still got a “son” in it! Peroffspringcotting?

      2. Racism, just a variety of us vs. them, has always been an effective tool for manipulating people, aka, idiots. And achieving power for the manipulators.

    2. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Welch is a progressive who thinks he’s a libritarian. The progressives don’t want a good outcome. They want totalitariamism

      1. To them, that _is_ a good outcome. That way you won’t be able to make the wrong decisions for you anymore. Because that will have all been decided.

    3. Progressives secretly hate the poor. The poor are icky and make stupid decisions and need to be controlled.

      You can apply this to any group they hate, like blacks and rednecks.

      1. They hate everybody, including each other for the most part.

        1. Getting stomped by the liberal-libertarian mainstream in the culture war appears to have made some of you right-wing bigots extremely cranky.

          That culture war isn’t over — more progress will be shoved down conservatives’ throats — but it has been settled. You get to whine about it all you want, clingers, but you will comply with the preferences of your betters.

          1. Kirkland wants to be Tucker Carlson’s proof.

          2. More progress will evolve into you and your fellow travelers being deposited via dump truck into landfills.

          3. Hey says this in an article where it’s explicitly pointed out republican led states have fared better than liberal ones lol.

            Never change hihn. Well, change your diaper, but not your idiocy and homoerotic throat fantasies.

  4. We’re all oh-so-concerned about “equity”… For the Teacher’s Unions, above ALL else!

  5. Quantitative easing helps the banks before anyone else.

    Low interest rates help banks and real estate businesses before anyone else.

    Stimulus jobs and direct payments help targeted industries, and the money ends up in the hands of corporations and property owners in one turn.

    Gee: I wonder why the rich keep getting richer and doing so well during the pandemic.

    It just be greed or something. Do more!

    1. Maybe with the 4th stimulus check, everyone will be rich!

      1. Everyone will be SOOO rich, that no one will need to work any more! Paradise will arrive soon!

    2. Biden just needs to push through the minimum wage hike. Because that will take money from the rich and redistribute it to the working poor and the local, small businesses. /sarc

    3. Gee: I wonder why the rich keep getting richer and doing so well during the pandemic.

      You keep arguing with me that this is, in fact, a feature not a bug. If you’ve come to your senses and now see inequality as a problem maybe do what I do: advocate that the working class take over the means of production. That’s get rid of all these California elites.

      1. So, kill them ?

      2. Socialists aren’t very good at running the means of production once they take it.

        Taking? They’ve got that down.

        Running? Let’s be honest: if they could run it, they wouldn’t need to take it in the first place.

      3. There’s an easy way for workers to take over the means of production, they can buy all stock in the company. But even workers know it’s a very bad risk investing in companies where the workers own the means of production.

        United Airlines is a great example.

      4. The smart move is to rid ourselves of all socialists. To that end, we must take control, and then offer the hardcore pro socialist leftists an opportunity to leave the US forever. Those that remain must abandon their slaver beliefs or be subject to prison, or worse.

        Our constitutional republic cannot survive these idiots forever. It’s either them or us. So they’ve got to go.

  6. Matt Welch seems like one of these people who wants “good government”.

    We’re all better off treating the intent of powerful actors with default skepticism and demanding that they show their work.

    No, the goal is not to make “powerful actors” prove they can make the trains run on time. The goal is to make them less powerful.

  7. Government forced equity. Busing was such a huge success, right? See, “South Chicago economic destruction and white flight, 1979- to present.” Michelle Obama said, “and those white people are still running away”. She failed to mention that she no longer resides in those neighborhoods either. They are all horrendous ghettos. My father lost half the value of his home to the Democrats last “equity” effort. It hardly seems equitable unless everyone benefits. How can they call it “equity” when only black people benefit, and every other race is punished?

  8. The real reason behind the Giuliani raid:

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-reasons-behind-the-rudy-giuliani-raid_3797744.html?utm_source=partner

    Of course, Reason will never even mention that this happened in a million years. Obama/Biden corruption and abuse of power is a verboten subject around these parts.

    1. Reason mentioning the Giuliani raid here:

      https://reason.com/2021/04/29/joe-biden-wants-to-close-the-boyfriend-loophole-heres-what-that-means/

      “The FBI searched Rudy Giuliani’s home and office and seized his electronics yesterday.”

      And, now, you are going to counter with, “Oh, sure, they mentioned it, but they didn’t write an editorial like the Epoch Times did where they divines the true, sinister meaning of the raid.”

      1. Paște Fericit

        1. Justin?

          1. Epoch Times. Religious association. Today is Orthodox Easter.

            1. Justin Amash is Eastern Orthodox. He tweeted today about celebrating Orthodox Easter.

            2. (No more of a non-sequitur than your comment.)

              1. It certainly was a non-sequitor. I had been wishing Happy Easter to some of my Romanian friends and saw “Epoch Times” and went with it. 🙂

              2. Dee, you bitch!

            3. It’s Dee, things frequently go sailing over her head.

      2. Look, I think active investigation and apparent political prosecution of the previous administration is a bit of a big deal. Bigger than they are making it sound.

        1. ENB reported what happened, and did not comment in favor or against. She didn’t try to “make it sound” any particular way.

          1. Caw caw!

    2. Thirty some US citizens are being held without bail in solitary confinement in DC for trespassing crimes. Reason has not addressed this issue at all.

      1. Local story.

      2. Queen Sullum says: Off with their heads!

      3. Yeah, but the ACLU is all over it right?….right?

  9. “Equitable treatment means …… we all end up at the same place.”

    And we all know where that place is. You can’t level up, you can only level down. The only way we can all be as good as Michael Jordan at basketball is to break Michael Jordan’s legs, and that’s what is going to happen. I think there’s even an instruction manual for achieving equity, it’s called Harrison Bergeron.

    I just saw a report that 33.8% of all household income was from government transfer payments – how high can you realistically expect it to go? Employers are begging for workers but few want to work when they’re getting as much or more from unemployment checks sitting at home as they’d be getting from going to work. How long can that last? Everybody wants free shit, but if everybody’s getting free shit, who is producing the free shit?

    1. “Everybody wants free shit, but if everybody’s getting free shit, who is producing the free shit?”

      Human monkey hybrid clones. They are already producing them in China.

      https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/01/652/scientists-are-making-human-monkey-hybrids-in-china/

      1. Well, as long as they vote reliably for democrats – – – – – – – – – –

        1. We will have no need of political parties in our golden future.

          1. We’re down to one party at the national level, anyway.

            1. I think the dems should change their name to “The Party”
              It has a nice ring to it.

              1. Certainly fits.
                Rolls off the tongue like “Emmanuel Trumpstein”.
                The Republicans should change their name to “The Brotherhood” IMHO.

                1. The Republicans should just put up a sign “next window ->” whether they’re in charge or not.

              2. Makes sense. Then they aren’t as open to criticism about whether or not they are being democratic anymore.

      2. And here I thought it would be self-building, weakly-AI robots that would replace us.

        Nice article, Echo.

        1. Well, technically, the human-monkey chimeras are going to replace the Chinese, and the Chinese are going to replace us.

          1. I seem to remember a movie series about intelligent monkeys…yikes!

            1. Apes! Dammit!

            2. Bonzo goes to college?

              1. Lancelot Link – Secret Chimp

            3. Project X

      3. Human monkey hybrid clones. They are already producing them in China.

        Probably to eat them.

      4. Why, why? The idea behind the research is to fashion animals that possess organs, like a kidney or liver, made up entirely of human cells. Such animals could be used as sources of organs for transplantation.

        Making chimeras: The technique for making chimeras involves injecting human embryonic stem cells into a days-old embryo of another species. The hope is that the human cells will grow along with the embryo, adding to it.

        Given what we know about ESCs, this sounds like a great way to make cancer-prone organs ready to be rejected by every last human immune system. Have we used ESCs to cure Christopher Reeves’ nerve damage yet?

    2. In the future everyone not replaced by a robot will make 2 billion a year before taxes, 500 million after taxes, and the rest of the populace gets to make 250k a year to not riot.
      See, we’ll all be rich. Easy peasy.

      1. And a chicken will only cost $10000 each

      2. Venezuela, the country of the future.

  10. Socialism is when industry is owned by the government, prices are set by the government, and wealth is distributed by the government.

    Market capitalism is when the ownership of industry is distributed by markets, prices are set by markets, and wealth is distributed by markets.

    Markets are people making choices, which is why socialism naturally lends itself to elitism.

    For progressives, it isn’t that they believe politicians are so smart that they can make better choices on our behalf than we can for ourselves. At least, not so much as it’s that they believe everyday Americans are deplorable sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist pieces of shit, who shouldn’t be free to make choices that impact other people. No, we need an elite cadre of social justice warriors to force us to make sacrifices for the benefit of others using the coercive power of government.

    They really are the enemy.

    Whenever we hear Democrats claim to be defending our democratic values (against insurrectionists or otherwise), always remember how deeply contemptuous they are of everyday Americans making choices for ourselves in markets. Representative democracy is insufficiently democratic compared to the American people representing themselves, their interests, and their qualitative preferences through market participation, and that is why Democrats hate markets–because they’re contemptuous of the American people and what we want.

    This elitism is another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Markets are much more democratic than socialism.

    2. Direct democracy is people voting with their paychecks.

    3. Elitism as a political theory leads to the conclusion that political power is held by a cabal of wealthy and influential individuals. It is very similar to conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, Jews, or similar groups.

      It also leads to the conclusion that democracy is a sham and power must be wrested from the elite through popular political uprising and restored to the people.

      Pluralism holds that power is divided among competing groups and interests such that none have permanent or complete power. The democratic process is thus a reflection of competition and interests which change over time.

      Seeing Harris as an elite is what leads one to the conclusion that “democrats are contemptuous of the American people and what “we” want.

      Yet she was elected and democrats and republicans have both been elected back and forth and about evenly for many years.

      The other view is that she very much represents a large segment of the population. What they want is basically more stuff to be financed by government and the wealthy.

      So by “we” what you really mean is not all Americans it means those who agree with you. By excluding democrats and those who vote for them as authentic Americans the only logical conclusion is single party rule.

      I don’t have a dog in that fight.

      1. I’ve never seen a straw man built so slowly.

        1. Brick by brick and lie by lie.

          Look at this absolute horseshit claim: “(accusations of elitism are) very similar to conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, Jews, or similar groups”.

          The name ‘Echospinner’ certainly checks out.

          1. “Les Ancien Régime wasn’t elitist, that’s racist conspiracy!”

      2. Except Bill Clinton tipped their hand a few decades ago:

        “We could give you some of your money back, but you might not spend it right.”

      3. “I don’t have a dog in that fight.” Good for you!

        I have a few dogs that I favor… Democracy, moderation, and BALANCE…

        For all ideological hard-core warmongers everywhere…

        So ye lust after the utter, eternal destruction of the “D” team, and the eternal victory of the “R” team? (The inverse kind of ideological idiot exists also, but not so much, on these pages).

        “R” team likes to demonize “D” team? Biden is going to outlaw the internal combustion engine, tomorrow, to “Make American Green Again”? The NEW MAGA? Bullshit, demonizers!

        “D” team likes to say that the next “R” POTUS (Alex Jones maybe?) will outlaw ALL abortion, and birth control? And turn ALL women into enslaved baby-making machines, because every sperm is sacred? Bullshit, demonizers!

        All is for The Hive… The Tribe-Nation… Or, All is for the Individual, and you may NOT (of your own supposed “free will”) join a VOLUNTARY commune?! There can be NO compromise, traitors!!!

        The males must UTTERLY DEFEAT the females, who must NEVER speak again!

        Yin must smash Yang, till Yang exists no more!

        Creation must smash destruction! NO eggs may be broken, for making omelets!

        Life must rule over death, and NO ONE may die, to make room for the new living! No matter HOW old and decrepit they get! YOU MAY NOT DIE!!!

        Do you ideological idiots NOT see that “R” v/s “D” falls into the same category? You would destroy it ALL (multi-party democracy, “balance”) in the name of your POWER PIG FANTASIES!!!

        The ONLY way that ye will get your “ultimate victory” is in the DEATH OF IT ALL!!! The new POTUS, Alex Jones, will declare Nuclear War for the Ultimate Victory… And yin and yang, male and female, “D” and “R”, individual v/s tribe… they all ARE NO MORE!!!

        Are you HAPPY now, ideological idiots and power-lusters?!!?

        1. Now how much of what you wrote do you think made sense?

          Do you ever actually read what you post SQRLS?

          Are you going to reply to this comment with a well thought out rebuttal, or are you going to copy and paste some spam you have sitting on your desktop?

          1. Truth never changes, no matter how often it is posted.

            https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
            Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

            Oh but I know… Anything that disagrees with the JesseBahnFuhrer and MammaBahnFuhrer echo chamber is “Marxist”, right? No matter HOW factual it might be!

            Totalitarians want to turn the GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dickstatorshit).

            Refute the FACTS in the link, Oh Great Luster-After-Fascism! And Oh Great Christian Theologian Who Justifies Lying and Identity Theft!

            1. Copy and paste an unrelated link to the question – check.

              1. Also, fuckin’ Salon, lol.
                No Der Sturmer link on the subject?

              2. MammaBahnFuhrer and fellow hyper-partisan right-wing elitists claim only left-wingers can be elitists, and I presented evidence CLEARLY to the contrary (which you, by the way, can NOT refute). THAT is how it relates… Which you COULD have figured out, if you had had a brain!

                1. You really have no clue what you’re even writing, huh.

                  1. You really have no clue whether or not you have any neurons at ALL, eh, intellectual less-than-a-vacuum? Howling void within a void?

          2. It was a pretty straightforward (for SQRLSY) appeal to balance.

      4. Yet she was elected …..
        Really? Are we sure about that? Show your work.

        1. Yeah, that.

          Stealing more bases than Rickey Henderson over here.

        2. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

          Massive modern USA election fraud is like Sasquatch… They say that we see a footprint here, then there, and maybe even a tuft of fur that turns out to be bear-hair… But we go out LOOKING for Sasquatch?!? We can NEVER find him!

          1. And at this point who cares. The only downside is this kind of nutty crap is destroying the Republican Party and that is a very bad thing for the country.

            There are people out there trying to rebuild the GOP into what it once was. I remember when you saw it as the solid, sane and sober party. Where did all the loonies come from?

            1. “Where did all the loonies come from?”

              It was like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were working together. Clinton deeply insulted people who didn’t want to vote for her, and Trump, the grifter, pretended he cared about them (and is still pretending).

            2. There is no rebuilding the GOP into what it once was. The changes have been a long long time coming.

              Both parties are now oriented around preserving the existing status quo – a duopoly with very few competitive elections but with implicit agreements about where they will choose to ‘govern’ and where they will choose to ‘lose’. In those areas where they ‘lose’, they do not function as an opposition party seeking to win next time.

              The only ‘election’ where they see themselves as competitive is the national election for Prez. But changes don’t ever occur top-down like that.

            3. There are people out there trying to rebuild the GOP into what it once was.

              When was that?
              Under Eisenhower?
              Under Nixon?
              Under Ford?
              Under Reagan?
              Under Bush?
              Under Bush?
              Even under Ike the Republicans were smeared with McCarthyism or Bircherism.

          2. https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-12/

            “Heironimus claims that he wore a horsehide suit built by Patterson himself, which he describes in modest detail, while Morris claims that Patterson bought and used one of his commercial gorilla suits—which he describes in precise detail. Surely, say critics, one or both of these claims must therefore be false. Since neither is clearly supported or debunked by the available evidence, both must be suspect.”

          3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/04/30/newsmax-apologizes-dominion-worker-over-false-election-allegations/4898140001/

            And along the same lines as Big Foot:

            “Newsmax apologized on Friday for airing false allegations that an employee for Dominion Voting Systems manipulated machines or tallies on Election Day to the detriment of former President Donald Trump.”

            1. “Newsmax apologized on Friday for airing false allegations”

              Except they didn’t.
              Instead they printed a statement written by Dominion’s (and Soros’) lawyers, that didn’t originate from the magazine or its editors.

              1. Don’t let facts get in the way of the narrative.

                You’re arguing with someone who seems to think that I just made it up when I said that the only proper way to criticize an argument is to either go after the premises (facts) or the logic.

                Arguments from 2,400 years ago are brand new to her, and she hasn’t really accepted them yet.

                In her mind, we’re freakin’ Aristotle!

                1. Ah, our resident, self-appointed rhetoric cop.

                  You may want to look into (a) what “garbage in garbage out” means in regards to logical reasoning; (b) why engineers do sanity checks on their answers, even though they are really good at logic and math.

              2. They printed it. They own it.

                1. Just like the NYT’s new policy on Op Eds, huh.
                  You’re like some sort of progbot, aren’t you. Always spouting the latest mantra.

                  1. What in the world is the tie in of any of this to the New York Times?

                    1. If it isn’t in your talking-points pdf you end up rather lost, huh.

                      https://reason.com/2021/04/27/elegy-for-op-ed/

                      The New York Times has stopped publishing op-eds for, amongst other reasons, the new idea that the fact an op-ed is published by the NYT, means the paper actually gives tacit approval and endorsement of the arguments made by the opinion writer.

                      You know, like you just did when you said NewsMax being forced to publish George Soros’ lawyers statements about Dominion, constitutes agreement.
                      “They printed it. They own it.”

                      Try to keep up.

                    2. You are a moron. I’ll list some reasons:
                      – I knew about the Times. I asked the relevance to the current conversation. There isn’t any.
                      – The subtext here is that you are implying I’m a liberal NY Times fan. I’m not. You are too cowardly to engage in debate with my actual libertarian beliefs, so you argue with a strawman version of me.
                      – NewsMax printed their retraction as part of settling a lawsuit. They lied, and chose to admit those lies because they knew they would not be able to back them up in court.

                    3. No, I wasn’t actually implying that you were a liberal NY Times fan even though you’re totally lying when you say you aren’t.

                      You are too cowardly to engage in debate with my actual libertarian beliefs, so you argue with a strawman version of me.

                      What libertarian beliefs? Tell us one. I’ve never seen you once mention any here.
                      Your sole purpose here has been to White Knight for the DNC and the lefties here, and don’t you fucking dare pretend that you do anything else but.

      5. Elitism is the idea that our betters should be making choices on our behalf–and it’s always poorly justified. As market capitalists, we know that central planners always fail to outperform markets quantitatively, and the idea that politicians, bureaucrats, or academics can make better choices for us than we can for ourselves–on a qualitative basis–is fundamentally irrational.

        The fact is that nothing can accurately reflect the qualitative preferences of 325 million individuals with conflicting and divergent qualitative preferences like markets can, and if the market doesn’t like what you like, then the American people don’t care about what you care about. Harris inflicting her qualitative preferences on us (or the markets) is an excellent example of elitism.

        Using the coercive power of government to do it makes it fundamentally authoritarian, and imagining that her qualitative preferences have anything like an authoritative basis makes it fundamentally irrational, too.

        There is no place for elitism in libertarian capitalism, which is why, if we want to live a more libertarian capitalist world, we must necessarily persuade our fellow Americans to want it, too. And you certainly aren’t about to persuade anybody to be libertarian or ma market capitalist by telling them that their opinions shouldn’t matter. Libertarianism is the idea that people should be free to make choices for themselves, and The triumph of libertarian capitalism is the total defeat of elitism.

        1. I do not agree with that definition. In fact all of politics is about others making choices for you. Calling them “betters” is just rhetoric. Calling them elites is a misnomer and has broader implications.

          Economic implications can be seen as a related but distinct issue. You can have capitalism in a socialist government. Just ask any Chinese billionaire. You can have restrictive highly regulated markets in a non socialist country and have plenty of that here.

          I completely agree that central planning and manipulation of markets doesn’t work. Not only that, it is immoral and an infringement of liberty. Yet I have seen it over and over with each administration we have elected.

          I agree that government is inherently authoritarian and that is why libertarians what less of it.

          If elite means wealthy, influential, and powerful then Donald Trump and his associates are all elites. Using that to control and manipulate others is authoritarian. Is there anyone in government who does not fit that description?

          1. ++

          2. “I do not agree with that definition. In fact all of politics is about others making choices for you.

            Imagining that our betters should make our choices on our behalf is what is meant by elitism, whether you agree or not, and libertarian support for the legalization of marijuana is an excellent example of us wanting to take the power to make such choices on our behalf from politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and government and giving it to individuals, so they can make that choice for themselves.

            The idea that we should be free and print what we please–rather than have the government make those decisions is what the First Amendment is about, as well as keeping the elitists from making choices for us about which religions we can or can’t follow. The Second Amendment is about individuals being free to make choices about whether we own a gun–rather than have that choice made for us by some elitist politician. I could go down the list about how libertarian education policy is about taking choices away from bureaucrats about where our children go to school and how they’re taught and giving it to parents.

            All the way down the list, libertarianism is a total rejection of elitism.

            1. Actually anyone who wanted to was smoking pot already and it was a total free market. We took the legal risk away but traded control to the government.

              1. So, making the cops stop throwing people in prison for marijuana wasn’t really a libertarian goal–and being free to make choices for ourselves, free from government coercion, isn’t really what government is about?

                is that what you’re saying?

                1. No I think the trade off is worth it but it is one nonetheless.

                  1. Bingo.

                    I lived in the Third world for long enough to realize that black markets are free markets in action. for better or worse.

                    1. Exactly. Baltimore was an experience.

            2. “All the way down the list, libertarianism is a total rejection of elitism.”

              So why did you line up behind a New York billionaire, as your savior from the evil Democrats?

              1. “So why did you line up behind a New York billionaire, as your savior from the evil Democrats?

                Your Marxist apologetics are dismissed below.

              2. Because he was still better on deregulation and taxes than any Democrat and had a better shot of winning than the libertarian.

                Simple isn’t it.

          3. “If elite means wealthy, influential, and powerful . . .

            If that’s what elitist means to you, then you’re a Marxist, who sees the world in terms of class struggle. Because you’ve internalized socialism, doesn’t make the real world so. I suppose it’s a good thing the Scientologists didn’t get to you first.

            I’m not a Marxist. I’m not an authoritarian. I’m not a socialist. I’m a libertarian capitalist, and the problem with elitists making choices on my behalf is not that they don’t accurately reflect certain minorities and their interests.

            The problem with elitists is that they have business, no rationally authoritative basis, no record of success, and no right to make choices about our lives on our behalf–when we’re perfectly capable of representing our own preferences in markets.

            1. It is what it means to most people. We talk about the Hollywood Elite, the social elite and so on. It is also used for inanimate things like fancy hotels. Those are non political uses of the word.

              You are using it in a political sense and only as it applies to your political opponents.

              1. “It is what it means to most people.

                Because you suffer from a delusion doesn’t mean that’s what most people think. Assuming that most people think what you think can be one aspect of projection. Con men sometimes think everyone is trying to rip them off–but that’s just about what’s going on in their minds. Do you see your noble elitist efforts as redistributing wealth to ungrateful rednecks, too?

                GFY if you do.

                I assure you that plenty of people don’t want politicians and bureaucrats making choices for them, and it has nothing to do with your Marxist preoccupations with class and money and everything to do with not wanting the qualitative preferences of Hollywood, academia, or bureaucrats inflicted on them using the coercive power of government.

                1. “GFY if you do.”

                  Ken has picked up the habits of his newfound CACLL tribe.

                  1. You suck.

                    1. Calcium chloride. Just like HO2 is water.

                    2. Conservative and conservative-leaning libertarians

                  2. The White Knight
                    October.22.2020 at 3:18 pm

                    It means conservative and conservative-leaning libertarian, and I coined it.
                    Is there a law in Canada that ordinary people aren’t allowed to coin acronyms. Here in the godamn USA we have freedom of speech.

                2. Well of course. It is your distortion of the term I am objecting to. Define your use of it. The dictionary definition is:

                  a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
                  “the elite of Britain’s armed forces”

                  That is the common use of the term. So you are calling Harris superior in ability.

                  It has nothing to do with Marxism.

                  1. “It is your distortion of the term I am objecting to.

                    Do you often go around saying that everyone who doesn’t share your Marxist views is distorting the truth?

                    Because that’s another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

                    The truth is that plenty of people don’t want elitists making their choices for them–regardless of how much money they have.

                    1. “…everyone who doesn’t share your Marxist views is distorting the truth?”

                      Marxism is as Marxist does.

                  2. Do you interpret a politician or group of politicians called elite as having the same definition as your referenced armed forces subgroup? You can if you chose. But many here and elsewhere use it sarcastically in a derogatory way to describe a group (politicians or Hollywood for examples) they see as perceiving to be better.

                3. Ken , just call them what the Russians did, the Nomenklatura.

      6. “They want more stuff paid for by someone else.”

        1. Yup

          1. Selfish non-producers act like spoiled kids. It is what it is.

    4. I’m thinking with the doubling of federal spending and the 50 percent hike in taxes and all the overreaching on social engineering, the Dems are going to lose bigly in 2 years. And they sort of suspect it, so they’re pushing to get everything done by then, to make the Repubs the bad guys for taking the money away.

      1. Even voting for taxes or policies can never be a measure of the will of the American people like market participation can. For one thing, voting is largely divorced from cost, whether it be taxes or other policies.

        It’s one thing to vote for someone who opposes trade with China. Quite another to go to the store and pay extra for goods that were manufactured in the USA–and taking a hit to your standard of living. The willingness of Americans to pay extra for American made goods shouldn’t be measured in their support for any particular anti-trade with China candidate. The willingness of Americans to buy Chinese manufactured goods is measured by the amount of goods they buy every year that were manufactured in China. Those who don’t realize it was made in China, probably don’t really care–and reflecting those competing concerns is what we’re talking about markets doing.

        Talk is cheap, and it costs nothing to vote for Joe Biden in real time because you support his Green New Deal. But going to the polls and voting doesn’t really cost anything. If you want to minimize your consumption of oil and natural gas, the government isn’t stopping you. The only thing stopping you is the trade offs and costs in the real world. Electric cars are expensive. Public transportation is a pain in the ass. Air conditioning and heat from natural gas are cheap and convenient. Solar panels mean living a less comfortable life with more inconvenience and expense. Americans’ consumer behavior is a more accurate reflection of reality than an election, and it isn’t just because they buy things more than once every four years.

        It’s because voting for something is almost completely divorced from the costs of doing it in real time. Markets account for the real costs in real time. People make dozens of consumer choices every day, and the choices they make reflect the things they really care about. If people want to pay more in taxes, they’re free to do so. What’s stopping them? Here’s the link:

        https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

        1. The cost of the cars is coming down you can get a Tesla for $40k. The e-mustang SUV for $46 k. You can get cars in the $30 K range.

          They are not for everyone but for mostly just driving around town they are good and fun to drive.

          It is dumb for the government to talk about mandates. The cars are selling themselves and as the costs come down more people will buy them.

          1. Does this contradict something I wrote?

            1. Why do you think everything is a contradiction?

          2. Using the price of an EV as proof of market forces is pretty hilarious, once you actually think about it.

            1. Even if that did accurately reflect the concerns of consumers, how does that contradict anything I wrote?

              IF IF IF it’s becoming easier to make the choice to go electric because of market demand, why does that mean the government should force others to do it against their will?

              1. I specifically said the government should not be involved.

                1. What difference does that make?

                  My position is that market forces are people making choices, and, therefore, markets, rather than election and politicians, are the more authentic voice of the American people.

                  Your observation that electric cars are becoming more affordable does absolutely nothing to counter that whatsoever, and I don’t see why it would. Did you think that observation ran counter to my argument in some way?

                  1. Electric cars are basically coal powered vehicles. Which is good because the US has a lot of coal.
                    The downside to electric cars is that in many areas the drivers are not paying for the roads and bridges they use (no gas = no gas tax paid). Maybe that is why there is such a problem with the transportation infrastructure.

                    1. Some places, like in Southern California, are powered by hydro from the Hoover Dam. Other places are powered by nuclear, solar, or wind in southern California. More places are powered by natural gas than coal. Almost all of them may release less CO2 into the atmosphere than gasoline or diesel. The market participants who pay a premium for electric because they care about the environment are reflecting their concerns through their market participation, but there are other reasons to go electric than just the environment. Some of them buy electric cars because it’s fashionable. Some people will pay a premium so that their wife never again has to deal with homeless people hassling her for change when she’s at the gas station. She can just power up at home.

                      Whatever their concerns are, their qualitative preferences, they’re reflected by their market participation more so than how they vote. How people vote–on such issues–is more of a reflection of the kind of person they’d like to be, theoretically, when cost isn’t a concern. In the real world, TANSTAAFL. If and when the price of gasoline goes up to $5.00 a gallon or their heating bill or AC bill skyrockets, those same people will be voting to throw Biden out on his ass. I thought if we liked our car, we could keep our car!

                      It is true that government intervention, subsidies, taxes, tax credits, etc. can and does distort market signals, but even with those distortions, market signals are more authentic than election results because they’re tied to cost in more than a theoretical way.

                      Tesla is probably a good example of that. Their sales continued to rise even through the pandemic, when all the other auto maker were cutting production due to lack of demand. The best argument against the subsidies for Teslas is that even from a green authoritarian socialist perspective, those subsidies were entirely unnecessary. Tesla’s biggest problem has always been manufacturing enough cars to meet demand–not trying to generate more demand. If early Tesla buyers had been forced to wait six months instead of a year, there probably would have been more than enough demand anyway. They’ve always sold every one they made before it was manufactured.

                    2. Neither are the cyclists and governments are handing over one lane for their exclusive use.

                    3. Tesla is probably a good example of that. Their sales continued to rise even through the pandemic, when all the other auto maker were cutting production due to lack of demand. The best argument against the subsidies for Teslas is that even from a green authoritarian socialist perspective, those subsidies were entirely unnecessary.

                      Locking people in their homes was, in effect, a subsidy for a shorter range electric vehicles.

        2. Markets account for the real costs in real time.

          Markets only account for stuff that is priced. In truth, most commenters here are more interested in making sure nothing that is currently unpriced is ever priced in the future.
          eg Clean air.

      2. IMO What the Dems are doing is part of a generational transformation. The first 20 trillion in debt was almost entirely incurred by old/dead people for the benefit of old/dead people with young/future people responsible for paying the bill on that – forever.

        That’s a recipe for debt repudiation. Which has a very ugly consequence. There is no possible ‘financial responsibility’ – not even theoretically. There is no political will for future financial restraint – by anyone.

        So the way to reduce the risk of debt repudiation is to overtly start incurring debt for some future perceived benefit – for future generations to ‘accept’ and not repudiate. Right now:
        $4.7 trillion in debt is less than one yr maturity – interest 0.1%
        $11 trillion is one to 10 year maturity – interest 1.6%
        $3 trillion is >10 year maturity – interest 3.3%
        with the rest TIP’s and floating rate.

        There is already a big risk with the short maturities. Compounded if those who are concerned about the 10+ time horizon tell the govt to fuck off.

    5. “This elitism is another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.”

      Then there’s also yet ANOTHER kind of elitism… One in which trumpanzees gone apeshit in DC, 6th Jan. 2021 (0.000??xyz% of the voters) think that they, the Q-Anon-annointed elite, are entitled to replace democracy with mobocracy! THESE are even yet MORE horrible people!

      The below is mostly FACTS, with very little editorializing. Refute the FACTS, please!

      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

      1. 300 or 400 people trespassing on public property because they thought an election was stolen is not an example of elitism by any definition, and if you think it is, then you may be an example of loopy-ass, media panic induced pants-shitting.

        1. P.S. Using media panics as a bullshit justification for elitist Democrats using the coercive power of government to inflict their qualitative preferences on the rest of us, who don’t share them, is another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

          1. (Hey Welch, that includes you.)

        2. “…because they thought an election was stolen …”

          Chase the rabbit down the rabbit-hole, Ken, and try to understand WHY they thought that! You will find a VERY deep and dark rabbit hole, which is almost all about near-infinite power-lust and imaginary self-perfection in the dark Mind of Dear Leader! I don’t hate or oppose all of what the GOP stands for, but, fer Chrissakes, next time, PICK A CANDIDATE WITH MUCH BETTER CHARACTER!

          1. Your obsessions don’t justify elitists inflicting their qualitative preferences on the rest of us, using the coercive power of government, and if you can’t even respond to that without getting loopy, you should probably see a professional and get some counseling. Tell them 400 people went ape-shit four months ago, you were traumatized by it, and it’s made you loopy as fuck. Talk therapy may be sufficient, but you might need medication, as well.

          2. For the mouth breather crowd, it really was just about mean tweets.

            1. Hey mouth breather… If it is ONLY about mean tweets, then educate us all, and refute the FACTS in the link below:

              The below is mostly FACTS, with very little editorializing. Refute the FACTS, please!

              https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
              Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

              1. Post a few more links. A mouth breather tactic.

                1. So that the REAL mouth breathers can stick their heads in the sands, NOT read them, and say, Nanny-nanny boo bah, I can’t hear you”?

                  Orange-dick-suckers will NEVER stop sucking orange dick!
                  Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating for democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!
                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
                  A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses
                  Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”

                  September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.

                  Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
                  It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

                  1. I searched Salon Trump and Salon. Given some of the links were regarding Pelosi’s hypocrisy, the top results were Salon articles regarding tweets. It was about mean tweets. And the mouth breathers ate it up. In between using their mouths for breathing.

                    1. Sqrlsy doesn’t realize that quoting Salon on prog issues is like asking Ted Cruz if he’s a fan of Texas.

                    2. The followup had a link from CNN. Safe bet for next link is HuffPo. A YT link to The View is the dark horse.

            2. “For the mouth breather crowd, it really was just about mean tweets.”

              Hitler and the NAZIs constantly sent “mean tweets” of their days, about Jews. Some 6,000,000 of them (and others) died, from the long-term effects of these “mean tweets”. Please get the Long Island Medium, or some other magical person, to convey to the 6,000,000 dead Jews, that they shouldn’t be such cry-babies about “mean tweets”, and get back to us, what they have to say about THAT!

              1. That takes some mental gymnastics to link mean tweets to the Shoah. And to think I lean more towards harsh war reparations, the “stab in the back” fallacy and “us against them” tribalism. But mean tweets it is.
                You do have a point when Trump continued his Nazi ways when he blocked that prospective peace accord between Israel and the UAE.

                1. The bottom line (and the bottom lie!) remains, lies, like elections, have consequences. And Big Lies have Big Consequences!

                  1. Mean. Tweets. *Howard Dean screech*

    6. American socialism is when industry is owned by relatives and cronies, prices are set by the government that benefits relatives and cronies, and wealth is distributed by the government after they take the lion share of the cut. examples: Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.

    7. Yes and look at the train wreck over this virus caused by OBAMA CARE.

  11. To me, “equity” – just like “social justice” – has always meant “getting what you deserve.” That only has a chance of happening in a Meritocracy, not in a society where government Top. Men. put their thumbs on the scale of justice.

    1. They always have and always will. Libertarians recognize this which is why they advocate for smaller, limited government.

      1. youre quitea LIAR.

        I bought the Official Libertarian party platform documents a few years ago. It was 100 % BIG GIVERNNENT EXPANSION FOR CORPORATE WELFARE. for insane faux public works projects like water pipelines to pipe excess flood water from one part of the country to another.

        Libertaruans ars Liberal Democrats that advocate Corporate Welfare instead of Individual welfare

    2. Equity is just moving the goalposts so the game never ends. Racism was at an all time low a few years ago, so the social injustice warriors seized on a few examples of police misconduct in Dem controlled cities, by members of public employee unions which funded the Dem politicians, and called it “systemic racism”.

      1. Racism was not at an all time low. It was just that fewer people were complaining about it.

        There are racists and antisemites who post right here. It never went away.

        Police misconduct is a problem for all of us and if you think black people get a fair deal from them you are kidding yourself.

        1. At what point in history was racism lower than in the modern era, one might simply ask.

          1. I think it has been about the same for the past few decades. There are changes in overt expression but the basic attitudes are still there.

            I know it is different but in my Jewish experience, often people don’t know you are Jewish so you hear something anti Semitic when they would never say it if they knew.

            There is a lot of covert racism out there.

            1. You should hear some of the things Jews say when they think you’re Jewish.

          2. So I don’t think it changed in the last few years. It is just more overt.

            1. Agree. The defense of college admissions offices discriminating against Asian Americans does seem more overt now.

              1. It was overt as were other things I won’t go into, 30 years ago. This sort of discrimination goes back much further than that.

                To see it going on today. I thought we could have gone past that by now.

                1. Where specifically? What specifically?

                  1. Nope.

                    1. It is easy to cast wide accusations. But ghost hunting doesn’t produce results. Specific examples can be discussed. Like the current discrimination against Asian American college applicants. Or the major soft drink manufacturer training employees to be less of a specific race then listing traits of that race and saying to not be like that.

      2. I do agree that this equity talk is ridiculous.

    3. Precisely. Holding people back because of their race is wrong. It doesnt make it ok because you think the people being held back are immoral, nor if the people held back are the majority.

      1. I take the biological view that race is a myth. We are really talking about culture here. Culture is not easily defined and is not fixed. It changes over time and is influenced by interactions with other neighboring cultures. It is dynamic.

        So neither is really satisfactory as a basis for civil life.

        Libertarians offer another view but few, even here, are willing to take that risk.

        1. It’s simply a rough test of how far away from the equator your ancestors lived. Take the populations of Ireland and Nigera, swap them, and wait a few thousand years. See what happens.

  12. Well they are democrats, so expect them to fuck it up and the slavering media to cover it up.

    Oh and this notion of criminal justice reform, if you mean stop harassing people selling cigs and buying drugs ok fine, if you mean lighten sentences for violent crimes go fuck yourself. No society tolerates murder, rape, robbery, and assault without ending itself.

    1. As well as asset forfeiture, no knock warrants, drug decriminalization, and qualified immunity.

  13. “There’s a big difference between equality and equity…”

    Somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.1 trillion dollars, apparently.

  14. “Striving for equality under the law—removing legal discrimination by government—was less ambitious, but more doable.”

    Also more legal and constitutional, as required by the 14th Amendment. But no one uses the Constitution anymore.

    1. More importantly, equality under law is moral. Striving for equal results is not.

  15. “Districts adhering to the 6-foot rule require massive staffing increases…”

    Or, and just hear me out, massive staffing decreases, so the staff members are automatically farther apart?

  16. It’s really simple — the fake economy of money printing and distribution is overtaking the real economy of voluntary transactions. These days it’s better to be close to the money printers than to take care of your customers.

    This is where the ride gets bumpy. Buckle up.

    1. Well said.

    2. Political donations have had a higher rate of return than actual investment for decades now.

  17. Yeah, no shit Welch. Next you’re going to tell us that water is wet.

    How about engaging in some effective advocacy for libertarianism for a change?

  18. Good article. Thanks, Matt.

  19. It turns out women are more sensitive to any risk whatsoever than their male counterparts in the workforce would be my takeaway from the employment numbers.

    That, or ‘minority single mothers’ are overwhelmingly in careers that were the specific one’s the Democrats decided to eviscerate.

    Probably a mix of both, though.

    Guess this helps explain why you don’t see a lot of women in high-mortality careers. I guess Democrats need to start putting incentives and mandates on jobs that might end up with you dead. I wonder how much women will like that, and I suppose they should be forced into those jobs at gunpoint by the government in the name of ‘equity’.

    Also, kudos to Welch for noticing the pattern. Guess voting for the likes of Biden was a stupid move after all, although I suppose we can all be consoled by the fact he’s lying through his teeth on what he believes in order to become President.

    1. “It turns out women are more sensitive to any risk whatsoever than their male counterparts in the workforce would be my takeaway from the employment numbers.”

      This would certainly be true, amongst families whose kids who would otherwise be in school, given the disparity in median income between women and men, where the lower wage-earner would be more likely to quit working or shorten their hours to stay home.

    2. Closing the schools must of had a lot to do with it.

      1. “must of”

        Yikes

    3. Equity demands that an equal number of women die at work.

      1. Or an equal number of women become incarcerated. Or pay child support.

        1. Equity starts to not sound so great.

    4. Hahaha, they will simply hire women and not assigne them dangerous task (or any at all), while still paying them the same. Problem solved.

  20. Wrong, but within normal parameters.

    I mean, this mag pushed for these people – they weren’t hiding it. And now it’s nothing but a bunch of articles complaining about the doing what they said they would do.

    You said these two were better than Trump.

    No mean tweets is worth it?

    1. “this mag pushed for these people”

      It did not.

    2. It was critical of Trump but I don’t recall any Biden endorsements.

      1. It exaggerated and at times completely fabricated Tump’s problems, while diminishing or ignoring the problems with his opponents.

        And it’s also clear why Reason writers did that, and why they write most of what they do: they want to appear to be clever independent thinkers, without ever straying outside the narrow range of allowable opinions among the American intelligentisa.

        Reason represents the kind of token opposition authoritarian regimes like to have: a non-threatening fig leaf that will never have any actual influence on real world politics.

      2. You mean you missed the exaggeration of every Trump fault – including imaginary ones – alongside the minimizing of Biden’s?

        Did you miss the ‘wrong, but within normal parameters’ and the whole ‘Biden is an adult?

  21. Government policies and programs are never truly for the purported people or purpose but for politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies power, ‘profit’, and privilege.

    Obama let slip the Democrats true purpose when he said “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends….” Trump was the Republicans unconditional surrender to the same perverse purpose. That this was the original and continuing true purpose of government does not fully discount the real value to John Q. Citizen of governments’ previous efforts to hide it or of having a powerful faction, here formerly the Republicans, whose argument was to limit its unbridled pursuit. Loosed from pretense or pretense of opposition its been rapidly growing trillions of dollars of “…punish our enemies, and…reward our friends…” since 2009.

    “Love your country, but never trust its government.”
    ~ Robert A. Heinlein

    1. No dipshit Trump was the answer to Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, and Bush and the Big Government GOP that paid lip service to the deficit and immigration while taxing the shit out of us and solving zero problems and continuing the goal of throwing American soldiers at every international problem they couldn’t negotiate diplomatically. All while giving the far left a handjob and handing our jobs to China Korea and India and every other place on the globe expecting us to laugh it off and take our fentanyl.

      1. For an answer to the deficit, his administration did a lot of spending.

        1. Yes, and Trumpy the cheeseburger eating surrender monkey to Democrat style spending showed in the debt.

          “President Donald Trump certainly lived up to his self-proclaimed status as the King of Debt during his term in office. The national debt spiked by $7 trillion during Trump’s tenure”

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/business/biden-stimulus-debt-trump/index.html

        2. The stimulus checks were a bad idea imo. Thankfully those have stopped. /sarc

          Also didn’t agree with the bonus unemployment checks.

        3. And if anyone doubts that Trump’s deficits and debt was anything more than “…punish our enemies, and…reward our friends…” waste and graft they need only look at what he and it did for the economy.

          “Here’s a look at average GDP growth rates under the last six U.S. presidents:

          Jimmy Carter (D): 3.25%
          Ronald Reagan (R): 3.48%
          George H.W. Bush (R): 2.25%
          Bill Clinton (D): 3.88%
          George W. Bush (R): 2.2%
          Barack Obama (D): 1.62%
          Donald Trump (R): 0.95%

          In his first four years in office, Trump has had by far the lowest average U.S. GDP growth rate of any of the last seven U.S. presidents.”

          https://www.benzinga.com/general/education/

          Trump was Obama’s third term whence surrendered to unconditionally “…punish our enemies, and…reward our friends…” ruled and ruined America.

          1. To be fair, Trump’s final year in office coincided with a pandemic where most states significantly restricted the ability of the economy to grow.

            1. Agreed, Trump’s “…punish our enemies, and…reward our friends…” governance was, also, a public health failure. Even with India’s rampant caseload, poverty, new variants, and four times our population; Trump lost 100,000 more Americans to Covid – the most of any nation, despite having every potential advantage available here.

              1. Trump did fight against fast tracking vaccines. His “Operation Sloth Speed” slowed down the progress. And his reluctance to restrict travel to and from areas with surges was reprehensible. And then his ordering of covid positive New Yorkers into nursing homes against Governor Cuomo’s objections was horrendous.

                1. Attempted sarcasm makes whataboutism no more of an excuse for Trump’s worst in the world failure in this pandemic. No excuses exist for Trump failing the nation with all of the advantages against C-19 to the degree that it has the most cases and deaths in the world. His was an epic inexcusable failure.

                  1. Whataboutism would be to bring up another country’s situation to the United States when the topic was why the economic growth has dropped recently.

                    What specifically should have been done at the federal level that wasn’t?

                    1. He should have been more authoritarian?

        4. Trump was very pliable. If either Ryan or Pelosi presented sane spending bills he would have signed them as well. Buckleup’s points still stand regarding the GOP.

      2. No, Trump was the full surrender to open, blatant, and unopposed grievance and graft governance. No one except those that refused to see did not know this from the start. What else could we expect from a lifelong NYC Democrat and Democrat crony and donor?

        Trading DC swamp rats for NYC sewer rats got us only even more septic rats. Rats that weakened us with disease and chewed even bigger holes into our homes for the returning swamp rats to use.

        1. Can you provide a list of all that grievance and graft?

  22. But the equity fad also offers an opportunity. Focusing on results rather than intent is what citizenship (and political journalism) should be about, but too rarely is. We’re all better off treating the intent of powerful actors with default skepticism and demanding that they show their work.

    You mean like 6.4% GDP growth? That’s the thing about free market fetishists and deficit hawks (at least when Democrats are in power), it just doesn’t seem like there’s a trend line out there that correlates their expected outcomes on the y-axis with their policy prescriptions on the x-axis.

    1. Biden has done nothing for the economy or COVID yet; he hasn’t been in office long enough.

      What Biden has done is set us up for massive economic failure in the future.

    2. Will he take the blame for the 170,000 dead from the China virus on his first 100 days? How many more will die under the SleepyJoe regime?

  23. Is this Reason’s way of admitting we lost?

    1. No, it’s just the usual inconsequential Reason platitudes. Reason trots out libertarianish arguments when it is safe to do so and won’t rock the boat. When push comes to shove, like before elections, they throw their lot in with the intelligentsia and kleptocracy. After all, look at who finances them.

      1. Their absolute silence on the consequences of the Georgia Senate runoff elections is a classic example of the fog that did not bark.

        They are getting exactly what they wanted.

        1. Dog, not fog.

          Ducking autocorrect

  24. Wow, it’s almost like their ‘professed goals’ are a bunch of bullshit to con people into voting for them so they can enrich themselves and their cronies.

    1. Always.

  25. “Should we strive for equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome?”

    Neither. Equal treatment is the only workable ideal.

  26. “”Equitable treatment means”—the two hikers, now joined in success after the disadvantaged one was given a boost up, gaze confidently at the horizon from atop the summit—”we all end up at the same place.””

    Which assumes everyone is trying to get to the same place. Is willing to put in the same amount of effort in getting to that place and the only thing preventing them from getting to the same place are external factors. All of these are bad assumptions, especially on the individual level.

    Trying to ensure everyone gets to the same place means that those that fall behind for lack of ambition, focus, commitment to hard work and talent will expect to be carried. And those who have those things will recognize they are getting the short end of the stick and will resent it.

  27. Harrison Bergeron was not an instruction manual.

    1. “Hold my beer” – The DNC

  28. Despite their professed goals, Democrats’ pandemic policies have widened disparities between races, classes, and genders.

    File this under ‘DUHHHH’…

    1) Equality of outcome is not desirable
    2) Equality of outcome comes at the expense of equal opportunity
    3) Democrats are completely retarded

    1. Equality of outcome is an insane strawman that nobody in politics advocates.

      Except Republicans and minorities. They want them all equally genocided.

      1. On Jan 26, President Biden released a fact sheet outlining a multi element initiative for “advancing racial equity in Americans.” It uses inequity of outcome as support for the upcoming programs. It is available at the Whitehouse.gov website. It is titled:

        FACT SHEET: President Biden to Take Action to Advance Racial Equity and Support Underserved Communities

        Add President Biden to your list of folks.

        1. I know you think you’ve made some kind of point, uncovered a communist smoking gun, etc., but just explain one thing.

          How in the fuck do you even know there’s a problem without studying outcomes? Of course there are unequal outcomes with respect to race. That’s the entire problem trying to be solved.

          I think I may have misjudged you people’s attitude on this. It’s not that you think Democrats are engaged in a maniacal plot to transfer wealth to blacks until they have as much money as whites.

          You actually think government (and the public) shouldn’t even care if being born to a certain race determines your probability of success. You think we should ignore race altogether and let people live where their parents shit, and that’s the best possible form of society, because freedom.

          1. The initiatives aren’t just to study the outcomes. The initiatives are to fix the inequity. Such as forgiving student debt because blacks are disproportionately represented by those with student loans. Inequity of outcome. Again, put President Boden on your list.

            One of the studies is to address discrimination against Asian Americans. My suggestion would be to end the racist college acceptance standards. Because it is an equity of outcome that actually reduces the equal opportunity for Asian students. I’m not holding my breath on this coming to fruition though.

            1. I think you shouldn’t worry so much about achieving a theoretical ideal situation of absolute fairness. If you buy the idea that slavery and ensuing racism causes massive race-based social inequalities, then there is certainly no measure of recompense that could undo that damage.

              There would have been no Industrial Revolution as we know it without the Atlantic slave trade. If we were moral beings we would be giving all of our wealth to the blacks and apologizing for what we’ve done until we die. Alas, it’s a matter of politics, so they’ll probably have to do with whatever doesn’t offend the sensibilities of anyone to the right of Joe Manchin.

              1. Have you given all of your wealth to descendants of slaves?

                1. That’s why he’s pushing for tax increases – expecting him to live up to his own principles when nobody else will is just so damn unfair.

                2. Of course not. Solve nothing and make myself poor for a self-congratulatory social gesture? I won’t make myself poor for any reason. Not to save a baby in a crosswalk. (Well, let’s put a pin in that one.)

                  I think the core mismatch in understanding these concepts is that conservatives approach politics with their ape-brains, overly concerned with which individuals deserve reward or punishment based on their deeds or inherent worth. Oy, have the Christians even figured that one out yet after two thousand years?

                  Progressives tend to make humanity abstract and think about the ethical math and science of improving the conditions of society for current and future members, with respect to the inequities under discussion.

                  Of course it’s an absolute farce for someone to fixate on individual moral culpability yet advocate that outright Nazis should get to go on discriminating, on principle. So many stacked decks in the institutional racism game.

                  1. So have others be the change you want to see?

                    1. You don’t have to do anything but sit there. If you’re rich enough for any politician to dare suggest raising your taxes, you’re pretty fucking rich and have nothing to complain about.

                      It’s not about us as individuals. It’s not about whether our personal ancestors were slaves or those who made slaves. It’s just about the existing obnoxious social conditions that through time have resulted from slavery. Who can be against trying to fix that?

                      Pandemics aren’t anyone’s fault either, yet in addition to objecting to emergency stimulus payments, your team screamed bloody murder for the right to behave as flagrant Karens over hygiene measures meant to reduce the misery.

                      Stop peacocking around your desire to do active harm, then we’ll discuss my alleged hypocrisies.

                    2. So you need others to be the change that you refuse to be.

                    3. I need you to be a non-vile human being.

              2. The Industrial Revolution started in Britain with British labor(or labour).
                You are free as a bird to give all your wealth, your job and even your boyfriend to the blacks if you so please. There were plenty of laboring people in the US who had nothing to do with slavery.
                The government and big business have made carve outs to the black community since the sixties. Almost 60 years!
                Desegregation was in effect in the North and implemented in the South in the 50’s.
                In the 60s LBJ dumped a half a billion, with his Model Cities Programs, just on Detroit which soon burned down in a race riot.
                In the 70s, School bussing.
                In the 80s. federal judges ordered more than $2 billion in new spending by the school district to encourage desegregation just in Kansas City.
                All this ended with no improvement in “equity”

                1. Yeah, it started in Britain, who sent many boats to Africa to gather humans and take them to the Americas to trade them for rum and sugar. You people are right that building wealth causes progress. And when you have a resource-rich continent full of free human laborers, you get generate some wealth.

                  Yeah we had social programs, and that doesn’t mean they all solved all the problems. We’re at the tail end of an era in which Democrats eliminated welfare based on Republican small-government euphemisms. We have an ascendent political right-wing unified by its desire to ethnically cleanse the country. Equality of opportunity was never achieved, if you look at any of the numbers. So, sorry, more work to do. If you’re a white male, you have the least to worry about in this paradigm, so you can chill out.

                  1. Not as many boats as the Spanish who never could get the Industrial Revolution thing right or the Turks.

                    1. Those are complications that don’t matter to the point. Maybe the British are inherently more industrious people. Maybe they happen to have a lot of coal.

                      All the better for them to manage the riches generated by slavery. Banking was invented for this purpose. The concept of banking itself owes its origins to slavery. In this sense, capitalism itself was invented to do the accounting of the wealth that free black labor generated.

                      Everyone, black, white, and Chinese benefitted materially from this. So if arguing that blacks should continue suffering the generational consequences of their ancestors’ stolen labor, bodies, and lives, you’re not just beating up the weak kid, you’re shoving his face in the toilet and saying fairness demands it.

                  2. We’re at the tail end of an era in which Democrats eliminated welfare based on Republican small-government euphemisms.

                    WTF? Seriously, how old are you? What color male are you? Who the hell are you playing up to, imaginary people of color friends?

                    Welfare never got eliminated. It never went away and it never got smaller.

                    Do you live in a cloister? On another planet?

                    1. Bill Clinton ended federal welfare. It became TANF, block grants to states. I’m sure Mississippi is doing nothing but expanding on that antipoverty pocket change.

                    2. Yeah we had social programs, and that doesn’t mean they all solved all the problems.
                      If blacks are still living in abject poverty and the bottom of the pyramid the social programs didn’t solve anything.
                      Again, how old are you? Are you not aware of any the programs and money spent in fruitless ambitions? You are just advocating doing the same things over again.

                    3. I have no idea what Mississippi is doing. I know a lot of black people have moved back there so there must see something they like.

                    4. No, your argument really is that the programs didn’t solve the problems to my satisfaction, thus they were complete failures. It’s equally likely that they were woefully insufficient to the task. There were no “black welfare” programs, remember. And poverty among those groups that got help, especially the elderly, absolutely leveled off and has never returned to its pre-welfare extremes.

                      The 1970s saw the rise of a great backlash to all the progressive programs of the 1930s onward, sparked by the progress happening in the 1960s on civil rights. Of course, the backlash had always been there, but the idea of black people participating in the social gains was what really turned up the populist fervor.

                      This led to the era of Reaganism, anti-governmentism motivated by pro-racism, and vast cuts to taxes and social welfare programs. Clinton succeeded politically by promising and doing the same.

                      It is perhaps only Biden’s last speech that signaled an end to this era. The Ace fell out of your sleeves. We know that giving money to people makes them less poor, because having more money is the definition of less poor. And now everyone knows that this was all a marketing campaign by a few greedy rich kooks to transform the country into a radical libertarian experiment and pocket the windfall for themselves. And that marketing campaign was stoking racial tension. And that led to a bloody, nonmetaphorical campaign against the United States Congress, all the wholly manufactured rage projected onto a fat, orange reality TV star.

                      I must admit I didn’t predict that last part.

      2. Is Babblefish still a thing?

        1. I think I need to pay attention more to the look of the words as opposed to their sound. It’s odd because I consider myself more of a writer, as I’m a something short of an extemporaneous wit in social interactions. Only on the staircase.

      3. Equality of outcome is an insane strawman that nobody in politics advocates.

        I see you’re unfamiliar with the never-ending soap opera that is the FDNY’s entrance exam results. They seem to toss every other class for not living up to the equality of outcome for which nobody advocates.

        Except Republicans and minorities. They want them all equally genocided.

        There was an interesting study a couple years back about the intersection of bigotry and politics – it turns out that after controlling for political affiliation, Republicans/conservatives are significantly less likely than liberals/Democrats to display bias towards members of any given race. This shouldn’t surprise anyone that knows what happened to Tim Scott this week, or has any familiarity with the career of Clarence Thomas.

        1. Interestingly, I’m very familiar with that firefighter case (which he won in the supreme court). I know the firefighter personally. Just a weird thing.

          I need to see this study that “controls for political affiliation” so I can judge its credibility and its claims against your characterization. It won’t take me long.

          Tim Scott is the single black Republican Senator, correct? The one they put on TV a lot to explain why Republicans aren’t racist?

          It’s the political party version of “I can’t be racist because I have a black friend.”

          Clarence Thomas has probably deep and profound and complex psychological issues.

          But if you think being nonracist means you can never criticize a minority, then no wonder you hate the idea.

          1. Yes Tim Scott is the one and only black republican senator in contrast with the democrats 2.

            1. So we agree that there still exist societal barriers to black success.

              That our government, if it’s biased in one direction at all, must clearly be biased against the interests of black people, what with having so few of their voices among them.

              1. Are you advocating for rezoning election districts? When a population exists in concentration in specific areas it’s tough to get larger representation in areas where it does not exist. Remove representative government go to full democracy?

                1. Running for Congress is a bit far up on the achievement ladder. I’m talking about the basic redistributive policies that will help close the outcome gaps between the races.

                  Meanwhile, some unofficial affirmative action doesn’t hurt anyone. I’m not actually in favor of any official version, and I think the conservatard Supreme Court made it illegal anyway.

                  As for districts, yeah, I’d make some changes. They’re all waiting to be passed by the Senate and signed by Biden as we speak.

                  (You’re against those measures because you like it that Republicans win elections despite being unwanted by majorities, but you’ll probably say something like “election integrity” or some other obvious Republican euphemism.)

  29. I don’t know which nerd told them to go on about this “equity” thing, but it seems to me not an inspired choice to a) try to teach Americans a new word that b) Joran Peterson and his army of incel retards think is literally satanism.

    Often I have to tell myself that they actually are talking to black voters and not me, and not non-college white dudes, and really not libertarians. Black voter enthusiasm got them over the finish line in several close elections, and non-college whites are either totally fickle or totally gone to Trumptard land.

    Sometimes it helps to remember that every politician pandering to whiny white conservative men is, itself, a potentially racist act, inasmuch as they may have been fixated on them for so many decades against their better interests.

    In short, they’re probably not talking to me, and they definitely aren’t talking to you. One thing about the Biden administration is that they have been better at politics than any fathomable alternative, especially one with a lefty or minority at the top.

    All they’re talking about, when you get over your confusion about terminology, is equality of opportunity, which you people have been insisting is a good and proper aim of government. So don’t go changing your mind now.

    1. Can you cite where minority Americans are being denied access to covid vaccines or where there has been gerrymandering of clinics to avoid minorities having reasonable access to covid vaccines? The FDA has released statements regarding the disparity of vaccination rates between blacks and hispanics versus whites. Without an active campaign against minority access to vaccines, this is an “equity of outcome” issue that the FDA is concerned about.

      1. I don’t quite know what your complaint is here. Everyone needs to get vaccinated because that’s how vaccines work. They can actively spend money to prioritize freckled gingers for all I care as long as they get shots in all the arms.

        The desired outcome, to repeat, is shots in all the arms. The desired outcome is absolute equality of outcomes!

        Without looking it up in the woke-tionary, I don’t know what equity means other than a stock or how much of my house I can borrow against. But apparently they use “equity” to mean fairness and justice, in contrast to equality, which is equal outcomes, the unimaginable horror you’re so concerned about.

        1. At least you are now admitting you support equality of outcome. Which is appreciably different than your original post.

          1. I don’t support it, nor do I believe it to be anything but an absurd fantasy used 100% of the time in political hysteria-mongering as a strawman of progressive policies.

            But you’ve made me think about it. I do support equality of outcomes, to a degree. Not all outcomes–that’s absurd–but some of them. So do you.

            I support a regime that spares no effort to achieve equality of outcomes in the criminal justice system, when that outcome is justice. In an ideal world, everyone should received the same justice. That’s what the blindfold is for.

            Beyond that there are, let’s say, equality of outcomes+. We get everyone to an equal place, and beyond that they can go their separate ways a thrive in all the colors of the rainbow. A floor on the level of misery our rich, advanced society prevents humans in its purview from falling beneath. A safety net.

            And any public program you support that you think should result in everyone having the same rights is an “equality of outcome” concern. So either way we’re disagreeing about nothing.

            1. The justice system should be fair to all. That isn’t equal outcome. That is equal opportunity. Chauvin didn’t have an equal opportunity in his case. I believe he was guilty of serious crime but I don’t think he received a fair trial.

              I’m not entitled to someone else’s wealth. That is theft. So I can’t support the “get everyone to an equal place” plan. Oprah earned her money and she shouldn’t be forced to give it to me or anyone else.

              1. You say equal opportunity, I say equal justice. Same thing, a semantic concern. The founders chose justice, but who am I to nitpick?

                Manifestly unequal is your concern about opportunity or justice. Chauvin didn’t receive a fair trial? Possibly. He got the same trial as everyone else, and that’s a big part of equal justice. Yeah it was in a fevered media spotlight, but OJ’s was too and he got off, so call it a wash. They’re jury trials. Ever served on a jury? I wouldn’t call it so much an exercise in judiciousness as it is an exercise in figuring out the fastest way to get out of there and to Applebee’s for some happy-hour riblets.

                If you’re still concerned about the unfair treatment of a murdering pig cop, chalk it up to a bad system we’re all trying to fix, if you’ll just let us do something about murdering pig cops as a small first step.

                Oprah didn’t invent television, nor did she have to pay royalties to the guy who did. We all benefit from society, so we pay taxes to maintain it, and smart economies have figured out the benefits of using some of that money for a safety net. And why not? Why force capitalism into a box where it’s mostly concerned about providing rats for starving children instead of iphones for fat ones? These programs make capitalism work on a more sophisticated plane. That can be the only excuse you need to support them.

                1. You start by claiming to support equal justice then accept things like Maxine Waters encouraging a violent mob to pressure the jury into a specific outcome. That trial should have been moved.

                  Anyhow, equity is just a tool to take shit from folks because they have more than you. Got it. Thanks.

                  1. Who in the actual fuck brought up Maxine Waters?

                    Stop watching FOX News. Make that our first step, and then get back to me when your head has some fucking facts in it.

                    Jesus Christ. Fuck Maxine Waters. She has no power over anything. You’re being used by assholes. Stop beclowning yourself.

        2. youre a liar.

          vaccines do not work bc of popularity. Thats a political meme.

          Thet stimulate a PERSONS individual immune system They do not act on group.

          your Communist udealogy is showing

  30. Ahem. I would now like to offer a defense of teaching patriotic ahistorical idealized history in schools.

    Patriotic history should probably go, because obviously we want to move the world to rely less and less on arbitrary tribal distinctions for its incentives. Lines on a map are literally no reason to go to war, and we have global problems to solve collectively before we go to our doom arguing about whose deity has the bigger cock. All the stuff John Lennon was trying to tell us.

    But a rose-colored history? Maybe it’s best for kids.

    Rigorous historical research should find facts where it can, arrange them in narratives that illuminate a time and place while minimizing bias. We are curious about the way our same species behaves under different conditions. It’s something to be curious about.

    But If you’re propagandized into believing history was less bloody than it actually was when you’re young, maybe you come into adulthood primed for participation in a more moral society than the ones that came before. Maybe terrible people would rather compare their relative harm to Hitler’s instead of Bernie Madoff’s. But maybe we should be encoded with the instinct to do the latter instead. Maybe we should, to a degree, forget how awful people were so that we don’t feel that their bloody tribal barbarism is even an option, given the moral framework shaped for us.

    Given how the actual barbarians were relatively civilized compared to popular assumption, that would be a prime if ironic example of why doling out historical brownie points is problematic.

    Of course that would require making the Rosa Parkses into even bigger deals than they already are too, not just George Washington (the murdering psychopath).

    1. Ultimately, you just want other people to fund your pet projects and for you to take shit from them so they have less and you have more.

    2. Patriotic history should probably go, because obviously we want to move the world to rely less and less on arbitrary tribal distinctions for its incentives.

      Why? Are you asserting that Lebron James would be a better player if he just played with whatever 9 other guys decided to show up?

      1. He would be a better player if the other players represented the racial makeup of the country. And they all receive equal compensation. Except minorities receive additional compensation based on how Tony is feeling that day.

        1. They also need to have height equity in the NBA. Why aren’t there more players under 6′ tall? It’s heightist.

      2. Sports can still have teams. Humanity doesn’t need them. They just lead to wars.

  31. Great Post ever I seen on The Equity Mess.
    I want to write some article on Reason.com How can I do that.
    I am also a blogger I have started my blog in 2017 & I am from India.
    I write on my blog Niraj For Help – Sarkari Yojanao Ki Jaankari Hindi Me about Latest Government scheme related articles.

  32. Niche article brother i’m from Indonesia and i writer in systemauni.eu.org

  33. “As those with long enough memories can testify, this type of flight can create a vicious circle for those kids—again, predominantly poor and minority—who are left behind. Fewer students mean less funding…”

    Yeah Welsh, you’re going to have to show your work on that one. Sure, there may be a relative few jurisdictions in which funding is tied to the number of students, but in most districts, particularly large urban districts run by Democrats, there is no such tie in. What’s worse is that in those districts, the teachers’ unions will likely argue that the drop in enrollment requires increased funding to close the mythic “spending gap” between public and private schooling.

  34. Yes Kamel Toe Harris who screwed Willie to get where she is, is a pillar of moral virtue to lecture the rest of us.

    C _ _ T

  35. >>”Equitable treatment means”—the two hikers, now joined in success after the disadvantaged one was given a boost up

    nope. take two.

  36. nrei sevesto njio levaa solu ters Gmail id kaise banaye

  37. insao iknwe chkls ufkkwem enui seiol jeq Android phone vs iPhone in hindi

  38. JoeBob in the holler is as crazy as a bag of live squirrels, a dropout, and a fentanyl addict.

    Jamal in the hood is as dumb as a box of rocks, a dropout, and a crack addict.

    Two mobs are fighting over whether they should take my money to “help” Joe-Bob or Jamal. Oh, and to pay themselves for their fighting. The mobs are so large and engaged that they are blocking the doors and, even, the driveway of the office supply store.

    John, who put himself through business school with honors, needed to get in and out of that store in time to set up his home office for a Zoom meeting.

    Jane needed the purchase that John would have made to become Sales Employee of the Month.

    Jin needed John to make his Zoom meeting to tell him that he pulled his family’s restaurant, started in 1906, through the pandemic thus far well enough that he can add a takeout specific kitchen.

    Juan needed John to give Jin that OK so that Jin can hire his company to build that kitchen.

    You needed John, Jane, Jin, and Juan to all get what they needed; because it’s lunchtime and that’s the most amazing takeout that you’ll never have.

    Welcome to The Equity Mess!

  39. Trumps FDA? Seems like they were all there before Trump and are still there. 95% Democrats. 5% independent??

  40. “We have never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation,” Biden said

    Biden is speaking for himself and the big government political class in DC of the last 50 years. For a change, he surprisingly speaks the truth.

  41. Molecular Docking
    https://www.profacgen.com/molecular-docking.htm
    The interactions between proteins and other molecules play important roles in various biological processes, including gene transcription and expression,

  42. Democrap solution to everything:

    1. Look for a problem, even if it doesn’t really exist

    2. Throw a shitload of money to study/solve the problem by hiring a bunch of experts and bureaucrats.

    3. Call anyone who points out the failure of this approach racist/sexist/ homo-trans phobic/anti-science.

    4. Repeat

  43. “There is all the difference in the world between treating someone equal and attempting to make them equal.” F. A. Hayak

  44. “Always remember, that little girl was me”

    -Last thing Joe hears the before push down the stairs

Comments are closed.