Legislation

The Good and the Bad in the 666 Bills That Took Effect This Week in Texas

While libertarians will be inclined to applaud some of the new laws, others exemplify familiar conservative excesses.

|

This week in Texas, 666 new laws took effect. Aside from its satanic implications, that seemingly large number has no special significance, since most of the bills neither shrink nor expand government in any substantial way. But the new laws include several that libertarians will be inclined to applaud, along with some that are bad in ways that conservatives tend to be bad, such as mindless cultural warfare, tough-on-crime posturing, and ideologically motivated interference with local decisions. Here are some of the highlights.

The Good

Constitutional Carry

As of Wednesday, Texans 21 or older who are legally allowed to own handguns no longer needed a special license to carry them in public places. H.B. 1927 makes Texas the 20th state, and by far the most populous, to adopt that policy, which is based on the premise that law-abiding people should be able to exercise the constitutional right to bear arms without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Handguns remain banned in certain places, including courthouses, polling places, prisons, state-run hospitals, government meetings open to the public, schools, racetracks, airports, amusement parks, and bars.

Alcohol Deregulation

Texas stores are now allowed to sell beer and wine anytime after 10 a.m. on Sundays; the previous cutoff was noon. H.B. 1518 also lets hotels sell alcoholic beverages to registered guests on any day and at any time. Outside of hotels, the sale of distilled spirits remains illegal on Sundays, except for "mixed beverages" in bars and restaurants. Baby steps.

Parental Rights

H.B. 567, which Lenore Skenazy has covered for Reason, specifies that the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship do not include "allowing a child to engage in independent activities that were appropriate and typical for the child's level of maturity, physical condition, developmental abilities, or culture." The Department of Family and Protective Services is "prohibited from taking possession of a child based on evidence that a parent allowed a child to engage in such activities." Nor would the fact that a parent has tested positive for marijuana justify removal, unless "the department had evidence that the parent's use of marijuana had caused significant impairment to the child's physical or mental health or emotional development." The new law also tightens the definition of child neglect.

Police Reform

S.B. 69 imposes new limits on neck restraints, saying police may use them only when it is "necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to or the death of the officer or another person." The law also requires officers to intervene when a colleague uses excessive force.

H.B. 929—known as the Botham Jean Act, after the man who was killed in 2018 by Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who said she mistook his apartment for hers—requires that police officers keep their body cameras on during an active investigation. As the NBC station in Dallas notes, testimony in Guyger's murder trial revealed that "Dallas Police Association President Mike Mata asked another officer to turn off a camera inside a squad car at the scene of the shooting so Guyger and Mata could speak privately."

Criminal Justice Reform

When people commit misdemeanors that are not punishable by incarceration, H.B. 569 requires that judges reduce the fines and fees they owe by $200 for each day they spent in jail for a prior offense. The official bill analysis explains the rationale for that reform:

Upon release from incarceration, many people go home to find out that they have outstanding tickets, fines, and warrants for fine-only misdemeanors, which can preclude the person from securing a driver's license or identification necessary to find employment and pay off their debts. This can lead to formerly incarcerated individuals sometimes driving to work without a license or ID in order to pay off their outstanding debts at the risk of receiving another ticket, which can result in further debt and the possibility of more jail time related to warrants for arrest. This cycle of compiling debt and warrants for arrest related to that debt costs localities time and money and makes successful reintegration into the community for formerly incarcerated individuals extremely difficult.

The Bad

Abortion Ban

S.B. 8, which took effect on Wednesday and remains in effect because the Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency injunction blocking its enforcement, should trouble even people who would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The law prohibits abortion when a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected, which happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women even realize they are pregnant. It therefore bans the vast majority of abortions—at least 85 percent, according to the organizations challenging the law. The only exception is for a "medical emergency," so the ban applies to cases involving rape, incest, or predictably lethal fetal defects.

S.B. 8's enforcement mechanism—which relies on civil lawsuits that can be brought by "any person" and promises plaintiffs a $10,000 bounty per abortion, along with reimbursement of their legal costs—is designed to avoid constitutional review, although the law is plainly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's abortion precedents. This strategy easily could be used to attack other rights that the Court has said are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legislators could, for example, prohibit gun possession or "hate speech," either of which would be clearly unconstitutional under the Court's precedents, but try to frustrate legal challenges by making the ban enforceable only by private litigation. Taking a page from the Lone Star State's book, they could decree that prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees while prevailing defendants are not. And like Texas, they could limit the defenses available to the targets of such lawsuits.

While S.B. 8 says women who seek or obtain abortions cannot be sued, potential defendants include a wide range of ancillary actors in addition to people directly involved in the procedure. Anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion is liable for at least $10,000 in "statutory damages." That provision explicitly covers people who help pay for the procedure and also could apply to people who offer other kinds of help, such as transportation or child care. Someone can be sued not only if he actually performs or facilitates an abortion but also if he "intends" to do so, which invites lawsuits based on speculation about the defendant's thoughts and plans.

"You can be sued if you *intend to* (but have not) aided or abetted the abortion," Texas appellate lawyer Rafi Melkonian noted on Twitter in September, before S.B. 8 was enacted. "That's *bananas* when applied to constitutional rights."

Police Budgets

In response to the "Defund the Police" movement, H.B. 1900 penalizes local governments that reduce their police budgets. It says municipalities with populations of more than 250,000 will lose some of their tax revenues if they cut police funding by a percentage greater than their overall budgets. That means a city could suffer financially if, for example, it reassigned certain functions (such as mental health interventions) from the police department to another agency. The threat unreasonably interferes with local decisions that might make perfect sense and are a far cry from a wholesale "defunding" of the police.

Crimes Against Public Servants

H.B. 624 increases the penalties for certain criminal offenses when the perpetrator knew his victim was a "public servant" or a member of that person's family or household and "the offense was committed in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the person as a public servant." The covered offenses are arson, criminal mischief, criminal trespass, breach of computer security, harassment, stalking, and fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. All of those things are already illegal, but H.B. 624 makes them more illegal when they affect government employees such as elected officials, bureaucrats, police officers, and public school teachers. Unsurprisingly, Texas legislators think crime is especially abhorrent when it targets members of the privileged class to which they belong.

Road Obstruction Penalties

H.B. 9 changes obstructing an emergency vehicle or hospital entrance, previously a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a maximum fine of $2,000, to a state jail felony, punishable by at least 180 days in jail, up to two years of incarceration, and a maximum fine of $10,000. Critics of the bill argued that the previous penalties were perfectly adequate and that the new penalties are excessively harsh for a nonviolent offense. They also warned that the law "could be used to criminalize peaceful protests and could have a chilling effect on the rights to speech and assembly."

Parole Restrictions

H.B. 465 eliminates parole for people convicted of certain "human trafficking" offenses but makes an exception for parole eligibility that is part of a plea agreement. By boosting the effective penalty for going to trial, the new law will increase the pressure on defendants to plead guilty, even if they might have been acquitted by a jury.

Anti-Boycott Boycott

Under S.B. 19, state agencies and local governments may not buy goods or services valued at $100,000 or more from contractors that refuse to do business with firearm companies or trade associations. Although that measure was obviously appealing as a retort to anti-gun politicians and businesses, it does taxpayers no favors, since it requires state and local officials to make contracting decisions based on political considerations rather than price and quality. If that results in less cost-effective contracts, taxpayers will foot the bill for affirming politicians' conservative credentials.

Curriculum Meddling

H.B. 3979 decrees that public schools may not "require an understanding of The 1619 Project," the controversial package of New York Times articles that sought to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." This restriction not only stops schools from treating the 1619 Project's arguments as gospel; it also stops them from even discussing the controversy over the project, which might actually be enlightening and encourage critical thinking.

National Anthem Mandate

S.B. 4 requires professional sports teams to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" before games as a condition of any arrangement that "requires a financial commitment by the state or any governmental entity." While this is the stupidest sort of patriotic signaling, it does have an upside: Teams that would rather play "God Bless America," "America the Beautiful," or nothing at all have a new incentive to eschew subsidies they never should have received to begin with.

NEXT: Here's a Rarity: A Former Prosecutor Is Facing Criminal Charges for Violating Her Oath of Office

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

  1. While Texas is behind on marijuana legalization, they did just also pass a law increasing its medical use, so that’s good.

    1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19,632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GRf simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now………………. VISIT HERE

    2. Sounds to me like they passed a whole lot of reasons to use drugs.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19,632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GRf simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now……………JOBS APP

        1. And you’re ot helping either.

          1. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.RFj I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

            GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

          2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.EFx Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            You can check it out here……………. VISIT HERE

    3. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here……….. VISIT HERE

  2. Really, Sullum, you had to put the “666” right in the headline?! Fucking Democratic shill. Fucking Reason.

      1. Funny that the Number of the Beast immediately brings the Democrats to your mind. It’s like your subconscious was trying to tell you something.

          1. Nope, I got your little taunt, WK. I just turned it back on you.
            But you didn’t get that, did you.

    1. Leave it to Sullum to hypothesize the most obscure and unlikely “what if” scenario and treat it like a thing while ignoring the fact that laws can be tweaked and change as necessary. You always can come up with some imaginary scenario that could exist if you squint hard enough and makes *any law* irredeemable in someone’s eyes, even when it works as intended, 99.9 % of the time. But this is what leftists do. Instead of just being honest, they reason the law shouldn’t exist cuz… what-if.

      Road Obstructions for emergency vehicles – There’s a constitutional right to block an emergency vehicle for the sake of a “peaceful protest”? Seriously Sullum, that’s the best you have on this one? Sorry, but if minutes make the difference between life and death, your fucking peaceful protest is causing someone’s death. You could be next. You’re having a massive heart attack but some emotional retards are “peacefully protesting” your privilege to ride in an ambulance, so you die. Seems like a fair tradeoff, no? It’s not like ambulances are rarely transporting someone in need. Personally I think this law is unnecessary only because there is no suggestion in 1A that says you get to impede someone’s movement as a part of free speech.

      Curriculum meddling – education is a state issue and states routinely set curriculums. Schools and teachers don’t get to decide they are going to add or subtract subjects cuz feelings. This one is no different. The “…which might actually be enlightening and encourage critical thinking” argument could arguably be made about damn near anything. The difference between pushing a subject and a “discussion” of the subject lead by someone with a political agenda loses distinction very quickly and certainly can’t be monitored for nuance.

      Parole restrictions: In any plea agreement, there’s always a gamble that runs the gamut of worst to best case outcome for the defendant. This is no different. It’s just another factor that limits potential vs guaranteed outcome. Everyone has a right to stand in court and plead their case. If you think you’re better off in the hands of a jury, don’t take the deal.

      Police budgets: With the caveats of population size minimum and overall budgets, Sullum’s big worry is absurd. They can still just not add to the budget as the city and budgets grow and inflation minimizes what current budgets provide. This law simply prevents reactionary budget cuts for political purposes.

      The rest of Sullum’s arguments are equally specious or flawed.

      1. Road Obstructions for emergency vehicles

        Which was already illegal before this law took effect.

        Curriculum meddling

        Who knows better about setting curricula, legislators and governors, or teachers, principals and local school boards? Clearly, the legislature knows best, right?

        1. Jeff,

          I had two kids go through the public schools and honestly most elementary ed teachers are not the brightest people, principals are petty bureacrats and school boards are made up of ex teachers, PTA moms, and union reps…and a few “true believers” in cultural marxism..seriously man a random group of people in my neighborhood was much more qualified to determine curriculum.

          1. Do you think the state legislature and the governor are more qualified to know what your kids should learn, instead of local teachers, principals, and school boards?

            Even if the state government is run by Democrats?

            1. They’re less likely to try to cram into the students’ heads something the majority of the state population finds offensive, at least.

              1. So if the majority of the STATE population (not necessarily a majority of the local population) finds an idea offensive, then it is entirely appropriate for the state legislature to step in and ban that idea from being discussed in the classroom. Is that really your take here?

                More and more Team Red reveals itself completely comfortable with the idea of using state-run schools to indoctrinate kids with PC ideas. It’s just that for Team Red, PC means Patriotically Correct.

                1. Yes, that is exactly my take, so far as public schools are concerned. If you, as a teacher, are determined to teach something the state government disapproves of being taught, find a job in a private school.

                  I’m entirely unapologetic about this. You’re not just demanding a right for teachers to indoctrinate their students with unpopular ideologies, you’re demanding a right for them to be paid tax dollars to do it.

                  1. Of course he is. Jeff pretends to be libertarian, but he is absolutely a leftist authoritarian.

                  2. Well at least you are honest enough to admit that you want public school to be a vehicle for indoctrination of students with a PC (patriotically correct) curriculum.

                    You’re not just demanding a right for teachers to indoctrinate their students with unpopular ideologies,

                    No – YOU are the one who wants to hide ‘forbidden’ ideas from students. I am the one who wants students to have a free exchange of ideas and decide for themselves what they want. That scares you because you think you will lose if they can decide freely so you want to try to rig the game in your favor. That is all that this entire exercise is.

                  3. I am totally fine if students have an academic discussion with a highly-qualified teacher, in a respectful and age-appropriate manner, about Marxism, capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism, communism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and any other -ism you can think of, and leave it up to the students to decide for themselves what they prefer.

                    Are you?

                    The clear answer here is ‘no’ so you want to try to rig the game in your favor. Which Team Blue tries to do as well, of course. You are just copying their tactics.

              2. “So if the majority of the STATE population (not necessarily a majority of the local population) finds an idea offensive, then it is entirely appropriate for the state legislature to step in and ban that idea from being discussed in the classroom. Is that really your take here?”

                Yup.

                Colleges are free to indoctrinate, but for underage kids without critical thinking skills…being taught by people with thinking skills at all…that’s a giant no.

                “More and more Team Red reveals itself completely comfortable with the idea of using state-run schools to indoctrinate kids with PC ideas. It’s just that for Team Red, PC means Patriotically Correct.”

                Nah. Team Red just realized that leaving them to their own devices leads to bigotry being taught and defended vigorously by teachers. We gave them a chance to prove they can control themselves and they failed.

                1. We just don’t want Marxist woke bullshit like CRT fed to our kids

                2. So, you think a proper public school education is whatever the locals decide it is. So if the locals decide that creationism is ‘real science’ then the local public schools should teach creationism as ‘real science’.

            2. “Do you think the state legislature and the governor are more qualified to know what your kids should learn, instead of local teachers, principals, and school boards?”

              Literally anybody on Earth is more qualified than teachers, principals, and school boards.

              1. Literally anybody on Earth is more qualified than teachers, principals, and school boards.

                Nancy Pelosi? AOC? Hillary Clinton?

                1. Literally anybody.

                  Did you ever meet an education major back in college?

                  1. I do not believe for one minute that you sincerely believe you would prefer AOC to be in charge of any classroom compared to any education major that graduated from any college. You are a dishonest hack.

          2. If we’re gonna go all cynical here, then if teachers are stupid, principals are petty bureaucrats, and school boards are made up of union reps, then what does that make legislators and governors? Slimy used car salesmen, grifters, and criminals.

            So, do you want the slimy politicians to decide curriculum, or the stupid teachers and petty bureaucratic principals to decide curriculum?

            1. I think you’ve solved it Jeff, we need to abolish all government.

            2. If we’re gonna go all cynical here, then if teachers are stupid, principals are petty bureaucrats, and school boards are made up of union reps, then what does that make legislators and governors? Slimy used car salesmen, grifters, and criminals.

              True. But unlike teachers and principals, legislators are directly responsible to voters.

              Best thing to do, however: get rid of public schools altogether. I’m glad you’re coming around to the realization.

            3. Yeah that sums up pretty much every public school I’ve ever been involved with.

        2. Who knows better about setting curricula, legislators and governors, or teachers, principals and local school boards? Clearly, the legislature knows best, right?

          Don’t like legislators having a say in the curriculum? Send your kids to private schools.

          Or better yet, abolish public schools altogether and just provide vouchers.

          1. Don’t like legislators having a say in the curriculum? Send your kids to private schools.

            Which is EXACTLY the Team Blue argument for why schools should teach THEIR preferred curriculum. “If you don’t want your kids learning from an anti-racism curriculum, send your kids to private school!”

            How about, instead, let’s have a curriculum in which broad standards (not micromanaged details) are set at the state level, guidance and implementation of a curriculum to meet those standards is handled by school boards and principals and superintendents, and teachers in their professional judgment create classroom activities to try to meet those standards.

            And let’s have those standards be focused on critical thinking, not culture war bullshit.

            What a novel idea! Worth a try, eh?

            1. Which is EXACTLY the Team Blue argument for why schools should teach THEIR preferred curriculum. “If you don’t want your kids learning from an anti-racism curriculum, send your kids to private school!”

              The problem is that Team Blue still wants to take the money from parents to promote racism and fascism.

              And let’s have those standards be focused on critical thinking, not culture war bullshit.

              Obviously, that has failed. Just look at yourself, you little fascist.

      2. This law simply prevents reactionary budget cuts for political purposes.

        The law is a reactionary law to prevent any budget cuts, in order to suck up to the police and ‘stick it to the libs’.

        1. Sucks to be a commie a hole in Texas doesn’t it creep.

          1. Perhaps you should mention that to the Texas communists, all three of them.

            1. Bad deflection. Dems are commies now.

              1. And Reps are Nazis now. Got it.

                1. Nazis and commies are nearly the same. You fail again douchebag.

                  1. Oh I thought we were going with the broad-brush generalization fail. Fine, Reps are theocratic fascists. Sound fairer to you?

                    1. No, I’m going with the republicans are the liberals and you are a totalitarian creep thing.

                    2. Reps aren’t the ones advocating banning people from society for not doing what some people want them to do.

                    3. Theocratic fascists is an oxymoron. Fascists were fiercely secular. They were the “I trust science” progressives of their day, and had no need for antiquated institutions such as the Church or the Crown.

    2. What’s wrong with 666? Do you contend it is inaccurate, or are you a slack-jawed, superstitious, bigoted, faux libertarian clinger?

      1. He who has wisdom will understandith 666 is not 777 nor 888.

        1. Confucius say, he who farts in temple, sits in his own pew!

    3. That stupid number and the significance attached to it by religious superstitious belief in Grim Fairy Tales is part of what makes retail in the U.S. such utter Hell-On-Earth!

      Every time I ring up a customer’s order, and the total comes up to $6.66 or a sum added to $6.66 e.g. ($16.66, $26.66, $36.66, etc.,) the customer will pause in fright!

      At that moment, they will either immediately grab an impulse item like a candy bar or a trashy celebrity magazine or, more often, they ask fo put something back, because the EBT card is spent up and “Math Is Hard!”

      When we take something back, we have to hold onto it until collected, which senselessly clutters our workspace and adds more work to our load.

      If the item is perishable, we have to either run it back to the freezer units or get someone to do so, which is hard to impossible when we’re busy.

      If we can’t get the perishable back to the freezer units within 30 minutes, the item thaws and spoils and melts becomes a slip hazard, a biohazard, and a claim, which then comes out of our bonuses and ultimately raises prices for all customers!

      It has made me so damn mad, I’ve actually told customers: “It’s just a number, a very huuuuman number! Don’t worry! Me and Old Nick are like this! (*Crosses Fingers*) We’ll hook you up!”

      “Men who can be made to believe in absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.” –Voltaire.

      1. Years ago, I remember reading someone’s argument that the Number of the Beast has been widely mistranslated and it is actually 616, not 666. It would be just like that ol’ devil to get everyone watching out for the wrong number!

        1. The Internet knoweth all:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)

          “666 is generally believed to have been the original Number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible.[4] In 2005, however, a fragment of papyrus 115 was revealed, containing the earliest known version of that part of the Book of Revelation discussing the Number of the Beast. It gave the number as 616, suggesting that this may have been the original.[2] One possible explanation for the two different numbers is that they reflect two different spellings of Emperor Nero/Neron’s name, for which (according to this theory) this number is believed to be a code.[5][6]”

          1. Ostensible adults frightened by or arguing about silly superstition and childish fairy tales.

            Who knew rural electrification — which lets the bigoted hayseeds of America’s can’t-keep-up backwaters contribute to online debate — would turn out to be such a bad idea?

            Choose reason. Be an adult. Or, at least, try.

            1. One problem in your Weltanschaung, Rev. Artie:

              All this huckle-buck over “666” in my store is happening in an East Coast State with a Progressive Democratic Governor, and my store is on the West Side ‘Hoodie part of town.

              Obviously, neither Clingers nor Cosmos have any vested interest in helping common people un-learn time-wasting, money-wasting, life-wasting, irrational nonsense. Carry on, Poseur de Rationalité!

          2. Very interestig….But Emperor Nero no longer exists, M’Lady, which throws the whole Book of Revelation as a Book of prophecy into higgledy-piggledy.

  3. Anti-satanist bigotry from reason? For shame!

    1. “…Bad in the 666 Bills That Took Effect This Week in Texas”

      Texas is indeed the WORST of the Bad-Ass places, in the grips of Satan itself!

      At least Texas got it right in outlawing Satanic abortions! Via CIVIL instead of criminal laws! What genius!

      To understand WHY abortion if Satanic, you have to have the right ANALOGY… Which is why I give you the below…

      Abortion is like this:

      To REALLY understand abortion, you have to have the best ANALOGY! Abortion is like this:

      You’re drunk off of your bleeding ass, driving down the road and shit, minding your own business and shit. Maybe you shouldn’t have dropped that acid, either, but the cops haven’t caught you, and, innocent till proven guilty, right? So you keep on driving… Your drunken ass is bleeding and shit, by the way, ‘cause you’ve got some wicked hemorrhoids, and shit!

      Then some space aliens swoop in on your car, and abduct you, and shit. They start anally probing you. For some strange reason, the little green men have a conscience attack, they start worrying about fucking up your health, and shit, what with your giant bleeding hemorrhoids. So they cease and desist, yank their probes out of your ass, and probe your nose instead, and shit. They don’t even bother to clean the bloody shit off of the probes, and shit!
      But then a mucus vampire circles around you and swoops in like a vulture!

      See, a mucus vampire, well, they’ve got some sort of magical nose for this kind of thing, and somehow he catches on to what’s going down, and he wants to suck your mucus, and shit. So he shows up, to get in on the action.

      But when the mucus vampire sees all your blood and shit mixed up with your mucus and shit, he gets all disgusted and shit. The blood, he can handle… Some of his best friends are blood vampires. He’s a tolerant and broad-minded vampire, and shit, you know. But REAL shit, in his mucus??! Now THAT is TOO MUCH shit, and shit!

      So he says, “Dudes, getting blood and shit into your mucus and shit, that’s like getting chocolate into your peanut butter and jelly and shit! That’s like getting your stupid and your evil all mixed up into your philosophy! This is some seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit! I’m outta here!” And the mucus vampire is SOOO sickened, he barfs all over you! Then he wraps his cloak around him like Batman folding up his bat-wings around himself, turns into a bat-shit crazy bat, and shit, and flies away, all disgusted.
      The little green men, being kinda autistic, take everything literally. They are also HORNY little green men, already excited by anally and nasally probing you, and, upon hearing the mucus vampire talking about “…seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit…”, get all carried away, and shoot their little-green-men jism all over your bloody-snot shit!

      Now if we sit back and think about this, your shit bacteria get all fucked up, ‘cause they were expecting a decent burial in your toilet, and they don’t get one. Your nasal bacteria and viruses were expecting to LIVE, or, at least, a traditional, honorable drying-out session in your booger rag, and they don’t get that, either. Your little green men sperm cells get REALLY screwed over, ‘cause they were expecting at least SOME long odds (but a real fighting chance) at some little green woman’s egg cell. Your red blood cells don’t matter, ‘cause they have no cell nucleus, let alone a nervous system, or any kind of independent life. Your white blood cells? Well, yes, they have a nucleus, and their own genes. But they’re WHITE, dammit! You cracker muthafuckers!!! WHITE means you’re a RACIST, and WHO CARES about the rights of racist honkeys?!?!

      Ergo, we must conclude, this whole thing is an abortion all around! Since abortions are, by definition, abortions, they need to be outlawed!

      1. Wow! That was incredibly fucking stupid even for you.

        1. You actually read it? Why?

          1. Sqrlsy’s my lolcow, and he’s usually good for a couple of gallons… but this time he was far more fucked-up than usual. Creepier than hell, tbqh.

            1. I have enjoyed some of his work.

      2. Texas is indeed the WORST of the Bad-Ass places, in the grips of Satan itself!

        You know, I think women should be able to kill their babies all they want.

        One big advantage of the Texas law, however, is that it discourages morons like you to live there.

      3. I’m slowly backing away now…

  4. Candlebox is in Texas this weekend and I have backstage passes although I don’t know where social distance and backstage intersect

    1. Depends. Are you a hot, slutty chick?

      1. He is a libertarian, not a libertine. What are the chances of a libertarian being a hot chick? (I’ll concede on the “slutty”).

  5. Off topic. Connor Friedersdorf is still the best libertarian political writer out there: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/

    1. Advocating for the military to (implied coercively) administer publicly funded vaccines doesn’t quite make the “l” grade.

      1. The implication is only in your head.

        1. And in the head of The Atlantic writer.

        2. “a rich nation like Australia would have spent lavishly… to secure an adequate supply of many options for its people… Australia then could have marshaled its military and civil society to vaccinate the nation as quickly as possible”

          In everybody’s heads but yours I guess.

          1. Well look what happened here. DOL linked to something then lied about it hoping nobody would actually read his link. Again.

    2. Up to now one of Earth’s freest societies, Australia has become a hermit continent.

      Australia has always had an authoritarian streak. The fact that Friedersdorf doesn’t know this just shows you the degree of his ignorance and incompetence.

      1. “The problem with Australians is not that so many of them are descended from convicts, but that so many of them are descended from prison officers.”
        -Clive James

  6. Texas seems like a sweet place to live. Not so sweet for ANTIFA goons and CRT addled lefties, which is why Sullum is pissed LOL

    1. it’s lovely. don’t tell anyone.

    2. One big advantage of the anti-abortion bill is that it keeps a lot of nasty people out of Texas.

      1. Women? Let me guess, you’re single right?

  7. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “The Good and The Bad in the Bills That Took Effect In California” or “The Good and The Bad in the Bills that Took Effect In New York”. Surely such paragons of personal liberty and laissez faire markets as California and New York deserve a thorough examination of their legislative outputs to better inform the rest of us how to create a libertarian utopia, no?

    1. And it’s interesting that most of the “bad” stuff seems to be government not letting government use taxpayer money to bankroll leftist cultural warfare. How un-libertarian of Texas to not do everything in their power to ensure we live under the Marxist jackboot.

      1. Did you ever wake up one morning and decide you weren’t going to spend the whole day whining about imaginary things?

        1. You give that kettle hell tony!

        2. Lol, the irony.

        3. That would put Moonrocks in danger of experiencing vaginal atrophy.

          1. WTF. That didn’t even make sense.

      2. Some of the bad stuff is ‘peaceful’ protesters not being permitted to obstruct emergency vehicles. Which got elevated from misdemeanor to felony because the misdemeanor charge just wasn’t deterring it anymore.

        A misdemeanor count will cause somebody who didn’t really mean to obstruct an ambulance to take more care not to do it. But it really doesn’t stop the people who, yeah, actually did mean to block ambulances.

      3. Because the MAGA jackboot is so much better than the Marxist jackboot. The shoe leather tastes so much better when it’s stomping on your head!

    2. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “The Good and The Bad in the Bills That Took Effect In California”

      Not all lumped together in one place with 666 in the headline, but they do do a pretty steady trickle of stuff on CA, actually.

  8. AS I can’t get pregnant nor get anyone pregnant, not that panicked by SB8. Don’t think it will stand up to the Supreme Court even if it gets past appeals court. When they overturn it would like them to do “Citizens United” and make a precedent setting ruling against all the laws that outsource enforcement to third party civil suites. Maybe that is why they voted not to stay the law. On HB 1900 I like the idea of forcing local governments to cut all budgets not just the police. Don’t know why Sollum had to skirt the issue behind HB9, no one other than those who want attention appreciates the ninnies who block traffic “for a cause” you’re not winning anyone over and punishing those of us who just want to get to work or home so you can get a little attention. I wish they could make it illegal to block anybody not just emergency vehicles but that clearly would be unconstitutional under current precedent.

    Don’t understand his objection to HB 3979, the law does not forbid teaching this load of bs but requiring students to understand it. This is meant to stop the schools from requiring students to take a class on this subject to graduate, they are free to take a class on it if they wish.

    AS for SB4, maybe more sports teams will be encouraged to pay for their own stadiums if they don’t like to play the Star-Spangled Banner, that would suite me fine.

    1. Wonder if taxpayer funded cowboy poetry festivals require the national anthem to be played before the fun begins.

      1. Real Cowboys wouldn’t want taxdollars for their poetry festivals. They rustle up the words, hogtie ’em, and bring ’em to the reading all by themselves! And they fire their .45s at targets instead of snapping fingers or “jazz-handing!”

    2. “AS I can’t get pregnant nor get anyone pregnant”

      FYIGM for the win.

      1. Of course men can get pregnant.
        Don’t you believe in science?

        1. Someone doesn’t understand the acronym…

          1. I thank god for that.

    3. Don’t understand his objection to HB 3979, the law does not forbid teaching this load of bs but requiring students to understand it. This is meant to stop the schools from requiring students to take a class on this subject to graduate, they are free to take a class on it if they wish.

      I think you do understand his objections. The idea that TX shouldn’t have any say so over its curriculum because The New York Times publishes is exceedingly anti-federalist. The oblivious invocation of ‘as gospel’ is pretty retardedly tone deaf. If The Vatican publishes something California considers controversial, should California schools be required to teach induce an understanding of it? What if The Enquirer publishes something? Pravda?

      If it’s settled superprecedent that schools can be forbidden from teaching creationism, then it’s superprecedent that they can avoid teaching other subjects as well. Unless you overtly think schools should be barred from teaching topics you don’t like and should be mandated to teach those you do.

  9. “May not require” is not the same as may not teach and may not discuss.

    I get that teachers are not likely to spend time on subjects outside the curriculum but this sounds like a topic you are only going to find in some sort of college level class.

    Essentially NO public school courses cover anything that happened in the last 50 years in order to avoid controversy.

    1. Lol. Keep telling yourself that. Some teacher in Cali just got fired for teaching pro-antifa shit.

    2. “May not require” is not the same as may not teach and may not discuss.

      It effectively is the same, for two reasons:

      1. A teacher can’t realistically test student knowledge on the 1619 project under this requirement, EVEN IF the 1619 project was only part of a larger discussion and not taught “as doctrine” or “as truth”.

      2. Very few teachers will be willing to even go near the subject if they think it is so heavily regulated in this way. It creates a chilling effect on the whole field, which is the point. The legislature doesn’t want the subject taught at all, but is smart enough not to outright ban it for fear of the optics.

      1. Why am I not surprised that you support state sanctioned bigotry

        1. Why am I not surprised that you want the state to ban ideas in the classroom and use the mechanisms of public education to indoctrinate kids.

          1. I guess you would be in favor of teaching “mein kamph” to kids as well.

            1. I am opposed to banning ideas in classroom. Because I DON’T want kids to be indoctrinated into only a specific type of belief. I want critical thinkers, not programmed robots who only regurgitate memorized “correct ideas”. Every idea should be eligible for discussion in the classroom, in an age-appropriate, professional, and respectful manner. It doesn’t mean teaching Mein Kampf as the literal truth. It could mean, however, having students read Mein Kampf, ALONG WITH many other age-appropriate, reasonable and suitable texts, as a part of a classroom discussion about, say, fascism, communism, World War 2, anti-semitism, and any other relevant topic.

              What do you want? Ban books for fear that students might read them and learn some ‘forbidden’ knowledge?

              1. I’m opposed to teaching vile hate to people who have no choice in the matter. Why do you want to teach hate?

                1. I’m opposed to teaching vile hate to people who have no choice in the matter.

                  Define “vile hate”.

                    1. That’s it?

                    2. No, but it fits all the criteria.
                      – Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.

                    3. So, Huckleberry Finn is “vile hate” then? Ban it?

                    4. So that is why I asked you to come up with a precise definition of “vile hate”. You can’t do it, without also ensnaring actual literature which aren’t “vile hate” but are instead works of art.

                      Which by the way is exactly why tech censorship of their platforms to combat “COVID misinformation” isn’t working either. With every idiot post that they delete claiming that the vaccines have microchips, they also take down perfectly legitimate posts that are simply outside of the mainstream.

                      What you can do, instead of trying to ban “vile hate” which can’t be precisely defined anyway, is to have a rigorous, polite, age-appropriate, respectful, and professional discussion about controversial topics, like racism and bigotry, and use it to inform and enlighten people. Let’s try that instead, okay?

                    5. In no way is Huckleberry Finn attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group, you disingenuous fuck. If it was Mein Kampf or the Turner Diaries you could have made your point, but no.

                      Next time you’re going to reference a book, read it first instead of just repeating something that you read on Huffpo.

                      You’re really not earning your fifty-cents tonight.

                    6. In no way is Huckleberry Finn attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group

                      So you haven’t read the book then.

                      https://www.allgreatquotes.com/authors/huckleberry-finn-racism/

                      But sure, censorship of scary words in order to get rid of dangerous ideas will certainly work as well in the classroom just as it has worked fabulously with tech companies censoring so-called “COVID misinformation” online, right?
                      Here’s a good one:

                      “It warn’t the grounding – that didn’t keep us back but a little. We blowed out a cylinder-head.”
                      “Good gracious! anybody hurt?”
                      “No’m. Killed a n*****.”
                      “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.”

                    7. You’re a moron, you know that?

                      You’re genuinely going to tell us you can’t tell the difference between an unflattering portrayal of racism, and promoting racism?

                    8. ML defined “vile hate” as: “– Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.” The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has such speech in spades. So this is the WHOLE POINT of trying to ban speech that you don’t like because it has ideas that you don’t like. The censorship ensnares perfectly legitimate ideas that shouldn’t be banned. Don’t you object to Big Tech censoring “COVID misinformation”? Why? This is the reason why. Because trying to censor “misinformation”, or “vile hate”, or whatever, leads to censorship of perfectly valid ideas.

                      You cannot censor “VILE HATE” without also censoring Huckleberry Finn, in any objective sense.

              2. I am opposed to banning ideas in classroom

                So you’re fine with creationism in science class then? And they can give a ‘fair reading’ of Henry Ford’s pamphlets on Jews in Social Studies?

                1. Creationism doesn’t belong in the science classroom, for the same reason that reading poetry doesn’t belong in the science classroom either. But if a school wants to have a discussion about creation myths in theology class or philosophy class or literature class, sure, why not?

                  1. 1. Creationists come up with testable hypotheses all the time. Those hypotheses may not be rigorous but they meet the basic criteria.

                    2. Poetry is a form of literature that uses aesthetic and often rhythmic qualities of language. It is not a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

                    Creationism may be a pseudoscience, but it still is a science.

                    Now stop it with the cheap sophistry. I didn’t just fall off the Turnip Truck.
                    Stand by your assertions or fuck off.

                    1. Creationism does not belong in the science classroom because its central hypothesis is non-falsifiable. But creationism could belong in *a* classroom. I don’t support banning it from school entirely. Do you?

                    2. There’s so much shit that’s taught in every science class on the planet that is non-falsifiable, it makes me wonder if you ever attended one.

                      And if creationism taught one group to hate and revile another like CRT does, then totally.

                      You keep dancing around the fact that fomenting hate is the whole purpose of CRT.

                    3. chemjeff, global warming is also very non-falsifiable. Yet “science” is obsessed with it.

                    4. And here we go with the black/white thinking.

                      If every scientific hypothesis is not 100% rigorous, then they are all 100% baloney and therefore let’s teach everything as ‘science’ including phrenology and creationism.

                      It is amazing how readily you all have adopted post-modernism, where everything is subjective and nothing is real so do whatever you want and it’s all equally valid.

                    5. “And here we go with the black/white thinking.”

                      Non-falsifiability was YOUR criteria. I did not come up with it. That was why YOU said creationism should not be taught.

                      Mind you, I AGREE. If it is not falsifiable, it is faith and not science. But I’m also consistent with that.

                      “If every scientific hypothesis is not 100% rigorous, then they are all 100% baloney and therefore let’s teach everything as ‘science’ including phrenology and creationism.”

                      Well, the two you cite have as much actual scientific rigor (and about as much predictive value) as climate science.

                      You’re not doing your position many favors.

                      “It is amazing how readily you all have adopted post-modernism, where everything is subjective and nothing is real so do whatever you want and it’s all equally valid.”

                      I’m not saying do not teach evolution. I’m saying do not teach religious faith, and climate science is precisely that.

          2. Great. Lets bring in a Neo-Nazi, a Radio Mille Collines host and Republika Srpska general too.

            Because the shit CRT advocates would fit right in.

            1. What would be the purpose of these guests in the classroom?

              1. What they advance is in no way different from CRT. Why just one bigotry and not others?
                This way the little racists you farm will have a broader background and not make the same mistakes when seeing their hate to it’s logical fruition.

                1. So let’s have an age-appropriate, respectful, and professional classroom discussion about race and bigotry using lots of examples from different texts and sources. Sure! Why not? That sounds like it might actually be interesting. But if Texas legislators get their way, students couldn’t be assessed on the material. Because that would be “requiring” a knowledge of the material that was being discussed.

                  Here is the deal. Racism and bigotry and hate are real things, unfortunately, and students will inherit a world full of problems that are their poisoned fruit. Where do you want these kids to learn about these issues in a rigorous manner? Hmm? From Youtube videos? From their only-sorta-racist grandparents? From their peers? Maybe they should learn about these issues in a rigorous manner in an academic environment. I know, crazy, right?

                  1. In which far left jeffsarc decides for you what your children should learn in school.

                    Nah, let’s not bother with your suggestion fatty.

                    1. It is the opposite. I want a diversity of ideas in the classroom. It’s Team Red which is triggered by scary words and wants to ban scary ideas in favor of a PC (patriotically correct) curriculum, justified in the name of “For the children”.

                    2. It’s Team Red which is triggered by scary words and wants to ban scary ideas in favor of a PC (patriotically correct) curriculum, justified in the name of “For the children”.

                      You bet that “Team Red” is “triggered” by the teaching of socialism, fascism, and Marxism to impressionable youngsters.

                    3. Everyone should be triggered as fuck by CRT, the world hasn’t seen such an evil academic doctrine since scientific racism at the start of the last century.

                      The fact that you aren’t reinforces what a moral monster you are.

                    4. “It is the opposite. I want a diversity of ideas in the classroom.”

                      Which is not happening and you bitch about any attempt to rectify that

              2. Because you’re a dummy.

              3. Why would you want to teach young children that they have something to atone for or be aggrieved about? Can’t you just let them be kids?

                Haha. No. No, you can’t. They might get along. Can’t have that.

                1. I remember this from CCD classes. But, to be fair, Catholics are masters at guilt.

          3. Chemjeff coming out demanding schools teach intelligent design and phrenology. Never expected that.

          4. But we already do ban ideas in public classrooms. Public schools are already tools of indoctrination.

            You’re being disingenious if you pretend this is anything other than yet another group trying to sieze the controls of this indoctrination machine.

      2. I hope you’re right!

      3. Have you attended college? And if so, have you never audited a class?

        Its perfectly common to take a class for the information you can get out of it without worrying about a grade.

        I did this for a couple classes in high school too.

    1. Lol, no. Texas is its own thing. Many Texans have never even been outside of Texas.

      1. Which makes them like New Yorkers. Except they do not want to run the entire country, just their state,

    2. Comedian Brother Dave Gardner once said that Texas is the only State that can quit anytime it wanted to.

  10. Were there any teams that didn’t play the anthem? Wasn’t the question simply whether or not to televise it?

    1. Mavs. Cuban lost his fucking mind because T and started in with all the BLM shit @Mavs games.

      1. He should have instead played God Bless America and then filed a Religious Exercise claim. Alito’s head would explode…

        1. Not allowed to play the Kate Smith version anymore.

  11. Handguns are or can be still banned in bars. Probably a good thing.

    Required playing of National Anthem, again good allows time for a bathroom break or getting a beer before the game starts.

    1. Thankfully banned things can’t happen.

    2. “Handguns are or can be still banned in bars. Probably a good thing.”

      I am assuming guns can be prohibited anywhere the business owner wishes his patrons not be armed.

      1. And the business owner should be responsible for providing adequate protection.

        1. “And the business owner should be responsible for providing adequate protection.”

          Uh. No. The owner of a business is not liable for things which are beyond their control. If the perpetrator is an employee of the establishment, well, that might be another matter.

          1. If they prohibit patrons from bringing in tools for defense, then they become responsible for it.

            1. 1) Please, PLEASE cite me one court case, or one law, which substantiates your claim?

              2) And, pray tell, what about private property rights? Or do you think that the RKBA somehow nullifies private property rights?

          2. “Uh. No. The owner of a business is not liable for things which are beyond their control. If the perpetrator is an employee of the establishment, well, that might be another matter.”

            Sorry, but if they forbid you from protecting yourself, then they must provide it for you. If they cannot, then they should be sued.

            1. 1) Please, PLEASE cite me one court case, or one law, which substantiates your claim?

              2) And, pray tell, what about private property rights? Or do you think that the RKBA somehow nullifies private property rights?

              1. Again, if YOU prevent ME from defending myself, it is your job to provide that protection.

                1. So, if someone asks you not to bring a gun into their home, they are legally bound to provide protection for you? Again, please state some legally-binding precedent.

                  Please note: I am about as strong a supporter for the RKBA as you will find anywhere. But the RKBA is not the only “right.”

                  1. Yes. If you prevent me from doing so, then you must provide the protection you demand I eschew.

                    1. LOLOLOLOLOL

                      I am not required to do anything of the sort. That idea is kind of humorous, I suppose.

                    2. “I am not required to do anything of the sort. That idea is kind of humorous, I suppose.”

                      YOU WILL COMPLY, Ghost of the past who doesn’t even have a body but may still find a way to vote for Biden. We will all comply. Always. Everywhere. You’re a ghost, for God’s sake!

    3. I agree that alcohol and guns do not mix. A sign on the door does not stop bad guys.

  12. How appropriate that Texas would be implementing 666 laws this week. At least we know the inspiration behind them.

    1. Satan is pro life?
      Weird.

      1. Shock to all those “Satanist” girls that blogged their abortions on tumblr a few years back, I’m sure.

        1. “Satan is pro life?”
          Of course. More people, more “converts.” 🙂

          1. Converts don’t seem to be a goal.

  13. S.B. 69 imposes new limits on neck restraints, saying police may use them only when it is “necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to or the death of the officer or another person.”

    As opposed to allowing neck restraints only when “necessary to prevent moderate bodily injury to the officer or another person”?

  14. law-abiding people should be able to exercise the constitutional right to bear arms without jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

    However, making people jump through burdensome bureaucratic hoops in order to exercise the right to vote is totally okay and the correct libertarian position, amirite?

    1. Jesus Christ are you ever dumb.
      Do you need a background check to vote?
      Do you need a waiting period to vote?
      Do you need to pay to get a permit to vote?
      Do you need to take a class to exercise your right to vote?

      Jesus god I wish you had been aborted!

      1. None of those are required in Texas anymore. Didn’t you read the article? So, why don’t you try again.

        1. There are other states, retard.

        2. Still need a background check to buy a handgun.

          1. He lied? I’m shocked!

          2. Okay I stand corrected. That part remains. But the rest of the restrictions that VM mentioned, in Texas, are gone.

            So now perhaps we can discuss why there ought to be more bureaucratic hurdles for exercising the right to vote, than to exercise the right to own a gun.

            1. Why do you want to grant non citizens the right to vote?
              Why can’t I vote in Italy then?

              1. I don’t. I think that asking eligible voters to get an ID to demonstrate proof of eligibility is perfectly reasonable. It’s analogous to the background check requirement for owning a gun, which again I think is perfectly reasonable.

                So, how about all of the other restrictions on voting? Why should they exist?

                1. What restrictions on voting you stupid git!

                  1. For example, Texas banned ‘drive-thru’ voting after it was used in Houston in 2020.

                    Why ban drive-thru voting?

                    1. Because it contributes to global warming.

                    2. Because uniformity of voting rules is an element of free and fair elections, which means that Huston can’t be permitted to improvise new voting rules as it goes along, but instead has to conduct their elections in the same way everybody else does.

                    3. Because uniformity of voting rules is an element of free and fair elections

                      Oh. So maybe voting rules should be set by the federal government then? Voting rules in that case would be uniform everywhere, right?

                    4. Lying Jeffy pretending he’s never heard of federalism.

                    5. Lying Jeffy pretending he’s never heard of federalism.

                      Tell that to Brett, who just argued against a federalist approach to voting rules.

        3. None of those are required in Texas anymore.

          That is correct–

          In Texas–

          you do not need a background check to vote
          you do not need a waiting period to vote
          you do not need to pay to get a permit to vote
          you do not need to take a class to exercise your right to vote

          Because Republicans stopped Democrats from requiring it for ‘certain’ citizens.

          Just like Republicans just stopped Democrats from making an accurate vote count impossible.

        4. None of those are required in Texas anymore.

          Federal law still applies.

          In other words, voting in Texas is still easier than getting a gun.

          Let’s talk again when that reverses.

    2. I’d have no problem if the right to vote was equally as demanding as buying a gun is.

      Do you know how hard it is to buy a gun?

      1. In Texas? Now? You have to pass a background check and that’s it.

        So when it comes to voting, I support the concept of individuals having to ‘pass a background check’ in the sense of having to prove that they are eligible voters by showing voter ID.

        So, no need for any more bureaucratic hurdles than that, right? No more arbitrary restrictions on absentee voting or mail-in voting or drive-thru voting or deliberately trying to make it difficult to vote, right?

        1. “In Texas? Now? You have to pass a background check and that’s it.”

          Go to Texas and try and buy one.

          “So, no need for any more bureaucratic hurdles than that, right? No more arbitrary restrictions on absentee voting or mail-in voting or drive-thru voting or deliberately trying to make it difficult to vote, right?”

          Can you drive-thru a store and buy a gun?

          No?

          Shocker.

          And, mind you, that is still far more demanding than voting.

          1. Can you drive-thru a store and buy a gun?

            Is it illegal to have a drive-thru gun store? If not, then why not have the same thing for voting?

            Why do you want voting to be more difficult than gun ownership?

        2. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!!!! ™ Jeff.

          Showing up to vote doesn’t seem like such a harsh restriction. Absentee, elderly and disabled voting were already allowed by mail.

          So let’s treat everyone like they’re unable to run a basic errand? So patronizing.

          What is wrong with you?

  15. “H.B. 9… Critics of the bill argued that the previous penalties were perfectly adequate and that the new penalties are excessively harsh for a nonviolent offense.”

    Just like last summer when Reason largely ignored property rights in defense of mostly peaceful rioting under free expression, here Sullum ignores the right to move freely for the same. Blocking someone’s right to move freely to a hospital for needed medical care is absolutely a violation of the Non-aggression principle. For those who refuse to accept that Reason isn’t libertarian any longer, when was the last time the NAP was even mentioned here? I wonder if Sullum‘s even aware of it. I brought it up last year as just the “NAP” and someone didn’t even know what I was talking about. Imagine being a commentator for a real libertarian publication, and not even knowing what the NAP is.

    If your right to expression violates anyone else’s rights in anyway, it’s no longer a right.

    1. Blocking someone’s right to move freely to a hospital for needed medical care

      Which was already illegal in Texas before this law took effect.

      1. So why do you creeps block emergency vehicles anyway?

      2. Yes, it was a misdemeanor, now it’s a felony. The rest of my previous post explains why I agree with this.

        1. So why do you think an individual blocking an ambulance with a patient from going to the hospital is a violation of the NAP? Is the individual blocking the road committing an act of aggression against the patient? Presumably the patient is sick for reasons other than what the individual caused to him/her. Suppose the patient is having a heart attack. If that patient dies of a heart attack, it won’t be the individual blocking the road that caused the heart attack. And there is no guarantee that even if there was no one blocking the road that the patient’s life would have been saved at the hospital anyway. So I am curious why you think blocking an ambulance represents an act of aggression against the patient in the ambulance.

          1. You are an evil fuck.

          2. If there is someone who needs medical care, and someone else is willing to give it to them, and you are intentionally, physically, stopping them from doing this, yes, you are violating the NAP.

            Even for you this makes me sad.

            1. But Mac, it’s for the revolution!

            2. You just repeated yourself, you didn’t actually answer my questions.

              Let me rephrase it a different way. Suppose a penniless starving man walks into a grocery store and demands food. The store manager “intentionally, physically” stops the man from getting food from his store, because the starving man is broke and has no money to pay for it. Is the manager violating the NAP against the starving man?

              1. How in the actual fuck did you get this stupid?
                You are actually arguing for any random moron to prevent a person on a PUBLIC road to receive treatment.

                1. See, I’m trying to have a discussion about the NAP and the limits thereof.

                  R Mac was whining that nobody around here talked about the NAP anymore. Well, I started a discussion about it. And this is what we got – he just repeats his assertions and spews insults when his assertions aren’t immediately validated. He doesn’t want a discussion of the NAP. He doesn’t want to defend his position. He just wants a place where his feelings are validated and he doesn’t have to construct arguments to justify his feelings. He wants a right-wing safe-space and everyone else can go to hell.

                  1. You didn’t try to start a discussion about the NAP liar. Nobody reading this thread will believe that. But please keep lying, in case anyone isn’t convinced what a liar you are.

                  2. You’re so full of shit. Absolutely amazing.

                    1. In this case he’s so full of shit he’s had to compress it to neutron star density just to fit it all in.

                      Seriously, Jeff: Is blocking ambulances as part of protests so important to you that you’re willing to look like an idiot to defend people doing it?

                    2. But don’t you get it Brett? Jeff has an analogy about a penniless man in a grocery store that will enlighten us all!

                    3. Seriously, Jeff: Is blocking ambulances as part of protests so important to you that you’re willing to look like an idiot to defend people doing it?

                      Nowhere did I defend the practice. I was attempting to have an academic, intellectual discussion on the matter. But like so many issues around here that right-wingers complain about, when they complain that “nobody around here discusses issue X”, what they really mean is, “nobody around here validates my feelings about X”. They don’t want a discussion, they want self-validation.

                    4. Nobody believes this Lying Jeffy, not even you.

                    5. And notice Jeffy still wouldn’t answer the question. Because refusing to answer a straight forward question is how jeffy has intellectual discussions.

              2. I clearly answered your first question.

                The rest of your post is more pedantry.

                Fucking penniless man in the grocery store analogy? You need a hobby.

                1. No you didn’t. You didn’t precisely specify who is committing aggression against whom.

                  1. Collectivistjeff is both a liar and dolt.

                    Swat it away like the gnat that is its superior.

                  2. It’s not my fault you’re acting retarded Lying Jeffy.

          3. “Is the individual blocking the road committing an act of aggression against the patient?”

            Yes.

            “Suppose the patient is having a heart attack. If that patient dies of a heart attack, it won’t be the individual blocking the road that caused the heart attack.”

            If that person prevented TREATMENT for it, yes, they are exceptionally responsible for it. More than basically anybody else.

            “And there is no guarantee that even if there was no one blocking the road that the patient’s life would have been saved at the hospital anyway.”

            Odds above zero are always better than odds equaling zero.

    2. I’m all with you here, although I call it the NIFF (Non-Initiation of Force and Fraud) Principle and I am a proud Charter Member of The Knights and Ladies and Trans Jesters Who Say *NIFF!*

      This law is fully compatible with NIFF and I say take it a step further to include blocking any entrance, such as a workplace, a concert, a movie, any peaceful human endeavor requiring a throughway.

      For example, before he retired, my Uncle was all for his co-workers’ right to strike if they wanted, but if any of them blocked his way, he was ready to keep his Ford 150 going through the gate and then stop and tell Ossifer Friendly: ” I wish to speak to my attorney.”

      Fortunately, he never had to implement his plan, he retired with a nice pension, has a beach home along with his regular home, and the striking unionists get laid off every six months. Maybe there is some Justice in the world.

  16. anti boycott boycott is just local folks through their reps fighting back against the very same thing the bolsehviks in NY or CA do all the time. Say “My Pillow” has better quality pillows but in NY the State can buy them for the prisons..ok well in Texas..we might say Patagonia product which are made in China by slave labor and who boycott and actively attack liberty minded politicians is off limits…

    Let’s just go all the way here gang..the left is doing it…time to push this to its logical conclusion..

    1. Curious if Sullum has ever covered any of the boycotts by liberal state governments.

      1. No. Because they’re different.

        Why?

        FYTW.

    2. Well, States don’t really need an anti-boycott boycott law. They just need to establish that the highest quality for the lowest price is the only standard for State purchases and that any peaceful, honest business can bid on any contract the state offers in open, equal bidding with all other peaceful, honest businesses.

      And government contractors may boycott anything they choose, but the State should make it clear that they won’t influence State policy on that same issue. For instance, a government contractor can boycott guns all they want, but that doesn’t mean the State will restrict or ban the right to keep andbear arms.

      As for Anti-Israel Boycott Diventment, and Sanction (BDS,) this gets more detailed and nuanced due to equal opportunity/anti-discrimination requirements for government contractors.

      In principle, a government contractor, as a strictly political statement, could boycott Israel if they wanted, but that contractor could not make it binding on the State to BDS Israel or Israeli contractors, nor should that company’s BDS nullify equal opportunity/anti-discrimination requirements applied to government contractors.

      A government contractor could boycott Israel, but not refuse to hire based on Israeli national origjn or based on Jewish ethnicity or religion. (This could also serve to test the BDS claim that “Anti-Israel is not Anti-Jewish.”)

      Ride any hobby-horse you want, but don’t expect anyone else to go along, especially government that is supposed to defend the individual rights and equal justice for all.

  17. “should trouble even people who would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned”

    What have *you* done to overturn Roe v. Wade, Sullum?

    As for being at the mercy of private attorneys general, why is that worse than being at the mercy of some hack prosecutor who wants to rack up votes by attacking your rights, and has a huge budget with which to do so?

  18. Hey Sullum, how does it feel to be a lying sack of shit? The Texas curriculum bill stops teachers from grading in class performance or assigning work based on the 1619 project or any other current controversy. It at no point stops them from discussing the issues. If the teacher wants to sayyyy set aside 20 minutes a week to discuss political issues for those in the class who wish to do so, the teacher can set aside that time. They just can’t force students to participate or grade them on those discussions.

    1. It at no point stops them from discussing the issues.

      Right. So teachers can discuss the issues with their students, they just can’t ever assess their students to see if they learned anything from the discussion.

      And in what universe is it appropriate for state legislators to be micromanaging classrooms to such a degree as to be dictating the types of homework assignments that may be assigned? This is utterly stupid.

      1. In what universe is it appropriate to let collectivistjeff breathe?

      2. And in what universe is it appropriate for state legislators to be micromanaging classrooms to such a degree as to be dictating the types of homework assignments that may be assigned? This is utterly stupid.

        They aren’t “micromanaging” at all; the law targets a whole area of topics and ideas.

        Believe it or not, but it’s the job of legislators to determine what public schools do and don’t teach.

      3. In the universe where we’re talking about what the government’s own employees are doing in the government’s own schools, that’s which universe.

        You want to teach race hatred to your kids in math class, instead of long division, enroll them in a private school.

      4. “Right. So teachers can discuss the issues with their students, they just can’t ever assess their students to see if they learned anything from the discussion.”

        Earlier, you whined that they could not even DISCUSS it.

        Now you whine that they cannot TEST on it.

        You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

    2. How about these insane moronic freaks keep their grubby hands off of curricula of all sort.

      1. We’re trying to stop the CRT freaks. Thanks for the support, Tony.

  19. “The Bad: Abortion Ban”

    Reason is really getting a lot of mileage off of something the liberty movement is pretty split on.

    1. The part of the libertarian movement that likes abortion isn’t willing anymore to admit that there are libertarians who are pro-life. We’re un-people now, just don’t exist.

      I guess we get in the way of the baby killing.

      1. It would help if there were fewer people who are anti-abortion making statements like justme’s directly below:

        https://reason.com/2021/09/03/the-good-and-the-bad-in-the-666-bills-that-took-effect-this-week-in-texas/#comment-9085214

        And I acknowledge that there are people on the pro-abortion who are just as judgements and extreme on the other side.

    2. yea, so by logic then the author thinks that killing babies is good. what a pathetic, depraved human being.

  20. Thanks for sharing such wonderful stuff. Keep sharing and keep up the good work.
    Status-Video.Com

  21. Ha I saw some hollyweird actors won’t film in Texas now. And that’s fine because we don’t want your unwashed selves here anyway.

    Conservatives leaving Cali though are welcome. Illegal immigrants can go home.

    1. Why do you want Texas to be the lamest state?

      1. Why are shitwstain’s comments always the lamest?

      2. If having to have Patricia Arquette film a terrible movie that nobody will watch is the price to not be lame…lameness is awfully attractive.

  22. Thank you for sharing an interesting post. This is very useful information for readers who want these types of article. Please keep it up such a great posting like this above.
    Whatsapp Status Video Download Thank you for this

  23. Thank you for sharing an interesting post. This is very useful information.
    New Whatsapp Status Video Thank you for this

  24. So, where’s the bad news?

  25. Considering that the downside of this legislation is fucking excellent, it’s obviously a win-win for everyone who lives in Texas.

  26. The law prohibits abortion when a “fetal heartbeat” can be detected, which happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women even realize they are pregnant. It therefore bans the vast majority of abortions—at least 85 percent, according to the organizations challenging the law. The only exception is for a “medical emergency,” so the ban applies to cases involving rape, incest, or predictably lethal fetal defects.

    Maybe women who are sexually active should take an OTC pregnancy test every couple of weeks just in case. Especially if a woman has been recently raped. Or did the law make those illegal and nobody mentioned it?

    1. Why would a woman who has been raped not get help for it immediately? Why would they wait 6 weeks AFTER being raped to deal with possible issues?

      1. I assume because it took six weeks to break up with their boyfriend, and retroactively decide they’d been raped.

      2. I understand the standard operating procedure for rape victims is to wait for 30 or so years until their rapist is nominated to the Supreme Court.

  27. “Permitless Carry Is Now Legal In Texas, Worrying Law Enforcement And Gun Safety Experts”
    […]
    “In this year’s state Legislative session, Senate Bill 1927 eliminated the requirement for a handgun license in Texas, and with it, a mandatory minimum of five hours classroom instruction on basic gun laws, safe storage and peaceful conflict resolution as well as a shooting proficiency test….”
    https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/guns/2021/09/02/407603/carrying-a-handgun-without-a-license-is-now-officially-legal-in-texas/

    Owning a gun without gov’t indoctrination?!

  28. If you strip away all the insults and overgeneralizations, the argument from the cultural conservatives here seems to be that they don’t want students exposed to the types of knowledge that they oppose (racial history, evolution as science, broad-based sex education just to name a few) but they do want the knowledge that they support taught the way they want without requiring discussion or debate (the War of Northern Aggression, creationism/intelligent design as science not theology, ignorance-only sex education).

    Controversial subjects with some minimal level of accurate foundation should be discussed. That’s the point of education, to teach critical thinking.

    The 1618 project is a vast overreach. Presenting it in Social Studies will allow students to see that for themselves and reject it on the merits. Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, and other political texts should absolutely be discussed in history classes for the same reason. They contain loathsome ideas, but they were central to two of the most significant events of the 20th century, WW2 amd the Cold War. Creationism should be taught beside other theological origin stories, as it is one of the foundational aspects of Christianity. Fact-based information about sex should be presented because teenagers are going to have sex, so accurate information is important.

    Just because a subject is presented doesn’t mean it will be accepted. Teenagers, especially, are contrarian, norm-challenging, willful creatures. They are constantly testing adults and their ideas. They aren’t the slack-jawed rubes cultural conservatives make them out to be.

    Cultural conservatives seem to want to restrict information and behavior so that nothing outside of orthodoxy is allowed. That seems to fly in the face of foundational libertarian ideals like the free exchange of ideas, individual liberty, and heterodoxy.

    1. The 1618 project is a vast overreach. Presenting it in Social Studies will allow students to see that for themselves and reject it on the merits.

      yeah – i’m sure with CRT fanatic teaching the course they will be allowed to question it in a way that uncovers all the hate and inconsistencies and outright hypocrisy .
      Its not that its ‘being discussed’. Kids with mostly unformed reasoning and arguing skills having to discuss on the fly a teachers prepared dogma is the scenario we’re dealing with. It is not a discussion of equals. Plus, the teachers institute this as part of their TEACHING curriculum and they are the Sherpas. They are not teaching critical thinking. They are teaching – “remember the points i bring up here because i will test you on them later. Be able to regurgitate them when we assign you a protest attendance for your next extra credit”.

      1. When do you think critical thinking happens? In college? Should we assume if someone doesn’t have a college degree they can’t think for themselves?

        The idea that teenagers can’t think is BS. The idea that students swallow everything presented to them as gospel truth is BS. The idea that the only way to provide a good education is to limit information and discussion rather than encourage it is BS. Heterodoxy is a hood thing, orthodoxy is not.

        Arguing that the extremist ideas of “them” (whoever “they are”) should be replaced with the extremist ideas of “us” doesn’t seem like a very good idea, right? You want the superior ideas to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, right? Then let people hear it and decide for themselves. Issues are never as simplistic and good vs. evil as the fringes pretend.

        1. You obviously have had nothing to do with public education in a long time. This is good for you, but your perspective is lacking.

      2. Nelson favors forced indoctrination into the new nazism.
        Nelson is an enemy combatant engaged in active hostilities.
        Start treating it as such, or your life is over.
        Kill or be killed.

    2. “If you strip away all the insults and overgeneralizations, the argument from the cultural conservatives here seems to be that they don’t want students exposed to the types of knowledge that they oppose (racial history, evolution as science, broad-based sex education just to name a few) but they do want the knowledge that they support taught the way they want without requiring discussion or debate (the War of Northern Aggression, creationism/intelligent design as science not theology, ignorance-only sex education).”

      Who has advocated for literally a single one of these?

      Feel free to provide examples.

      “Presenting it in Social Studies will allow students to see that for themselves and reject it on the merits.”

      Is the sky blue in your world? Is water wet? Because the world you live in is not the one the rest of us do and I am quite curious about alien life.

      “Teenagers, especially, are contrarian”

      Holy shit, you’re ACTUALLY claiming this and expecting to be taken seriously?

      “Cultural conservatives seem to want to restrict information and behavior so that nothing outside of orthodoxy is allowed. That seems to fly in the face of foundational libertarian ideals like the free exchange of ideas, individual liberty, and heterodoxy.”

      Now do education NOW.

      1. Is the sky blue in your world? Is water wet? Because the world you live in is not the one the rest of us do and I am quite curious about alien life.

        You see this as a substantive argument against exposing CRT through examination? And in favor of government censorship? I don’t see how, but you do you.

        Holy shit, you’re ACTUALLY claiming this and expecting to be taken seriously?

        Perhaps you haven’t interacted with many teenagers. That would explain why you seem to think they accept everything adults tell them. Your naivete is adorable.

        Now do education NOW.

        Which part do you object to? The free exchange of ideas, individual liberty, or heterodoxy?

        1. “You see this as a substantive argument against exposing CRT through examination? And in favor of government censorship? I don’t see how, but you do you.”

          We have spent FORTY DAMNED YEARS dealing with it. You act like CRT just came out in the last few years. It did not.

          Your “The world SHOULD do this” mentality is trumped, heavily, by how the world IS. Should means precisely shit.

          “Perhaps you haven’t interacted with many teenagers. That would explain why you seem to think they accept everything adults tell them. Your naivete is adorable.”

          Only have two myself and I have to deal with their friends. But, please, tell me more. I am fascinated by your deep insight. Really, I am.

          Did you know that the most likely predictor is a child becomes a left wing protestor in school is their parents being really left wing. Nearly a 1:1 correlation. Weird, given how notoriously contrarian they are.

          “Which part do you object to? The free exchange of ideas, individual liberty, or heterodoxy?”

          Say “Transgenderism is not real” on a campus and see how long you are permitted to stay enrolled there.

          Go ahead.

          You live in a fantasy world. I will live in the real one.

          1. I’ll also note that your whining about insults is kinda funny given that you said the critics of CRT just want racism and bigotry they support taught.

            1. I said nothing of the sort.

              1. Since you do not read your own posts…

                “they do want the knowledge that they support taught the way they want without requiring discussion or debate (the War of Northern Aggression, creationism/intelligent design as science not theology, ignorance-only sex education).”

                1. None of those are racism or bigotry. The War of Northern Aggression is fantasy (or revisionist history, if you prefer), creationism/intelligent design is philosophy, and ignorance-only sex ed is another way to say abstinence and nothing else. I’m not sure why you think any of those are bigotry or racism.

          2. Ive been dealing with teachers professionally and also in private (unfortunately). They really tend to be the idiot in the room. Its true. Professionals in education have lower average IQs than those in other fields.

          3. “Only have two myself and I have to deal with their friends. But, please, tell me more. I am fascinated by your deep insight. Really, I am.”

            And you think that my assessment of teenagers was wrong? Apparently your kids and their friends believe everything that adults tell them, are never defiant, and are incapable of examining information and coming to an independent conclusion about it. That is definitely not the norm, as any other parent of a teenager can tell you.

            “Did you know that the most likely predictor is a child becomes a left wing protestor in school is their parents being really left wing. Nearly a 1:1 correlation. Weird, given how notoriously contrarian they are.”

            So you’re saying that the influence of parents is the dominant influence on a child’s worldview? Funny, I thought it was the teachers.

            “Say “Transgenderism is not real” on a campus and see how long you are permitted to stay enrolled there.”

            If you want to have a discussion about the obscenity of “free speech zones” and other First Amendment violations on college campuses, I’m pretty sure we would agree. Because censorship and restricting free speech is bad.

            It feels like your argument is that censorship is bad, unless you don’t like the subject. The free exchange of ideas is good unless you don’t like the ideas. Individual liberty is good unless you don’t like what someone else is doing. Heterodoxy is good unless you don’t like someone else’s beliefs. Oh, wait…

            If you believe in something, live your beliefs. Libertarianism is hard because it requires you to accept that others will not necessarily agree with you, but that’s a good thing.

            The craziest part of this whole discussion is that we agree about CRT. I just prefer to approach it like a libertarian and you prefer government censorship.

            1. Lol little Nelson learned how to put other peoples sentences between quotation marks 😀 Good job, little boy.

              “The craziest part of this whole discussion is that we agree about CRT. I just prefer to approach it like a libertarian and you prefer government censorship.”

              In public, government run schools, you fucking idiot, or somewhere else?

              1. Yeah, I thought that quoted text got italicized automatically. As a card-carrying member of the Grammar Police I feel shame.

                “In public, government run schools, you fucking idiot, or somewhere else?”

                Anywhere, troll. Censorship is censorship. If I think that Mein Kampf, a much more loathsome philosophical text, should be taught, why would I object to CRT? Both are wrong, but that doesn’t mean they should be repressed by the government.

                1. Well, largely, because there are no Nazis out there teaching how Mein Kampf is actually true and the way the world is.

                  Same cannot be said of CRT.

            2. “And you think that my assessment of teenagers was wrong?”

              Pretty clearly so.

              “Apparently your kids and their friends believe everything that adults tell them, are never defiant, and are incapable of examining information and coming to an independent conclusion about it.”

              No, not JUST them. All teenagers.

              “It feels like your argument is that censorship is bad, unless you don’t like the subject. The free exchange of ideas is good unless you don’t like the ideas. Individual liberty is good unless you don’t like what someone else is doing. Heterodoxy is good unless you don’t like someone else’s beliefs. Oh, wait…”

              No. I feel teaching bigotry to kids who have no choice but to attend the school and lack the critical thinking skills due to teachers lacking any semblance of ANY thinking skills of their own is abhorrent. I’d prefer to stick to teaching facts and reality.

              “The craziest part of this whole discussion is that we agree about CRT. I just prefer to approach it like a libertarian and you prefer government censorship.”

              We gave “your way” FORTY YEARS. It failed.

              So, honestly and sincerely, fuck your way.

              1. “No, not JUST them. All teenagers.”

                Holy crap, I almost spit my soda across the room. If you believe this, there is no way you have teenagers.

                CRT isn’t “teaching bigotry”. That’s pure hyperbole. It is a weak theory that is easily pierced by the most basic level of critical thinking.

                But if that’s beyond the kids in your area, you may want to move to an area with a better education system. I went to high school in two different states and only the most stoned or stupid ones couldn’t find the logical flaws in CRT.

                “We gave “your way” FORTY YEARS. It failed.”

                So CRT hasn’t been part of high school education anywhere in those 40 years you keep yelling about, but it’s somehow, suddenly, a philosophical juggernaut that has taken over curriculums everywhere? Excuse me if I find your moral panic laughable.

                “So, honestly and sincerely, fuck your way.”

                So, once again, I’ll ask if you see yourself as a hypocrite or of you think that there is a “I don’t like it” exception to opposing government censorship.

                Or, I guess, there is always the possibility that I am making a bad assumption that you consider yourself a libertarian.

                1. “Holy crap, I almost spit my soda across the room. If you believe this, there is no way you have teenagers.”

                  If you doubt it, you confuse television sitcoms for reality.

                  “CRT isn’t “teaching bigotry”. That’s pure hyperbole.”

                  No, it really is not hyperbole. It is what it is. Whites are bad and guilty SOLELY due to the color of their skin and darker skinned folks just are not able to achieve much.

                  “So CRT hasn’t been part of high school education anywhere in those 40 years you keep yelling about, but it’s somehow, suddenly, a philosophical juggernaut that has taken over curriculums everywhere? Excuse me if I find your moral panic laughable.”

                  “Oh, it’s only on colleges. No way that will fly in the real world” has been said about a great deal of sheer idiocy. Yet it happens. We have a virulently racist philosophy taught to captive students by morons who do not know a damned thing themselves.

                  It went from law to every conceivable discipline, including now into the hard sciences on campuses and into schools. I cannot make you not be oblivious to what is happening.

                  “So, once again, I’ll ask if you see yourself as a hypocrite or of you think that there is a “I don’t like it” exception to opposing government censorship.”

                  The government is promoting bigotry using MY money to do so. Since I’m paying for it, I damned well have say over it.

                  You might find teaching kids that blacks are inferior and little better than monkeys, but I’d have a major problem with that racism being taught as well.

                  “Or, I guess, there is always the possibility that I am making a bad assumption that you consider yourself a libertarian.”

                  libertarianism is a laughable philosophy consisting solely of progressives who like smoking pot.

                  1. I’ve worked with teenagers off and on for 30 years. I have hundreds if data points to draw on. But maybe the kids that I have worked with are just smarter than the ones around you. You should ask for better schools.

                    “No, it really is not hyperbole. It is what it is. Whites are bad and guilty SOLELY due to the color of their skin and darker skinned folks just are not able to achieve much.”

                    That’s an … let’s say “extreme” … interpretation. But since it hasn’t actually been implemented in any high school, you seem to be projecting your fear of what it could be. You could be right, you could be wrong, but it’s definitely the most extreme projection if what a curriculum might look like.

                    The fearmongering definitely isn’t helping solve the problem. It seems to be having the opposite effect, since for 40 years CRT was an unknown fringe theory and through the efforts of the outrage-industrial complex, it is now on everyone’s lips.

                    So yes, you are a hypocrite. But it’s OK to abandon your principles because … taxes? I see you are a person of strong, deeply held convictions.

                    “libertarianism is a laughable philosophy consisting solely of progressives who like smoking pot.”

                    So you are here to discuss … what? Your principles are obviously fluid, but you think that a philosophy that espouses personal liberty, supports small, effective government, opposes wars (except for national defense), and believes in local governing is “laughable”? I’m asking for a friend. ????

                    1. That “extreme interpretation” is shockingly mainstream in indoctrinators.

                    2. You are supposed to say “evil Marxist” before indoctrinators. It doesn’t sound sinister enough otherwise.

                      So you are also one who believes that teachers are secretly a monolithic cabal under the influence of the CRT overlords?

                      Do you believe that there are microchips in the Covid vaccine, too? Or that the moon landing was faked? Because the idea that the general population of people across the country have very different beliefs, but teachers are some sort of hive mind enslaved by the mesmerizing power of CRT is first-order idiocy.

  29. “…Cultural conservatives seem to want to restrict information and behavior so that nothing outside of orthodoxy is allowed…”

    Critical Race Theory, the supposed “scientific” solutions to climate change and the responses to the Wu Flu suggest that the other side is quite happy to do the same.

    1. I believe I pointed out that the 1619 is a massive overreach. Slavery did allow the nation to be built on brutality and free labor, but it doesn’t mean that anyone today should be vilified for being white. Presenting CRT makes that obvious. Oversimplified strawman arguments against it won’t lead to its deserved rejection. Only exposure and critical thinking will accomplish that. Much like the fallacy of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto is exposed through exposure to their bad ideas and tenets.

      Climate change is real. If you are forced to rely on a small percentage of contrarian scientists to support your beliefs it just exposes the weakness of your position. Much like RFK Jr. And his delusional band of leftist anti-vaxxers.

      And the fact that other people have bad ideas doesn’t mean that critical thinking is a bad thing. “They do it, too” doesn’t work for kindergarteners. Whataboutism is intellectually dishonest and a sign of an untenable position.

      1. “Climate change is real.”

        Just odd that every model is garbage and every prediction is false and they are quite unwilling to provide the raw data for their conclusions.

        That is how you know it is real.

        “Presenting CRT makes that obvious.”

        You’re aware that the education establishment completely believes it and is demanding authorization to indoctrinate.

        I wish Reason had a few intelligent progs.

        1. Every model is garbage according to …? Some random guy on the internet and 4-5% of scientists? I get confirmation bias, but ignoring an overwhelming consensus because you don’t like it is a step beyond. The raw data is literally available to anyone who wants it. Everything from peer-reviewed articles to NOAA to universities distribute a massive traunch of data contantly. Saying something doesn’t make it so.

          The idea that teachers are a monolithic gang of zealots dedicated to CRT (as defined by its detractors) is a crock of shit. If you can’t win on the merits of your positions and the facts thereof, you have a bad position.

          CRT/1619 can’t win on its merits because it takes a strong premise and uses it to reach radical and untenable conclusions. That is clear when it is examined, but it will never be dismissed as long as the far right keeps misrepresenting it and spewing vitriol towards it.

          Allow it to fail on its own. It is a flawed and ridiculous set of conclusions, which is obvious when it is examined. Make it a political hobby-horse and moderates will look at the substance-free/oversimplified condemnations of the extreme right and figure there must be some validity to it if the outrage-industrial complex on the right wants to oppose it.

          We believe the same things about CRT. I just think top-down government censorship is a terrible way to do it. Allowing it to fail on it’s merits (or lack thereof) is the libertarian way to defeat bad ideas.

          1. “Every model is garbage according to …?”

            CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

            They always blame the models when their laughable predictions fail.

            Which they ALWAYS do. It’s the only real consistency they have.

            “Everything from peer-reviewed articles”

            How many peer-reviewed articles aren’t repeatable? Answer is…a lot. A lot of them are utterly not repeatable. Been a known issue for a while now.

            “The idea that teachers are a monolithic gang of zealots dedicated to CRT (as defined by its detractors) is a crock of shit.”

            Not zealots…morons. They are a monolithic gang of morons. They are not intelligent enough to be zealots. And they are quite dedicated to CRT.

            “CRT/1619 can’t win on its merits because it takes a strong premise and uses it to reach radical and untenable conclusions. That is clear when it is examined, but it will never be dismissed as long as the far right keeps misrepresenting it and spewing vitriol towards it.”

            It’s been around colleges since the 1980’s. Conservatives ignored it for NEARLY 40 YEARS.

            I guess that grand refutation by the academic establishment was going to come eventually. 40 years is just not enough time, clearly.

            “Allow it to fail on its own.”

            FORTY YEARS.

            Plenty of time given. It did not. So, no more playing around.

            “It is a flawed and ridiculous set of conclusions, which is obvious when it is examined.”

            IT HAS BEEN FORTY YEARS. Colleges spread it with zero concerns. Even Ann Althouse, former law professor at UW-Madison, said that CRT was not even remotely controversial to the professors when it started making its way through the colleges. This is not a NEW idiotic theory.

            “Make it a political hobby-horse and moderates will look at the substance-free/oversimplified condemnations of the extreme right and figure there must be some validity to it if the outrage-industrial complex on the right wants to oppose it.”

            Nah. They will see the virulent racism and wonder why ANY of it is being taught whatsoever. Higher education has the perverse ability to make one incredibly susceptible to incredibly stupid ideas.

            “We believe the same things about CRT. I just think top-down government censorship is a terrible way to do it. Allowing it to fail on it’s merits (or lack thereof) is the libertarian way to defeat bad ideas.”

            Again, we gave it DECADES. Education only was getting more and more enamored with it. It’s time to stop letting these people who clearly cannot manage themselves to be allowed to manage themselves.

            1. I know what there’s plenty of good data for: putting reactionaries in charge of what happens at universities leads to death camps. Unfortunately there are repeated experiments.

              You people need to stop worrying so much about what young people are being taught. Young people have the advantage of growing up and reading more books. Anyone who still believes the things he learned in college didn’t learn the right lessons, and anyone who still believes what he learned in 5th grade… well, what’s the point of convincing him of anything? Just let him gum his cabbage in peace.

              The real problem with information in this society is the proliferation of horseshit on the internet. Suddenly everyone’s a climatologist, or a doctor.

              You must appreciate that confirmation bias and other traps are not just minor concerns. A small bias can magnify into a worldview utterly divorced from reality. Are your methods rigorous enough? Are you sure?

              1. “You people need to stop worrying so much about what young people are being taught. Young people have the advantage of growing up and reading more books.”

                BWA HA HA.

                You’re…serious? You really believe that, do you?

                Adorable.

                “You must appreciate that confirmation bias and other traps are not just minor concerns. A small bias can magnify into a worldview utterly divorced from reality. Are your methods rigorous enough? Are you sure?”

                Adorable seeing you, of all people, asking these questions while not looking at a mirror.

      2. That’s some serious foot-work; did you take the gold in the Jitter Bug contest?
        Suggest you re-read my post and avoid beating those strawmen to death.

  30. Police budgets: With the caveats of population size minimum and overall budgets, Sullum’s big worry is absurd. They can still just not add to the budget as the city and budgets grow and inflation minimizes what current budgets provide. This law simply prevents reactionary budget cuts for political purposes.

  31. Why would you wanna keep liberals from killing their babies? I would legally allow democrat voters to kill their children up to the age of 80.

    1. If you mean babies in the real definition, as a living, breathing human, no one should kill babies.

      And if you think that it’s only liberty that get abortions, that’s adorable. Even pro-life politicians have been known to encourage abortions for their mistresses.

      I realize that this may seem like a crazy idea, but it’s possible that no one is 100% right, nor are they 100% wrong. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is nuance in the world.

      1. I think liberals are 100% right to kill their offspring at any age they please.

        And no, you statistically impaired smoothbrain. I dont think its only liberals who get abortions. But mostly.

  32. How many peer-reviewed articles aren’t repeatable? Answer is…a lot. A lot of them are utterly not repeatable. Been a known issue for a while now.

    This was mentioned as a source of data. If you want to get into repeatability of experiments and Academic rigor

    1. I believe we would agree it is abysmal. But they contain data, which you asserted is somehow been hidden from everyone.

      It’s been around colleges since the 1980’s. Conservatives ignored it for NEARLY 40 YEARS.

      Everyone ignored it for 40 years because it is a weak theory. It’s only a thing now because the culture warriors need a new wedge issue. So thanks for that. We need to deal with this idiocy now because idiots need something to rail against.

      It’s time to stop letting these people who clearly cannot manage themselves to be allowed to manage themselves.

      It is awe-inspiring how fiercely you support personal liberty. You are a model libertarian.

      Unless that wasn’t sarcasm, in which case you have reinforced my assertion that cultural conservatives don’t support libertarian principles. Libertarian tip: censorship is bad.

      1. “Everyone ignored it for 40 years because it is a weak theory. ”

        Is it too hard to use quotes?

        That weak theory continued, unabated, and grew consistently in higher education for FORTY YEARS. So, apparently, this weak theory sure baffled a lot of allegedly super smart folks.

        “It’s only a thing now because the culture warriors need a new wedge issue.”

        It’s a thing now because ignoring it failed miserably. FOR FORTY DAMNED YEARS. We prefer to not teach rampant bigotry in schools.

        “It is awe-inspiring how fiercely you support personal liberty. You are a model libertarian.”

        How in the blue hell is a state employee using state facilities while being paid by the state your example of PERSONAL liberty.

        Same teachers aren’t permitted to be naked in class. I guess that’s just more crushing of their liberty.

        Education is incapable of managing itself. It’s been demonstrated for decades. Time to end the experiment.

        1. “It’s time to stop letting these people who clearly cannot manage themselves to be allowed to manage themselves.”

          My reply was, “It is awe-inspiring how fiercely you support personal liberty. You are a model libertarian.”

          And your reply was, “How in the blue hell is a state employee using state facilities while being paid by the state your example of PERSONAL liberty.”

          Saying that if, in your opinion, someone “cannot manage themselves” they should be stopped from managing themselves by anyone else is the exact opposite of personal liberty. Their liberty is not subject to your approval.

          Your opinion about someone else’s fitness is literally irrelevant. Unless you are a court-appointed psychiatrist for a competency hearing. Which, in this case, you are not.

    2. Fuck, you’re one bizarre piece of bot shit.

      1. Cut its throat and move on.

        1. They are really triggered that the public is standing up to their indoctrination. They’re used to running roughshod over anybody that disagrees with them, then act like petulant children. I’m afraid the only way they are going to understand that decent people do not want what they are selling anymore is if a few throats do get cut.

          1. Jesus, man. What is wrong with you? At least say something clever when you troll. Is it too much to ask for a little less of a psychopath vibe?

            1. Coming from sarcasmic’s latest sock that has spent 20 posts defending teaching virulent, disgusting racism in public schools, this is pretty fucking rich.

              Your daughter’s been through enough with you having raped her throughout her entire childhood, sarcasmic, she doesn’t need to be taught racial hatred in the public schools that the taxpayers who provide you with your section 8 apartment and food stamps pay for.

            2. It’s my opinion, Nelson. The country is hopelessly balkanized and heading for a civil war or a national divorce of some sort. It’s probably going to lead to violence, especially when one side is begging for force to be used against the other side. You know this, it’s not like you guys are hiding it. But do go on and tell everyone how much I offended the sensibilities of a reasonable person like yourself and caused you to lay on the fainting couch.

              1. It seems like if there is to be a civil war, it will start the same way as the last one. The morally bankrupt side, fearing the fact that Americans largely reject cultural conservatism, will attack America. After getting thousands of Americans killed, the New Confederates will get the ass-kicking they so richly deserve for for causing so much death and destruction. They will spend the next 150 years or so whining, attempting to rewrite history, and pretending that their worldview wasn’t resoundingly rejected. 150 years later, this victimization mindset in cultural conservatives will create another civil war because they can’t stomach the idea that the country continues to move forward.

              2. The political landscape is tilted in the direction of conservatives, from the unequal representation in the Electoral College and control of districting in a majority of states. If you don’t like the direction of the country with all of those advantages, you should probably just accept that America is unacceptable to you and move to Russia or China or Turkey or some other authoritarian country that makes you more comfortable.

                1. “ If you don’t like the direction of the country with all of those advantages…”

                  This is what I’m talking about. Those are not “advantages”. You think our system of gov’t is unequal. Well, I like the Constitution, Nelson, so why should I move? I’m perfectly content with the Founding, the ideals and what the country stands for. It’s you and your side that wants to fundamentally transform the country. There are a lot of other people who feel this way and won’t sit idly by while it happens. This is why CRT is being rejected. You can keep lying about it’s intent but the cat is already out of the bag. The right is not the side threatening and using the force of the State to accomplish their goals. Let me let you on on a little secret, we are not the side disarming ourselves and demonizing firearm ownership and training. My side makes up the overwhelming majority of the armed forces. My side is overwhelming armed and not afraid to defend itself. This idea that a bunch of leftists are going to arise, arm, train and change their perceptions of firearms in time to fight a war of some sort is laughable. If there is war it will be bloody and devastating. People like you will be the first to go. Weak, emotional, bitter and resentful does not make a conquering force. Veterans are not going to turn and kill their families and neighbors to protect your woke ideology and to destroy the patriarchy. You have no idea what you are in for.

                  1. I think the way our system is set up favors conservatives. If the culture of America today offends you when we have been a center-right nation for decades, it’s probably a good sign that you are an extremist. The fact that you seem to relish the idea of a civil war just confirms it.

                    You believe it will be a military coup? That the armed forces will, en mass, betray their oaths to the Constitution and try to destroy the duly elected government? Perhaps I just have more faith in our men and women in uniform, but I think that such a thing is unlikely. Reasonable people put “military coup” in the basket marked “terrible ideas”.

                    Your authoritarian fantasyland would strip away everything that makes America great. Personal liberty, free speech, the free exchange of ideas, acceptance that there are viewpoints other than yours (and that sometimes those ideas prevail over yours), free markets, and the rule of law, just to name a few, would be the victims of your civil war. I find it very unlikely that the majority of our armed forces would go along with that. Because they aren’t stupid and they aren’t oathbreakers and they aren’t so gullible they would believe that once you got rid of the people you hate that you would go back to an open society. An open society and freedom is what has created the America you seem to hate so much. You would never let that happen again or you’d end up right back where you started.

                    1. “ The fact that you seem to relish the idea of a civil war just confirms it.”

                      Your putting words in my mouth, I never said I’m looking forward to conflict or war. I just stated my opinion about the ridiculous assumption that you think the left would be competent in waging war. I’ll state it again, if an order was given to the military to attack red states and their own country men I know that the majority of the soldiers would not turn on their own families and neighbors to carry out some stupid Antifa fantasy. People like you will have to do the dirty work and it’s not in your nature or culture to do so. You all are cowards who expect the State to do it for you, not realizing who those people really are. If wars were won with virtue signaling and emotional outbursts on social media you would win hands down.

                      “ You believe it will be a military coup?”

                      Like I said above, if you give an order to start a civil war I think a majority of the military would refuse to follow those commands. That’s not a coup.

                      “ Your authoritarian fantasyland would strip away everything that makes America great. Personal liberty, free speech, the free exchange of ideas, acceptance that there are viewpoints other than yours..”.

                      You’re projecting. You’re the one who is advocating for the indoctrination of our children from the state by force. Your side believes in censorship under the guise of preventing “misinformation”. Your side is the one advocating for the elimination of “Whiteness” and all the concepts that ushered in the Great Enlightenment. We just want to be left alone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not forced into your “progress” or having our culture altered by a bunch of neo marxists through a post modern lens. You and your side are going to far and I doubt people will sit back and keep taking it. That’s all I’m saying Nelson. No need to keep projecting your right wing boogey man onto me.

                    2. Apparently you aren’t paying attention. Or you have some weird fantasy in your brain. No one would ever order an attack on red states by the military. That’s one of the most batshit crazy things I’ve ever heard.

                      “I just stated my opinion about the ridiculous assumption that you think the left would be competent in waging war.”

                      If a civil war comes, it won’t be right vs. left. It will be America against whoever decides to attack it. And from your rhetoric, you seem to think it will be the right fringe. Unless there’s some Dem in here talking about slitting throats like you are.

                      You also seem to be confused about where I stand on CRT. I’ll use small words for your benefit: CRT is a terrible theory that has such obvious flaws that anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence can see through it. It isn’t something you need to rage against because it isn’t a threat. It’s been a failure for decades and nothing will make it any less of a failure in the future.

                      “You’re the one who is advocating for the indoctrination of our children from the state by force.”

                      I assume you mean CRT with this comment. Please read above a second time. Repetition aids retention for the idiots.

                      “Your side believes in censorship under the guise of preventing “misinformation”.”

                      Cite?

                      What “side” are you trying to shoehorn me into? You keep saying unfounded things like this, so I’ll just say “cite?” from now on when you accuse me of something I never said or don’t believe.

                      “Your side is the one advocating for the elimination of “Whiteness” and all the concepts that ushered in the Great Enlightenment.”

                      Cite?

                      “having our culture altered”

                      Whose culture is it? Because culture is the sum total of everything that has been experienced by a country. It never stops, no matter how much some people try. We’ve now lost our second ideological war. A month ago that wasn’t true. We are changed, as a country, by that. Twenty years ago we were a different culture than 6 days later, when my friends were running for their lives in Lower Manhattan as two skyscrapers collapsed in a terrorist attack. Trying to freeze American culture at a specific point is a fool’s errand. Trying to force everyone else to live in the past is un-American. Because we adapt and overcome. It’s one of the things that make us great.

                      “I doubt people will sit back and keep taking it. ”

                      Yet apparently it won’t be “your side” that starts a civil war. This sort of talk makes me totally believe that. It seems so unthreatening.

                      This is why you really should consider libertarianism. Understanding and accepting that a set of foundational ideals can lead to different conclusions, and that that is a good thing, is a good way to go through life. It’s why the Volokh Conspiracy can have Josh Blackman, the two Ilyas, and a regular appearance by the Institute for Justice in the same place. Because as different as all of them are, they believe in the same foundational ideal: respect for the rule of law and an acceptance that someone who they disagree with isn’t a bad person because of it.

                    3. Fascinating.

                    4. Is that your way of agreeing with me? Or just a different way of saying tl;dr?

        2. You need professional help before you go on a killing spree. Assuming you haven’t already.

          1. Coming from a lowlife piece of shit drunk who lost custody of his kids because he was shoving his shriveled half-limp whisky dick into his own underage daughter’s pussy on the regular, and has also spent the last 9 months cackling with glee about the cold blooded murder of an unarmed woman for misdemeanor trespassing, this is pretty fucking rich. Why don’t you pluck the log out of your cirrhosis-addled liver before you worry about the speck in someone else’s eye you pathetic child molesting pussy ass little bitch who hides like a cowardly piece of shit when challenged to a fight.

            1. What is wrong with you? So I’m raping a daughter I don’t have? And I’ve been posting for 9 months? I’ve been posting for less than a week. I’m not sure what woman you think I was cackling about getting murdered, but it seems like your whole post is projection. In which case, my advice is to stop drinking so much, leave your daughter alone, and seek some serious mental health treatment.

              1. In their minds there are no libertarians in the world. Only a couple Reason employees who run spoof accounts, and apparently I’m the person running most of them. So when a new person shows up who is rational, doesn’t worship Trump, and uses good grammar, they immediately believe it’s another account run by me. They will then attack the person with all their delusions about me. It’s beyond stupid.

  33. Too bad news for everyone
    “It’s only a thing now because the culture warriors need a new wedge issue.”

    It’s a thing now because ignoring it failed miserably. FOR FORTY DAMNED YEARS. We prefer to not teach rampant bigotry in schools.
    Try to visit my blog to learn more about this topic
    https://xxxstory.best/de.html

    Thank you and good luck.

  34. All but the extreme abortion ban make perfect sense to me. I don’t know what the fuck they’re thinking on the abortion bill – that will backfire. I’m ok with more restrictions but they’re overplaying their hand in a way that reminds me of how the Dems behave in Cali. There’s a pendulum effect on politics and overplaying your hand just speeds up how quickly the pendulum changes direction.

Please to post comments