CDC

How the CDC Became America's Landlord

Pandemic bans on evictions were supposed to be a temporary measure, but politicians keep extending them.

|

At age 28, Esteban Rivera purchased his first home, a duplex in Bridgeport, Connecticut. It was just off Long Island Sound and a quick 15-minute commute to his job at a home remodeling company. The idea was to live in one of the units while continuing to rent out the other apartment to the tenants—a couple with two kids—that he'd inherited from the previous owner.

This straightforward plan was upended by some historically bad timing. Rivera purchased his home in March 2020, just as the pandemic hit. "Literally the world stopped," he said. "Nothing mattered."

Rivera was temporarily furloughed from his job. Shortly thereafter his tenants, now also out of work, told him that they couldn't make April's rent payment of $1,375.

Over the next several months, Rivera says, they were able to make things work. He used their security deposit to cover one month of missed rent, and they eventually used a stimulus check from the federal government to make a partial payment in July. His employer called him back to work in June. In September, Rivera even managed to secure one of his tenants a job at the same remodeling company he worked at, hoping that would set things right.

Instead, their partial rent payments became even less frequent, and the back rent owed continued to mount. Eventually it totaled close to $12,000.

"I understand that they were trying to make their own ends meet too," he says, "but it was at my own expense and my own detriment." Rivera ended up moving back in with family in New York. He rented the unit he'd intended to make his home to his cousin to help cover the financial strain caused by a non-paying tenant.

In more normal times, Rivera would have been within his rights to evict his tenants for nonpayment of rent. But an eviction moratorium imposed by Connecticut's Democratic governor, Ned Lamont, in April 2020 banned any landlord from serving a "notice to quit," the first step in Connecticut's eviction process, until July 2020. It wouldn't truly end until July 2021.

Lamont's order was not unique. All across the country, mayors, city councils, governors, and judges issued emergency halts to evictions in the early days of COVID-19. The immediate justification was to keep hard-pressed renters, thrown out of work by the global pandemic, from also losing the home they'd need to safely socially distance.

These eviction moratoriums were dropped into place with virtually no public discussion of the limits of bureaucratic power, the rights of private property holders, the unintended consequences, or any other ramifications of such moves. Governments simply asserted that they had these powers and then used them.

The moratoriums—like so many other extreme COVID-era measures that were supposed to be an emergency stopgap—soon became a seemingly permanent feature of public policy. In the initial months of the pandemic, 43 states adopted some form of eviction restriction, according to the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. By September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), leaning on a novel, near-limitless interpretation of its own powers, put a national moratorium in place. States could still implement their own eviction bans, but only if they were stricter than what existed at the federal level.

As the pandemic ran its course, Congress appropriated $46 billion to help distressed renters and landlords. And as COVID case counts, hospitalizations, and deaths fell in spring 2021, following the rollout of the vaccines, many public health restrictions on economic and social activity were lifted.

Yet eviction moratoriums at the state and local levels, including in California and New York, remain stubbornly in place. Some of them aren't scheduled to expire until well into 2022, more than two years from the onset of the pandemic.

On a macro level, these policies represent an envelope-pushing expansion of the government's ability to intrude on private property rights in the name of public health and economic relief, despite muddled evidence for their effectiveness. And while on a micro level they've unquestionably stopped some tenants from losing their homes, they've done so at the expense of landlords who are often also having trouble getting by.

The pandemic turned America's public health bureaucracy into its national landlord. America's rental property owners were left paying the price.

Shelter in Place

Prior to the pandemic, pauses on evictions were both rare and limited, occasionally imposed in the wake of natural disasters or, in a handful of cities, during cold or inclement weather. The idea was to not kick people out onto the street when doing so would put them in physical danger.

There's a reason that these pauses are so rare. A fundamental part of owning a property is the right to exclude people from it—particularly people who renege on their promise to pay for its use. The ability to evict delinquent tenants is a crucial protection for the estimated 10 million individual landlords who own about 40 percent of the country's rental housing stock. These mom-and-pop operations manage just two units on average and can be devastated financially when a tenant stops paying.

COVID-19 represented a nationwide natural disaster. With social distancing as their No. 1 goal, many officials reasoned, virtually any activity outside the home had to stop. Removing people from their houses was seen as a violation of that mandate. You can't shelter in place if you have no shelter.

Enter the eviction moratoriums, which unfolded in three successive stages. The first stage, in spring 2020, saw policy makers across the country impose emergency eviction bans to deal with an immediate catastrophe. The second stage, over summer 2020, saw a divergence: Some states ended their moratoriums as part of an attempt to return to normal, while others extended them in preparation for a long war with the virus. The third stage kicked off in September 2020 when the CDC declared a countrywide moratorium that nationalized the conversation. That lasted until August 2021, when the Supreme Court struck down the order as a clear example of executive overreach.

During the frenzied first stage, a number of states' eviction moratoriums were effectively imposed as a consequence of courthouses physically shutting down. (This was the case in Connecticut, where Rivera's property is located.) But in some places, the moratoriums preceded the lockdown orders that characterized the early days of the pandemic. On March 13, for instance, Mayor London Breed issued a ban on residential evictions for San Franciscans financially affected by COVID-19. It wasn't until March 16 that the city's public health officer imposed its first shelter-in-place order.

In late March, Congress passed the $2.3 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. It included a moratorium on evictions at all properties with a federally backed mortgage or which were participating in some other federal housing program. That covered about 28 percent of rental properties.

Proponents offered two rationales for why these various moratoriums were necessary: Evictions would lead to more spread of the coronavirus, and the economic effects of the coronavirus would lead to more evictions.

"Many residents of Connecticut are experiencing or will experience a significant loss of income as a result of business closures, reduced work hours or wages, or layoffs related to COVID-19, all of which affect their ability to pay their rent, and thus leave them vulnerable to eviction," reads the April 10 executive order banning almost all residential evictions in Connecticut. "Minimizing evictions during this public health period is critical to controlling and reducing the spread of COVID-19."

There was also a sense at the time, expressed by politicians from both sides of the aisle, that requiring people to continue to worry about making rent or mortgage payments was an unfair thing to do when the whole world was falling apart.

When then–Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson temporarily banned evictions and foreclosures at single-family properties with a federally insured mortgage in March 2020, he expressed a hope that doing so would "provide homeowners with some peace of mind during these trying times."

"People must be able to focus on our community's health—slowing the virus's spread—and not on economic survival," said California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco) the same month, calling for a nationwide moratorium on residential and commercial evictions. "We need to support each other and give people leeway to focus exclusively on keeping healthy."

Two other factors enabled the rapid spread of such moratoriums. The first was that mayors and governors had claimed sweeping emergency powers, which meant they could unilaterally make policy without the traditional need to whip votes or logroll support. So moratorium opponents had to depend on the courts, which have proved broadly deferential to emergency power claims. "The thing that catches the courts' attention is [governments' argument] that 'this is a pandemic, you should defer to our judgement on how to resolve the serious health crisis here,'" says Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, who says courts have uniformly ruled in favor of local and state moratoriums.

Second was the lack of a direct price tag. Eviction moratoriums cost the government nothing—at least not right away. Instead, they shift the financial burden of nonpaying tenants onto landlords, who largely don't have the option of taking their product out of circulation.

Most of the eviction moratoriums issued in the beginning of the pandemic were set to expire relatively quickly, often within 30 days. Others, such as the one in the CARES Act, were to sunset in July. By then, lawmakers reasoned, we'd surely have gotten a handle on COVID-19.

But as with lockdowns, the pandemic created path dependency. The moratoriums started as temporary measures. They soon became a main feature of the government's response to the virus.

The Eviction Wave Pool

Almost as soon as the eviction moratoriums snapped into place, activists, academics, and the media began warning that a giant wave of evictions would crest as soon as the moratoriums were allowed to expire.

"There will be an enormous number of eviction cases, and a tsunami of homeless people," Gary Blasi, a professor of law at UCLA, told LAist in April 2020. "We will have an avalanche of evictions across the country," said Columbia Law School professor Emily Benfer to The New York Times that May.

In June 2020, the Minneapolis Star Tribune predicted a "flood" of evictions if Minnesota's emergency order forbidding evictions was allowed to lapse. Housing activists told the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire that a "perfect storm" was on the horizon if expanded unemployment benefits and an eviction moratorium both expired at the same time.

By mid-summer 2020, it was clear that the pandemic was going to be more than a passing concern. The activists and officials who had supported eviction moratoriums to deal with the coronavirus and its economic fallout in March were now committed to keeping those policies in place. The deteriorating economy, they believed, made their argument stronger. Tenants had accumulated a huge amount of back rent. Once the first rounds of federal aid ran out and moratoriums were lifted, many would be unable to pay.

"You could use whatever natural disaster metaphor you want—there's the avalanche, the tsunami—and I think we are going to see that level of displacement," economist Sam Gilman, co-founder of the Colorado-based COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project, told Reason in July 2020, the same month the expanded unemployment benefits and limited eviction moratorium included in the CARES Act were set to end.

Using data about people's income, housing costs, savings, and pandemic-era government support, Gilman estimated that as many as 23 million renters would be at risk of eviction come the end of September.

A subsequent blog post at the Aspen Institute—co-authored by Gilman, Benfer, and other housing academics and activists—speculated that 30–40 million renters could be at risk of eviction by the end of the year.

That estimate would appear in much of the press coverage on evictions going forward, cited by activists and policy makers alike to justify the continued extension of eviction moratoriums.

It was a meaningless figure.

"That's like using the number of drivers to say how many people are at risk of dying in a car accident," says Salim Furth, a housing researcher at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "Yes, everyone who gets in a car is at risk of an accident, but that doesn't give you any sense of the number of people who will actually die in a car accident today."

Far from creating a surge in evictions, Furth argues that the economic dislocation of the pandemic would have led to no increase, and maybe even a reduction, in the number of landlords looking to give nonpaying tenants the boot. In an environment where most everyone is out of work, he says, landlords have an incentive to keep previously good-paying renters around on the assumption that they'll in time find a job again and return to paying their bills. Meanwhile, evicting a tenant leaves the landlord with the costs of turning over the unit and an expensive search for a replacement—and in an environment when many other prospective renters are also unemployed.

Data from late summer 2020 bear this out. The CARES Act's moratorium had expired, but the CDC's national moratorium had not yet gone into effect. Many states and localities began letting evictions resume.

A Government Accountability Office report found that moratoriums did reduce the number of evictions. But evictions were also down in areas without such policies. "When the CARES Act moratorium expired during the fourth week of July 2020, jurisdictions with an active local moratorium had about 88 percent fewer eviction filings (at the median) than in the fourth week of July 2019, whereas those without an active local moratorium had about 61 percent fewer," reads the report.

In a handful of cities across the country, eviction filings did spike above previous averages following the expiration of the state and CARES Act moratoriums. But they were also quick to fall back down to below those averages. The pattern suggests the eviction increases that were observed in late summer 2020 were a result of the moratoriums themselves. The bans created a backlog of eviction cases that would have otherwise been processed over a period of several months.

By the end of the summer, two Americas were emerging. In many blue states, moratoriums that were set to last a couple of months were now being extended well into the fall. Many Republican-controlled states, meanwhile, were letting their eviction bans expire. The stage was set for a natural experiment in the effectiveness of these policies at keeping people in their homes and safe from COVID-19.

That experiment was upended, in September 2020, when the Trump administration declared the first-ever nationwide eviction moratorium covering all private rental properties.

A Reasonable Necessity?

Despite the evidence that an eviction apocalypse was not right around the corner, housing activists spent the end of summer 2020 sounding an increasingly alarmist note about the slow erosion of emergency tenant protections.

By August, there were 31 states without a state-level eviction ban. The CARES Act moratorium had expired. Relief bills that would have created a nationwide moratorium and appropriated billions for rental assistance were stalled in Congress.

"Without a significant and sustained federal intervention, America will experience an increase in homelessness the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression," said Diane Yentel of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) at the time.

The Trump administration listened. In September, the CDC—citing the Aspen Institute's estimate that 30–40 million renters were at risk of eviction—issued a moratorium covering all rental properties across the country. So long as a renter signed a financial hardship declaration and made less than $99,000 a year ($198,000 for couples), he or she could not be evicted for nonpayment.

It was an unprecedented move. The agency justified its actions with an incredibly broad reading of its own powers under the 1944 Public Health Service Act and subsequent federal regulations, which allow the CDC director to take actions he or she deems "reasonably necessary" to prevent the interstate spread of communicable disease.

The law itself lists a few specific examples of the powers it gives federal health authorities, such as the ability to destroy livestock or fumigate buildings. Given the potential for evicted renters to spread COVID-19 to their next living arrangement, the CDC reasoned, an eviction moratorium could also be considered necessary.

Critics of the CDC's order noted that this rationale essentially gave the agency boundless authority to make whatever rules it wanted in the name of public health. "I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that if [the CDC's] interpretation is accepted, it means the CDC can issue any of the same orders at all that any of the governors across the country have done," Luke Wake, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, told Reason in October 2020. "Business closures, micromanaging the economy, what we can do in our private circles. That would all be under their purview."

Having claimed the extraordinary power to ban evictions, the federal government soon proved unwilling to let it go. The CDC's moratorium was originally supposed to stop at the end of 2020. A COVID relief bill passed by Congress that month extended it until the end of January 2021. Under the new Biden administration, the CDC pushed the expiration date back again—first through the end of March, then through the end of June, and finally to July 31. When it issued that last extension, the CDC put out a statement saying that this was intended to be the final one.

An upshot of all these extensions was that critics of the moratorium had more time to file lawsuits. And file they did.

Landlords, real estate agents associations, and property rights advocates (including the Pacific Legal Foundation) unleashed a blizzard of litigation against the agency's power grab. While similar complaints had been swatted away at the state and local level, federal courts proved willing to put some outer bounds on the government's pandemic powers.

In February 2021, a district court judge in Texas ruled that the CDC's order was not just illegal but unconstitutional, reasoning that neither the agency nor Congress had the power to regulate a wholly intrastate activity such as evictions.

As of July 2021, five other federal courts had likewise sided against the agency. Most of their rulings were more limited than the Texas judge's, finding that the Public Health Service Act did not in fact give the CDC the power to declare an eviction moratorium. That would have to be done by Congress. Three federal courts had ruled in favor of the agency.

In June 2021, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 to not take up an emergency petition from a trade group representing Alabama realtors challenging the federal moratorium. Providing the crucial fifth vote to leave the moratorium in place was Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In a short opinion, Kavanaugh said he thought the CDC had exceeded its legal authority when it issued an eviction ban. Two issues had stopped him from also voting to block the moratorium. The first was that Congress had passed two bills collectively appropriating $46 billion in rental assistance for tenants and landlords to prevent evictions. The second was that the moratorium was supposed to expire within a few weeks anyway.

Kavanaugh reasoned that the moratorium should be allowed to run its course, which would allow more time for rental assistance to reach its intended targets before evictions resumed. At the same time, he wrote that "clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31."

Kavanaugh was mistaken to take the Biden administration at its word when it said it would not extend the moratorium again. On August 3, three days after the federal eviction order expired, the CDC issued a new moratorium.

The hope was that this would give state and local governments more time to set up their own rent relief programs. But that turned out to be a tall order for most of the country.

Rollout, Rollback

The controversy over eviction moratoriums often looks like a battle between tenants and landlords. But despite their apparent divisions, both agreed on what they ultimately wanted: billions in federal rental assistance. "The eviction crisis is a cash crisis. Tenants can't pay their rent. Landlords don't have rental income," Gilman put it in July 2020. "Cash is the solution."

Groups ranging from the NLIHC to the National Apartment Association, which represents landlords, endorsed calls for rental assistance. The back-to-back federal COVID relief bills passed in December 2020 and March 2021 granted a respective $25 billion and $21 billion in funding for Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) programs.

The U.S. Treasury would distribute this money as block grants to states and some higher-population localities. These grantees would then be responsible for setting up their own programs to get that money to landlords and tenants to cover back rent and utilities.

Support wasn't universal. Some critics argued emergency unemployment benefits and stimulus checks had done enough to keep people afloat. Others said that in the absence of top-down rent relief, landlords and tenants would have an incentive to work out their own deals involving payment plans or rent forgiveness. Implementation timelines would also be a factor: By the time the checks started to flow, an economic recovery was underway.

On top of all that, the federal government was already in the middle of an unprecedented multi-trillion-dollar debt-financed spending spree in response to the pandemic. The rent bailouts added another $46 billion to the pile. Where was the money going to come from?

Still, landlords and tenants both seemed to have gotten what they wanted. But the actual implementation proved a disaster.

By late January, the Treasury had dispersed 99 percent of the first $25 billion of ERA money to states and localities. By the end of June, states and localities had managed to get only 12 percent of that money to landlords and tenants.

There are multiple reasons that getting funds out the door proved to be a challenge. Some 60 percent of state and local officials tasked with administering the ERA funds complained of a lack of staff in an April 2021 survey, while close to half said they faced technical hurdles launching new application systems. Low participation rates from both landlords and tenants were also an oft-cited explanation for the slow dispersal.

Tenant advocates claim that exclusively online applications and an overly bureaucratic process have driven down renters' ability to claim benefits.

"In Connecticut you have to go online to apply. That is causing a lot of problems for people because of the digital divide," says Erin Kemple of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center. "You're asking the group of people who need assistance to use a system that they generally don't have access to."

The application process takes about 90 minutes, Kemple adds, and requires the person to upload pictures of a government ID and of documents for income verification. These requirements can pose a serious barrier, she says.

Landlords, who could apply for assistance on behalf of their tenants, were also expressing frustration.

"I applied for rental assistance in March," Rivera says. "To this day, I haven't had anyone call me, tell me I'm missing documents, anything like that." As of mid-July, he was still waiting to hear about his application.

Other property owners were deterred from participating in Connecticut's rental assistance program because of its requirement that they drop any eviction proceedings as a condition of getting aid.

"In Connecticut, it's usually an average of three months to evict someone," explains Yona Gregory, an eviction attorney in the state. A landlord who accepts aid, she says, runs the risk that their delinquent tenant will immediately go back to not paying their bills. "You've got to restart the eviction and now you're looking at three, four months of nonpayment. That kind of puts you back where you started."

By mid-August, Connecticut had given out $60 million in rental assistance, about 14 percent of the ERA funding the state had been allocated. That makes it a pretty poor performer—but hardly the worst. Florida had spent only about 2 percent of the $871 million it had received from the first tranche of ERA money by the end of July. New York did an even worse job, spending only about $2 million of its $2.7 billion in ERA funds as of that point.

The snail's pace at which local and state governments have managed to get rent relief out the door has become a justification for yet another extension of the eviction moratoriums. After California extended its partial moratorium through September 2021, Assemblymember David Chiu (D–San Francisco) said in a statement that "removing eviction protections now, while billions of rent relief dollars are still available, would be a disaster and exacerbate our homelessness crisis."

The government's seemingly endless ability to extend those eviction moratoriums has, in turn, reduced the urgency that government officials feel to get money out the door.

"The governor and the City Council have said, well, we can take our time, because we've just shifted the burden onto landlords," says John Tondini, an attorney representing several landlords suing the city of Seattle over aspects of its eviction moratorium. "Here we are, more than a year into this situation, and they're still not rolling out the money. The thing they should have been doing from day one, they're still not doing it."

Temporary Emergency Forever

When eviction moratoriums popped up all over the country at the beginning of the pandemic, they were billed as a temporary emergency measure intended to help stop the spread of COVID-19. But over the last year and a half, the rationales have multiplied—from arresting a public health threat to preventing a wave of evictions to buying time for billions in rental assistance (itself an unprecedented crisis-response policy) to reach beneficiaries.

This has been profoundly damaging in two important ways. First, at the state and local level, politicians have discovered a cheap, easy, court-supported way of providing economic relief. It's unlikely that they'll be less willing to use that power in the future. Thus, landlords' fundamental right to decide who comes onto their property and under what conditions they stay there has been permanently eroded.

Second, at the federal level, there has been an unprecedented executive power grab. The CDC has claimed the authority to do anything "reasonably necessary" to stop the spread of a communicable disease. If that reasoning could justify an eviction moratorium to stop COVID-19, it could plausibly be stretched to justify any intervention in response to any transmissible disease, regardless of how severe it might be. Might a future administration impose an international travel ban to stop the common cold? Under the logic used to rationalize the eviction moratorium, that would seem to be an option.

On July 31, the CDC moratorium was finally allowed to lapse. For the first time in almost a year, large swaths of the country were covered by no ban on evictions. The expiration set off a panicked pressure campaign from progressive activists and lawmakers: A surge in COVID-19 cases caused by the delta variant and the continued failure of states and localities to disburse the billions in rent relief funds they'd been given, they said, meant the moratorium must be reinstated for a few more months at least.

For a couple of days, President Joe Biden and members of his administration—citing Kavanaugh's unwillingness to tolerate an executive branch–issued moratorium past July 31—claimed they had no legal authority to re-up the CDC's eviction ban. "The president has not only kicked the tires; he has double, triple, quadruple checked. He has asked the CDC to look at whether you could even do a targeted eviction moratorium—that just went to the counties that have higher rates—and they, as well, have been unable to find the legal authority," White House adviser Gene Sperling said at a press conference on August 2.

One day later, the administration went ahead and issued just such a "targeted" moratorium, covering the 90 percent of counties where the spread of COVID-19 was rated as "high" or "substantial" by the CDC.

"The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it's not likely to pass constitutional muster," Biden admitted at a press conference that day. But, he said, "by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we're getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind in the rent and don't have the money."

It was an exercise in lawlessness, albeit a temporary one. On August 26, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the CDC did not have the power to issue an eviction moratorium. Still, the persistence of these measures captures a new way of thinking among some on the left: the rise of the idea that people should never be evicted for nonpayment of rent. When someone stops paying, this thinking goes, it's a problem for public policy—i.e., regulations and subsidies—to address.

For a year, the CDC was able to lay claim to a vast amount of power—arguably enough power to impose any restriction on private parties it deemed "necessary" to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. And although the CDC order was eventually struck down, moratoriums at the state and local level will persist long after the public health threat that initially justified them has ended. Seattle's moratorium on evictions for nonpayment won't expire until March 2022 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, these moves have deprived rental housing providers of the ultimate means to safeguard their property rights and remedy contract violations. It's also made their business a lot riskier.

In response, some landlords say they're raising the credit scores they'll require of new renters and increasing their security deposits. With home prices at record highs, there's also a powerful incentive to get out of the rental market altogether by selling off properties to owner-occupiers. Neither of those outcomes is great for tenants, many of whom rent precisely because they can't afford to buy right now.

"In terms of renting it out in the future, I'm way more skeptical," says Rivera. "I tried to be a good landlord. I got [my tenant] a job. I tried to be patient. But if evictions are that difficult to do, if it's going to take a year, if I'm not going to have a sense of who's in my house, it really does worry me."

Blanket eviction moratoriums were a novel feature of the COVID crisis. They look more and more likely to be a regular feature of our future—even when there isn't a crisis.

NEXT: South Korea Considers Banning Dog Meat

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. Is there anything that the CDC can NOT do? Since all humans catch diseases at some time or another, all of us stopping making babies makes sense, yes? No humans, no human diseases! The CDC will order us all to stop making babies!

      1. Hey Smegmalung!

        Don’t you have more important things to do, instead of thread-shitting here? As San Fran’s foremost homeless hobo, couldn’t you be doing your usual “squeegee” racket, fighting with the other bums, pooping in the streets, and yelling insane, deluded insults at passers-by?

        1. 3rd flag for the spastic asshole! (working back up)

          1. The below poetry is dedicated to Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo,
            AKA “SmegmaLung”!

            Sitting on a park bench
            Eyeing little boys with bad intent
            Snot’s running down his nose
            Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
            Hey, Smegmalung!
            Drying in the cold sun
            Watching as the frilly panties run
            Hey, Smegmalung!
            Feeling like a dead duck
            Spitting out pieces of his broken luck
            Oh, Smegmalung!
            Sun streaking cold
            A hateful man wandering lonely
            Insulting others the only way he knows
            Brain hurts bad as he tries to think
            Goes down to the bog to spread his stink
            Feeling alone
            The army’s up the road
            Salvation a la mode and a cup of tea
            Smegmalung, my friend
            Don’t you start away uneasy
            You poor old sod
            You see, it’s only me
            By you insulting me,
            The rotting goes to thee!

            1. asshole’s really spastic this morning!

              1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

                Click & Chang your LifeSITE._________foxlineblog.Com

                1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.KJQ Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

                  Open this web…… WorkJoin1

            2. That’s kind of dumb. Did some kid you know write it or something?

              1. Q: What’s the difference between a good (genuinely funny) joke, and James Craig?

                A: One is a shift of wit. The other is a wift of shit!

                1. James, now you know why this assholic spastic gets flagged

                  1. Is he trying to be funny or something? He doesn’t seem to be quite right.

                    1. Everyone’s a critic!

                      Let’s see YOUR Great Poetry, Oh Wise Master!

                    2. It’s Sunday. On Sundays, sarc day drinks.

                    3. flag, asshole spastic

                  2. I muted it a long time ago. Now it just needs to kill itself. It needs to get the ‘Hihnt’ and die.

                    1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shtytocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

                      So I started……… http://gg.gg/w3b6a

        2. It’s in the 70s in San Francisco, and I think they have a home game against the Padres. That’s sure as heck where I would be.

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… READ MORE

      2. Just mute. He’s one of 3 that I’ve muted that aren’t spambots. Nothing worth reading. Move on.

        1. Agreed – I don’t understand the compulsion to engage with a clearly disturbed individual.

          You don’t play with dog turds on the sidewalk. You avoid them.

      3. Are SQRLSY One and Sevo socks of each other?

        1. Will you grow a 2nd brain cell?

    1. “Is there anything that the CDC can NOT do?”

      Communicate honestly and effectively?

    2. “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” – Buck v. Bell.

      1. Not really. A line can be drawn that vaccination is spread through an act as common as breathing. Pregnancy requires a more personal, intentional act.

        1. And before my comment is (intentionally) misinterpreted, I oppose vaccine mandates.

          But not because of some argument making an analogy to abortion or forced sterilization.

          1. It isnt intentionally misinterpreted. You literally rationalize why it would be okay in this case. You had to respond with a catch all to try to hide your true intentions. This is the shit you, jeff, abd sarc do constantly. Youre “just asking questions” as you advocate for things. This is why everyone things youre dishonest.

            1. Youre “just asking questions” as you advocate for things.

              That’s what’s called talking about ideas. Something you cannot do. All you can talk about is people. So when people put forth ideas and thought experiments, you get confused because you’re too damn stupid.

              I’m putting you on perma-mute. You’re a dishonest piece of moronic shit.

              1. He isnt talking about ideas saec. He presented one side as rationalization. That is his preference. Of he was discussing ideas he would present both sides if it was truly an idea. But after months of presenting solely one side of the argument, it becomes advocating.

                Thats what you dont realize. Why do you think people call you fucking leftist now? 99% of your energy is attacking the right despite democrats being in power. That elicits advocating. Do you honestly not realize this? I mean you have to since you called anyone who supported a single trump policy a cultist.

              2. I’m putting you on perma-mute. You’re a dishonest piece of moronic shit

                Remember when Ken and soldiermedic put sarcasmic on mute for trolling and he flipped out about it.

                And remember when the mute button first came out, and sarcasmic said he was putting everyone on mute… and then he would post a list of everyone he muted twice a day.

                And remember when sarcasmic swore he was leaving the comments forever and decamping for Glibertarians, only to get his trolling ass banned and come crawling back.

                There’s been crazier posters here before, but has there ever been anyone more pathetic?

                1. He put me on mute because he saw i actually responded to his arguments directly. He can’t handle it. Only if I remain a mean girl can he cope. He has an incurable need to be a victim.

                  1. “incurable need to be a victim”

                    Sounds like a leftist to me.

              3. Good idea. I was wondering what took you so long.

                1. Lol. A cowards welcome. Hilarious.

                2. Lol, this is the second time. Remember the last time he claimed he was muting everyone, and then he posted daily lists of people he was muting.
                  But what was even more hilarious is that you knew he hadn’t actually muted everyone, because he kept making allusions to things people who were supposedly on his mute list had posted.

                  And what’s even funnier than that is that you do it too.

                  You’re both such ridiculous poseurs.

              4. You will never put Jesse on mute. You would be like the Joker without Batman. What would be the point of you if you weren’t dishonestly trolling and shitposting on behalf of the left?

          2. I was quoting an actual Supreme Court decision there – and it wasn’t just some dissent opposing compulsory vaccination because it *could* be interpreted that way. This was literally used by SCOTUS to uphold forced sterilization.

            1. Mike knows that. He’s just a dishonest and disingenuous asshole.

            2. I know. I just disagree with their reasoning.

              1. No you didn’t. Lol.

        2. Youre talking about a disease with a 99.98% survivability rate. If you want to force medical decisions on that, then the government can force decisions on any health concern.

          Likewise the disease still spreads in the unvaccinated population, it does not stop spread. So you’ve truly given government power over something that is a mere appearance of safety.

          Youre not a libertarian. You’ve rationalized away why you can force others to give up their freedoms.

          1. Of course, Der JesseBahnFuhrer is a GREAT libertarian!

            https://reason.com/2020/02/07/michael-bloomberg-and-the-imperious-presidency-2/#comment-8120658

            JesseSPAZ comment: “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.” With Respect to Der TrumpfenFuhrer, of course!
            Jesse’s over-archingly lusting after the super-powers of the Trumptatorshit YET AGAIN!!!
            Trump can fire them for not assigning their entire paychecks to Trump… For not licking Trump’s balls as much as JesseSPAZ does… For turning down Trump’s requests for then to perform personal murder-for-hire… For having fucked Stormy Daniels out of turn, when it was Trump’s turn… For Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir refusing orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house…

            1. ‘Nother flag for the spastic asshole!

          2. Meant to say vaccinated population above.

          3. Where do these numbers come from?

            According to Johns Hopkins 1.7% of confirmed cases have died. For severe Covid pneumonia there is a less
            than 50% survival rate.

            Over 700,000 Americans have died from Covid. In 2019 600,000 died from cancer in the US.

            A study performed by Oxford demonstrated that Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission.

            https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates

            1. The best part is that the criteria for Vax person is died from, and they remove the died with, also they only count those hospitalized as cases, oppose to the unvaxxed where they count all cases and died with, not caring about comorbidities

            2. The researchers looked at 113,582 adult index cases and 253,168 close contacts of all ages; 5,394 fell under both categories. (A close contact was also classified as an index case when they tested positive.) Less than 1% (0.5%) of index cases were fully vaccinated, while 1.8% were partially vaccinated. For close contacts, 2.1% of were fully vaccinated and 1.7% were partially vaccinated.

              That is what you are quoting. Do you understand CFR VS IFR?

              https://kjacobs00.medium.com/cfr-ifr-and-you-what-is-the-true-covid-19-death-rate-c3c762c4f940

              There are enough dishonest shits here without you joining in.

            3. Now, do you you think we’ve confirmed every infection in the country?

              What do you think the ratio is?

            4. That’s 700,000 over two fucking years. 2020 covid deaths were about 340,000. Conflating the two is disingenuous as fuck.

              https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html

              Some highlights:
              1. 1 in 4 cases reported. So about 160Million (they incorrectly estimate 120Million, but we’re up to 43Million confirmed cases).
              2. 767,000 estimated deaths.

              767,000/160,000,000 = 0.5% IFR across all ages. However, the CDC has helpfully broken down everything by age group in that link so you can do the math for anyone under 50.

                1. A lot without even a test for covid for 2019.

    3. Actually that’s the line of reasoning US federal courts have used on birth control, homosexuality, and abortions. Reproduction is fundamental to the continuing existence of a population; if there were no people, there’d be no Constitution. Therefore the right to reproduce must be one of those fundamental things the US Constitution must protect even if it doesn’t say so.

      If there’s a Constitutional right to reproduce, then there must be one to not reproduce, for how else is a “right” to be understood? And even if homosexual intercourse doesn’t involve reproduction, it looks like or substitutes for activity that does, so it must be protected too. And sort-of-like-buncha-things involving the details of sexual activity must be protected too therefore.

      Prostitution? Nobody’s brought that to our attention, is that even an issue? Well, if anybody does bring it up, depending on the climate of opinion at that time, we could either include it in the protected stuff, or decide that the business transaction can be completely severed from the sexy part. You know, the same way we decided birth control devices and abortions could be given away, but not sol…what was the question again?

      1. “…what was the question again?”

        Well, kinda, will our Masters ever acknowledge limits to their powers, other than when we (the peons) get very nasty with them? I just hope that the peons getting nasty stays in the polling places, not in the streets! Ballots, not bullets!

        Kinda related… https://www.al.com/news/2021/01/some-republicans-call-for-second-civil-war-citizens-take-arms.html

        Some Republicans call for second Civil War: ‘Citizens take arms!’

        (That one’s getting old… I have seen similar, more recent stuff).

        1. 4th spaz asshole flag!

        2. Here, this is more recent…

          https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/claremont-ryan-williams-trump/620252/

          The Conservatives Dreading—And Preparing for—Civil War

          A faction of the right believes America has been riven into two countries. The Claremont Institute is building the intellectual architecture for whatever comes next.

          By Emma Green

          1. Good for them. If people can’t see that the establishment progs and Davos gang are aiming for Australia x10, they’re being willfully blind.

            1. Sqrlsy will own nothing and will be happy.

              1. Butt MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Jesus-Killer is TOTALLY on board with Government Almighty becoming the de facto owner of all of our web sites! MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the Jesus-Killer imagines that ALL of Government Almighty’s “moderation” of we sites will obey The Will of MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer, who believes that there IS no such thing as (secular) karma! MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer will do ALL of the pussy-grabbing, and NO ONE will EVER think of pussy-grabbing Her right back!

                1. spastic didn’t get to the pharmacy, but’s getting many flags

                2. Yeah. You’re not right in the head, are you.

                  1. Your talking to someone that once admitted to eating feces.

                  2. He eats his own shit.

              2. You can tell who is still angry about being clowned on yesterday so took out their sock early today. Lol.

                1. He takes a beating every weekend, but keeps coming back for more.

          2. there are people who are actively preparing for or supportive of civil war or a coup. Stop the Steal movement is essentially that. The effort to overturn an election and install the chosen leader. BLM and Antifa have the goal of overturning the government and reshaping it to what is essentially a Marxist agenda. What these groups are seeking is more a revolution, even if it turns violent, than a civil war.

            What is frightening is how easy it is to plant delusions in people’s minds and whip them into a frenzy. That is what we saw on 1/6.

            I think social media has a lot to do with that. People tend to moderate what they say in person. You don’t have to do that online and this forum is a perfect example.

            The result is a much more volatile and divided society.

            1. Agreed and well said! PizzaGate also comes to mind, as a small foretaste of what I strongly hope to never see coming in a bigger way…

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

              1. The election was stolen is a masterpiece of the Big Lie. Just think what Goebbels could have done if he had Twitter.

                I just saw that Giuliani just admitted in his deposition that his accusation that the director at Dominion conspired with someone from Antifa to rig the election came from “Facebook or something I can’t remember” and he never checked it out. That guys life was ruined. He had to go into hiding to protect the life of himself and his family.

                Portland was a great example of how the internet world is such an advantage. You don’t need to organize or plan anything. Just get the word out that we are all going up to Portland to smash and burn things. It will be awesome. And then it happens.

                1. Can we rerun the vote with 1 of 2 changes?
                  Change 1: let the green party run in wisconson, Pennsylvania, etc (the dnc purged them from the ballot)
                  Or
                  Change 2: hold all ballots to the same scrutiny that the dnc held the green party to

                2. Lol. The belief this was the cleanest election of all time is the true big lie. Despite crashing numbers for sig verification. Thousands of known double votes, doubling of adjudicated ballots, and every historical trend being violated…

                  Lol.

                  1. Not to mention the sudden stopping of vote-counting when Trump only needs a couple more states to win. Still not explained.

                    1. Be specific. What stopping of vote counting in which state or states?

                    2. 4am batches being 95% biden isn’t curious at all.

                  2. And best, you cannot question what stinks.

                3. In my lifetime I have never seen them say they’re going to stop counting ballots. Let alone not actually stopping the count. And then for All that counting to miraculously go to Biden?

                  That alone was enough to sow doubt in many people’s minds.

                  1. “that alone was enough to sow doubt”.

                    Only in those that maintain a capacity for critical thought, unfortunately. There are faa-aa-aaar too many sheep bleating the media narratives for my taste.

            2. It would be nice if the hardcore right and left would go out to some remote valley in Alaska or Nevada, and fight it out between themselves, leaving all of the rest of us out of it.

              1. You are the hard-core left. Lol.

              2. Give it a rest asshole nazi mike. You’re hardcore far left you voted for Biden and you know it. We know it.

                1. It’s sad that Dee thinks she’s fooling anyone.

              3. The hardcore left is now almost the entire democrat party. I do agree they need to go.

      2. Abortion isn’t a “reproductive” right.

        1. The democrats have enshrined physician performed infanticide as a sacrament.

      3. Therefore the right to reproduce must be one of those fundamental things the US Constitution must protect even if it doesn’t say so.

        The US Constitution doesn’t “protect rights”, it delegates limited powers to the federal government.

        The federal government does not have the delegated power to interfere in reproductive decision or to regulate the states in this area.

        1. That was actually the argument against creating the bill of rights, that it was unnecessary since the Constitution didn’t grant the government power to regulate any of those things.

  2. Since they don’t have to pay rent, OBL and Charles Koch should be able to hire them for peanuts.

    1. Peanuts? How dare you!

      Peanuts are racist and pose a mortal danger to sensitive people who identify with peanut allergies. Peanuts must be banned from legal trade, and any mention of peanuts must be expunged from the literature.

      1. Charlie Brown vs Board of Reeducation

        1. Freddy vs. Jason vs. The Board of Education.

      2. Peanuts are the perfect example of why Fauci and the Government should not have mandates. They pushed for babies to not be exposed to peanuts as children and caused an explosion of severe nut allergies that caused far more harm than the original problem they tried to fix.

        They claimed complete understanding of nut allergies and exacerbated the situation.

        1. Fauci should be in prison.

          1. Nah. He should have just stayed in his lab doing something useful like he did with HIV and other diseases. Some of these guys just let their egos take over. Same thing happened with Scot Atlas. He should have just stayed where he was writing books and articles and giving lectures on MRI and Neuroradiology. Politics is a nasty swamp. They were actually doing some good before they went there.

            1. Stayed in his lab??? He is the one who got schools to shut down water fountains during the 90s over HIV.

              How informed are you??

              1. He was also anti-quarantine for returning US medical staff that had been helping with the African ebola outbreak.
                https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/fauci-returning-ebola-health-workers-shouldnt-face-draconian-rules-n234141

                Those were 3 week quarantines. To prevent a deadly disease that wasn’t in the US from proliferating in the US by folks likely exposed to it.

          2. You accidentally misspelled, “Put up against a wall and shot.” Fuck that disingenuous garden gnome. Also, fuck Joe Biden.

            1. Fuck Joe Biden

        2. Fake news! The avoidance of peanuts did not cause an explosion of dangerous allergies… Peanuts are technically legumes

          1. *dangerous nut allergies

            1. Nut allergy? Are we talking about lesbians?

  3. Owning land, real estate, was a place where you could hedge against inflation. Strange, that we are now limited from doing that. Owning stocks no longer looks good as the government is making claims on the earnings (Tax the rich).
    Anecdote:
    Went to my first gun show yesterday. Bought a couple of books and a nice knife set. Signed some petition for a states constitutional referendum supposedly to limit the federal government.. It seems that Secession is the only way to proceed. The Federal Government is no longer legitimate. Hasn’t been for years.

    1. You didn’t even buy a fully automatic Assault Rifle – 14 using the “gun show loophole?” Shame.

      1. If he had, he would have had to mention about his unfortunate boating accident later that day, where he lost it.

        1. Whatever was I thinking when I took all my weaponry out crabbing on a pontoon boat? I suppose the answer to that question would be best answered by my attorney.

          1. Having lived in winter crab boat country for some years, yes, they did go out heavily armed.

            Literal fucking crab pirates. And occasionally bear or wolf if they moored and took a dinghy to land for a bit.

  4. “Kavanaugh was mistaken to take the Biden administration at its word”

    Yeah a lot of people I’m sure thought Biden was a moderate, but this feeble minded sick old man is the puppet of a much larger far left cabal that only cares about power. They are the true fascists.

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. Lift every voice! Fuck Joe Biden!

        1. Fuck Joe Biden!

          1. Reporter: “they’re saying let’s go Brandon!”

            1. I was saying Boo-urns.

          1. Mike thinks that’s clever, but Mike’s an ignoramus, so it’s easy to understand.

          2. Mike Laursen
            September.18.2021 at 11:38 amr
            SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually:
            – post a comment or two pointing out logical flaws, contradictions and partisanship in Ken’s essays
            – post a comment or two pointing out that Ashli Babbitt was not a saint and the January 6th MAGA rioters were violent
            – post one “Fuck Tulpa!” comment

            Part of Mike’s daily trolling itinerary

          3. Fuck the squawking bird named Dee.

            1. Dee? That bitch!

      2. Also fuck Sam Page.

        (too local?)

    2. Obama and Susan Rice are the ones who are really calling all the shots from his heavily fortified $8 million Kalorama bunker. Biden merely has to wake up and put his earpiece in every once in a while.

      1. There is obviously some committee actually making decisions. You can’t come up with such bad policy without having a group of people getting together and choosing the most crappy ideas.

        1. some Central Committee or some such…

          1. A politburo, even

      2. And Ron Klain. I think he plays almost as big a role as Rice.

        Although I think that the Afghanistan fuck-up, tearing up the treaty, making like they were going to stay and then not, fucking over the allies and dashing for the exit was pure Obama.

    3. Shrike still claims him the most moderate of moderates. Then again he is an open society foundation member.

  5. Stop renting out to people. It’s a hassle anyway, especially when it’s not worth it.

    1. Rent is so 2nd millennium. New Socialist Man, er Person, builds houses and lets the Central Committee distribute them.

      1. You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.

      2. Am looking forward to these new housing projects

  6. I blame the EPA for this shit. The legislature certainly has the power to halt evictions and arguably the executive branch has emergency powers to do the same, but this 100% should trigger the takings clause and government is required to pay the rent for non-paying tenants. Thanks to the EPA, the lines have been blurred on what constitutes a taking. The government has argued that unless they take physical possession of the property, they can issue regulations that effectively deprive landowners of any constructive use of the property whatsoever (other than the duty to continue to pay property taxes, of course) and that does not constitute a taking. As with the effective repeal of the Fourth Amendment, there are some hopeful signs that the Court is starting to come around to the idea that there are in fact some limits on the government’s powers.

    1. I blame women for this shit. Driven by genes and culture, far more women than men focus on nurturing and caring, which easily expands into nanny society thinking. A nanny might be a great thing at home, but spells death for a free society at large.

      Recall that the women’s suffrage movement overlapped with the temperance movement. Are we ready for prohibition (of everything “bad”) again?

      1. Karen Nation is the new Carrie Nation.

        1. I definitely feel like we’re living in the early stages of the Karen Nation.

          1. Karen Koalition Korps

      2. “Recall that the women’s suffrage movement overlapped with the temperance movement”

        Something else nobody wants to recall is that the women’s suffrage movement was incredibly racist and was responsible for a lot of the “black’s are raping white women” nonsense that got a lot of blacks lynched.

        https://educationpost.org/the-suffragettes-were-not-allies-to-black-women-they-were-racist/

      3. That’s not Politically Correct! lol… 🙂
        And by Politically Correct; meaning politically defying Obvious Realities.

      4. I am, I have my still, a few suppliers, and a distribution network ready

    2. I don’t agree. Rental markets are inherently and fundamentally local. The federal government has no power to regulate or intervene in them. The district court got it right – any federal eviction moratorium would be unconstitutional, no matter what process was used to institute it.

      1. Ahhh the federal Gov has a role in them citing the fytw clause

  7. “These eviction moratoriums were dropped into place with virtually no public discussion of the limits of bureaucratic power, the rights of private property holders, the unintended consequences, or any other ramifications of such moves. Governments simply asserted that they had these powers and then used them.”

    Welcome to Progressive Paradise, where self-proclaimed betters seize power and mandate socialism, eco-nazism, equity reparations, and comprehensive censorship. You, know, utopia.

    1. Yeah, Trump was a total progressive when he imposed the first nationwide moratorium on evictions.

      1. Asshole Nazi Mike thinks Trump was ok then? You’re a far left proggie after all.

        1. What Mike is too dumb to realize is nobody here supported trump on that policy. He thinks it is a gotcha against his perceived enemies.

          1. Similar to Jeff’s“ perfect solution” fallacy. The “perfect candidate” fallacy.

          2. Trump blew a lot of calls, but sorta like relying on the market instead of the central planners, he did far, far, better than the alternatives. Quite a few of us recognized this at the time, a few have learned since then, leaving the TDS-addled shits like Brandyshit, the spaz, turd, sarc/jeff, etc still trying to justify their abysmally stupid response.

      2. Lol. Rush to defend the left and claim you’re not a leftist.

        It is the left currently in power. It is the left currently doing mandates. You know this right?

      3. No argument there. Never-mind how the left has taken that ‘progressive’ B.S. move and turned it into a new institution.

        Republicans screw up a lot; Democrats are the very definition of screw-ups.

        1. On top of that the left took over, lost a USSC case, and continues to find ways to keep the policy in place due to the slowness of courts.

      4. Yes, that was a completely progressive and stupid policy.

      5. Can you name a single person in the comments that defended that?

      6. Shut your whore mouth Dee. Nobody here supported Trump doing this. Yet you deflect to Trump to defend the left continuing it, even after the court said to stop. And everyone knows why.

    2. There’s no problem so big that getting the government involved can’t make it worse.

      1. … Why the F- did they bring Guns to fight a virus?
        Asking where Guns belong seems to be the biggest error of governing.
        People forget the only thing government is; Is a monopoly on Gun-Force.

  8. “The idea was to not kick people out onto the street when doing so would put them in physical danger.”

    Now that Science has proven that words–or lack of words–are violence, every day the streets are fraught with extreme danger. Until we can purge the nation of all upsetting ideas and people, government MUST provide comprehensive physical and emotional support, even if that means confiscating all private property and forcing productive people to deliver services to the needy, without compensation.

    1. “when doing so would put them in physical danger.””

      Nobody credibly thought that evicting some people would cause major spread of the virus- at least among the groups that study this. It was a thin veneer to justify their actual reasons: they wanted the people who had lost their jobs to sit on their ass at home rather than telling sob stories to the press. The lockdowns had a terrible toll, and this moratorium allowed them to hide one of those costs.

    2. So give them money so they can pay their rent then. Why is it on the landlord to house them for free?

      1. Pretty sure that was sarc.

      2. I’d rather the government not give out money at all, but if they are going to do it anyway, it makes no sense to me to not give it to individuals (I often wonder what would have happened if we had bailed out homeowners rather than the banks).

  9. And where’s that $46 billion for rental relief?

    1. “And where’s that $46 billion for rental relief?”

      I suspect, eventually it will be spend on new prisons … er…. I mean “rent-free public housing.”

        1. …or, “domestic enclosure.”

        2. Can’t have a full-fledged Nazi-Regime without “rent-free public camps”..

          1. “‘Can’t have a full-fledged Nazi-Regime without “rent-free public camps”..”‘

            “Sh*t” by another name smells the same…

  10. “A liberal is intolerant of other views. He wants to control your thoughts and actions.”
    -Lyndon Baines Johnson

    “I’ve never been a liberal in any way, shape, or form.”
    -Joe Manchin III

    “I’m a liberal.”
    -Matt “Park Slope Welchie Boy” Welch

    1. Vogon poetry is likely better.

      1. Oh freddled gruntbuggly
        Thy micturitions are to me
        As plurdled gabbleblotchits
        Upon a lurgid bee.

        1. I see what you did there.

    2. There once was a man from the Net
      who offered the best Hindi poems yet

      He spammed every blog
      made reading a slog

      and made Reason’s squirrels his pets

  11. Texas bans many evictions from the womb.

    1. RINO Collins calls the 9 month rental contract inhumane.

    2. I think that they’re still allowed as long as you’re not trying to murder the tenant.

  12. NBC reporters cannot say “Fuck Joe Biden” being chanted and then attempted gaslighting you claiming it was something else. They are the bootlickers of the left and are just as treasonous.

    1. Is NBC good for anything? Totally the enemy of the common man.

  13. The pop-up ad has Breyer arguing ‘the public interest’ rather than A-5; seems he’s not really familiar with the job of the SCOTUS.

    1. Their job is to give academic and legal cover to the political priorities of the people who appointed, and they’re selected for that skill.

  14. Social democracy doesn’t care for landlords. Since there are a lot of landlords who own multiple units, there are a lot more tenants than landlords, and everyone’s vote counts equally. It’s got nothing to do with social engineering or expertocracy, it’s just count the votes. Most democracies are liberal enough that they need some excuse to steal like this, but they’ve long been looking for such an excuse, and now they’ve found it in the USA. I don’t know how many other countries this is going on in during this pandemic.

    1. That’s why the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. The rights of a single individual should trump the will of everyone else

  15. Add this to the list of reasons I will never be a landlord.

    1. I’m getting out of the game while the getting is good.

  16. Excellent article, laying out the history of the eviction moratorium saga.

    There are really two questions tied together in this whole tale.

    First, what is the proper role of the state when it comes to public health during a pandemic, particularly as applied to housing? From a libertarian perspective, of course, the mandates and the lockdowns are unacceptable because they are straightforward exercises in coercion. Instead, if something is to be done, it should be in the form of incentives. Instead of forcing business owners to close their businesses under penalty of fines, instead, the government could provide incentives to close until the worst of the pandemic is over. A similar strategy could be applied in the case of landlords and tenants.

    Second, in a libertarian world, how do individuals find housing? Of course those with means can find whatever housing arrangements they can voluntarily work out. But those with less means will have a harder time regardless. The typical libertarian solution is for private charity to step in and help the less fortunate. But who will donate to the private charities? What incentives do THEY have? Ultimately it has to come from individuals who voluntarily choose to commit themselves to helping the less fortunate, guided by whatever rationale they wish (humanism, religion, etc.). If Libertopia is full of narcissistic misanthropes who don’t give a shit about anyone except themselves, then this libertarian solution cannot work. Libertarian solutions to social problems, seeing as how they rely on voluntarism, can only succeed if individuals have a spirit of voluntarism and charity within themselves.

    1. And just to get these out of the way, so they don’t spoil the rest of the conversation, I’ll offer the following obligatory responses:

      Jesse, R Mac, ML, etc.: I will ignore everything you say and just call you names.
      Overt: Because you are not as emotionally invested in this issue as I am, that makes you a team blue tribalist.
      Ken Shultz: Here is a 5,000-word essay on why progressives suck.
      Nardz: Let’s kill some progressives.
      KAR: Let’s kill some Mormons.
      Rob Misek: Let’s kill some Jews.
      Tony: You libertarians are all deluded monsters.
      OBL: But how does this help Charles Koch and the cause of open borders?

      Now that we’ve got all of those perfunctory responses out of the way, let’s have a civil conversation.

        1. I do apologize for not including you in the perfunctory responses list. I won’t make the same mistake next time.

          1. Fuck off and die, asshole

          2. Lol. So youre not a hypocrite after bitching yesterday?

          3. I wouldn’t give a rats ass if you mention me or not. You are just an asshole worthy of derision.

        2. And, fuck your version of misanthropic, toddler libertarianism.

          1. Sophist liberalism is not libertarian. Sorry buddy. Please explain again today, like yesterday, how the grey areas you see allow you and only you to violate libertarian principles. That was fun.

          2. And since you’re here. This is the last time you spoke on the libertarian perspective. So don’t be shocked when people laugh at your bullshit lol.

            chemjeff radical individualist
            February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
            Flag Comment Mute User
            What is there to talk about?

            From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

            They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

            1. What a sick bastard.

              1. Apply his principle to the border and watch him squirm.

                1. Or former renters trespassing in their former landlord’s dwelling.

                  1. He’s probably fine with landlords getting killed for trespassing in their “former” dwellings, tho.

      1. “I’m not starting shit”

        *proceeds to preemptively start shit with half the board in one post*

        I see you’ve been taking trolling lessons from sarcasmic, Jeff. He likes to pretend he’s a helpless little lamb while shittalking others, too.

        1. sarc has embraced the pleasures of victimhood, and earns them every time he posts.

        2. You all were going to stir up shit regardless of what I wrote. I just got a pre-emptive jump on it. Because that is what you do. You even admit openly that you get your jollies from it.

          1. I never said that, I said I get my jollies exposing you trolls as the idiots you are.

            If you want to see a proud shit stirrer, look to your own joe boy, sarcasmic:

            sarcasmic
            September.10.2021 at 12:14 pm
            I like to stir shit up. So what.

          2. Its okay when jeff does it says jeff. Lol.

      2. You forgot a chorus of “Fuck Biden!”

        1. That’s Fuck Joe Biden to be correct

          1. You got a problem with fucking hunter, too?

            Ewww. Never mind.

        2. Leave biden alone!!!

        3. Fuck Joe Biden!
          (This breaks sarc’s heart)

      3. Hey look who is stirring shit up.

        You know people would think you were being serious if you didn’t agree with employers being able to mandate and fine employees over vaccinations just a few days ago.

        Also government spending is not a libertarian ideal. You claim government should influence peoples behaviors through positive incentives. Where the fuck do you think they get the money for incentives? Through takings.

        The only actual libertarian lane here is for the government to provide accurate information. But of course they can’t even do that as the cdc has been caught contradicting itself and lying multiple times.

        So once again, your perspective is not libertarian. Also you are really trying to backpack the bullshit and your support the last few weeks after everyone called you out. Lol.

        1. The only actual libertarian lane here

          I disagree that there is one and only one “actual libertarian lane”. You are just doing what Overt was doing yesterday, that the only real libertarians are the ones who FEEL exactly as strongly and passionately on every issue as he does.

          I also understand that you are too dumb to have an intelligent conversation with on the subject. Conversations that you don’t understand and can’t participate in are labeled ‘sophistry’.

          1. I also understand you didn’t address any point. You advocate for government to have incentives and power over people. That is the opposite of a libertarian ideal. Nice of you to prove you dont want honest argumentation though.

            1. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Libertarianism acknowledges the necessity of some level of government, just a minimal one. But I do not at all trust you to have a serious intelligent argument on this subject.

              1. You already used this damn strawman shot weasel.

              2. “….,just a minimal one.”

                Lol. You must really hate the control freaks running the show now.

                Right?

                1. Well, wait until he tells you how horrible Trump was.

        2. Also government spending is not a libertarian ideal.

          libertarianism =/= anarchism

          You claim government should influence peoples behaviors through positive incentives. Where the fuck do you think they get the money for incentives? Through takings.

          Incentivizing behavior is preferable to the use of naked force to coerce behavior, wouldn’t you agree Jesse?

          1. Incentivizing behavior is preferable to the use of naked force to coerce behavior, wouldn’t you agree Jesse?

            Oh who am I kidding. Jesse’s not going to answer this question, he’s just going to call me more names.

          2. I didn’t call for anarchism captain strawman.

        3. You know people would think you were being serious if you didn’t agree with employers being able to mandate and fine employees over vaccinations just a few days ago.

          Please give the libertarian argument in favor of using government force to prevent employers from hiring/firing the employees of their choice based on vaccination status.

          1. Please give the libertarian argument in favor of using government force to prevent employers from hiring/firing the employees of their choice based on vaccination status.

            Or, just do what you always do – use more insults and name-calling.

            1. 4 posts in a row and you didn’t even address my argument. Lol. God damn

              1. You are expecting an intellect which could understand your argument; look elsewhere.

              2. He never does. That’s not why he’s paid to be here.

              3. You mean, 4 posts in a row of me addressing what you actually wrote, and your response is tellingly a lie and an insult. Which was your whole purpose all along.

                1. Jeff. People can read your fucking posts. Youre aware of that right?

                  You pushed out 2 strawman and then deflected.

                  God damn man.

          2. There might be a libertarian argument, but I’d have to think about it.

            In our current reality though, I’m sure there are a host of legal ways to ensure no discrimination against unvaccinated people. Any company that didn’t require flu vaccines a couple of years ago would be opening themselves up, for example.

            And that’s ignoring the stick the Biden Administration is using to get their desired outcomes.

            1. Why don’t you ask Jesse. He seems absolutely certain that it is not libertarian at all for private employers to fire employees if they refuse to get vaccinated. He is ABSOULTELY CERTAIN that this is THE libertarian position, and I’m sure he has lots of analytical and thoughtful reasoning on the subject, and that he is not just totally emoting and rationalizing his feelings.

              1. Don’t cry, pookums.

              2. Because it is fuckhead. Use of force isn’t only bad when government is involved shithead. If the kkk surrounds a house and threatens owners it isnt fine because it is not the government. Youre such a God damn fucking joke.

                1. Your analogy is faulty because in the case of the private employer, the employee is on the EMPLOYER’S property and is there only at the pleasure of the EMPLOYER. In the case of your analogy, the KKK Is threatening a property owner on the OWNER’S property. The KKK has no right to be on the owner’s property without the owner’s permission. Likewise, the employee has no right to be on the employer’s property without the employer’s permission. And if the employer is only willing to grant permission to the employee if the employee is vaccinated, then the employer is perfectly within his property rights to do so. The employer is not FORCING or COERCING the employee to get vaccinated. The employee has no right to be on the employer’s property without the employer’s permission in the first place.

                  I suspect all of this will just go over your head though and you will retort with more insults.

              3. Let me be clear, I don’t think they should be demanding proof of vaccination for employees or customers. If push came to shove and I have to pick the employees rights or the businesses, I’m going to side with the employees. Because the alternative, in my mind, opens up the possibility of future action by businesses on things I really don’t like (asking if an employee has guns in their homes or has lots of unprotected sex).

                The idea that businesses should be held liable because an employee or customer came in sick is preposterous to me.

      4. By the way jeff. A bunch of emotional tears in that rant of yours.

      5. Oh oh, you forgot

        Sevo: die lefty shit.

        1. Jump on the pile on lol. So those were crocodile tears yesterday?

        2. I have Sevo on perma-ignore so I don’t even know what unhinged things he writes now. So he’s back to the old classics then?

          1. Sevo’s got the right attitude when it comes to you two.

          2. I think him and Nardz are going to go on a shooting spree someday. I really do. Storm a Democrat convention with body armor and rifles. Actually no. That would require balls. They’ll probably do something more like the DC sniper. Hide in the trunk of a car when they’re not making sweet homosexual love.

            1. “I think him and Nardz are… making sweet homosexual love.”

              You always have the queerest fantasies about Sevo. Shipping him with Nardz isn’t something normal people would do.

              You’re probably not gay but you’re definitely bi-curious.

              1. And plenty stupid besides.

      6. Nothing useful to say as ever, just sour grapes.

        Fuck off, lefty shit.

      7. That rusty chainsaw isn’t going to fuck itself Lying Jeffy. Now make yourself useful for once.

    2. But when did we agree that it should be easy to have a home?

      1. We didn’t? I don’t think it should be easy per se. But homelessness is going to be a problem whether there is a welfare state or not. My point is that if we seek a solution for homelessness that relies on voluntarism, then there have to be people willing to volunteer in order to make that work.

        1. If we’re not seeking a solution to homeless voluntarily, then why are we doing it?

          1. If we’re not seeking a solution to homeless voluntarily, then why are we doing it?

            That is the status quo. Government uses force, in the form of taxes and redistribution, to purchase housing for those who are homeless. I am saying that if we don’t want the status quo, but we also seek a situation in which those who are homeless have some access to housing, then it would require voluntary acts on behalf of others in order to help provide that housing.

            1. But how voluntary could it be if we only doing it to stop the government from forcing us to in the first place?

              Here’s how I look at homelessness: Homelessness is a problem for people who choose to solve it. In same cases, the homeless solve their own problem. Others will voluntarily choose to help them if they value that, and won’t if they don’t value that. I will leave it to everyone involved to make that decision rather than force the government to make it for you.

              For example: I’m sure there are homeless people in your town, and they will remain that way for a lot of reasons, one of which is you will not make arrangements to house them yourself. I don’t know them, or you, and will not assume that I know what decision you should make.

              What I don’t say is: gee, the government is forcing me to solve homelessness, so I better solve it myself if I don’t want them forcing me to, for my freedom. I’m not sure what that is, but it doesn’t appeal to me.

              1. Jeff is just trying to fit in his own leftist goals into libertarianism belief without realizing he is arguing against liberty.

                Above he literally says government can use force if he doesn’t believe enough people are voluntarily doing something. He said the same shit about masking last year.

                1. Above he literally says government can use force if he doesn’t believe enough people are voluntarily doing something.

                  Oh look, another lie from Jesse.

                  1. No it isn’t. You totally did.
                    You’re such a fucking snake.

                  2. Do you even bother to read what you write jeff? You literally claim above government can step in if people don’t voluntarily step in.

                    Everyone can fucking read your post shit head.

                    1. You literally claim above government can step in if people don’t voluntarily step in.

                      No, I don’t.

                      This is what I wrote:

                      Libertarian solutions to social problems, seeing as how they rely on voluntarism, can only succeed if individuals have a spirit of voluntarism and charity within themselves.

                      Nothing about government force there.

                      But this is your MO, lie about what I wrote to try to provoke a reaction, and then to repeat the lie so often that it eventually drowns out the truth.

              2. Brian, what I’m trying to say is that in a world in which social problems are solved not coercively but voluntarily, a precondition for such a world is people willing to volunteer. And I mean a genuine spirit of voluntarism, not “forced to volunteer”.

                1. A precondition for people solving their social problems voluntarily is freedom. A government that taxes a large % of income from its subjects while claiming to solve socials problems it never solves stands in the way of that.

                2. And again if people don’t volunteer for an ideal jeff wants then he is fine with government. 2 times he has said that now. Watch him deny it.

                  1. And again if people don’t volunteer for an ideal jeff wants then he is fine with government. 2 times he has said that now. Watch him deny it.

                    Of course I deny saying something that I didn’t say.

                    This is what I wrote:

                    Libertarian solutions to social problems, seeing as how they rely on voluntarism, can only succeed if individuals have a spirit of voluntarism and charity within themselves.

                    Nothing about government force there.

                    But this is your MO, lie about what I wrote to try to provoke a reaction, and then to repeat the lie so often that it eventually drowns out the truth.

                    1. What are you currently doing voluntarily to solve homelessness in your community, Lying Jeffy?

            2. Part of the libertarian solution should also be getting rid of gold-bricked housing requirements. Minimum lot sizes, limits to how many houses (or other buildings) per lot, etc. And if I bought the lot to live on, I should be able to live in a tarp-covered cardboard box if I want to! Karen next door doesn’t want to look at my tarp-covered cardboard box? Tell her to look at something else!

              1. Absolutely agree. Certain zoning laws can be a barrier to help house people.

            3. “I am saying that if we don’t want the status quo, but we also seek a situation in which those who are homeless have some access to housing, then it would require voluntary acts on behalf of others in order to help provide that housing.”

              Put simply, you are allowing the government to coerce you into ‘voluntarily’ do something.

            4. And here you prove your ignorance jeff. Most religious centers have homeless shelter and foot pantries. You deny the existence of those so you can rationalize government force to provide. Even if they didn’t exist there is no reason for government to be involved. So fuck off. That is you again rationalizing democratic party planks as being within libertarianism when by definition it is not.

              1. You deny the existence of those

                Which I did not. Yet another lie.

              2. Even if they didn’t exist there is no reason for government to be involved.

                So in Jesse’s version of Libertopia, there would be no government involvement in trying to solve homelessness, there may or may not be private charities helping with the homelessness problem, but even if there weren’t, Jesse wouldn’t give a shit. So what happens to the homeless in your version of Libertopia, huh Jesse? Can you have an intellectual discussion on the topic? Or are you just going to label it ‘librul sophistry’, and result to insults, because you are mentally incapable of having an intellectual abstract discussion on any topic?

                1. In Jeff’s version of libertopia, there would be government involvement in race grievances, solving pay disparity, solving homelessness, solving poverty, fighting negative externalities of drugs…

                  What fucking liberty do you actually agree with jeff? I believe in liberty to succeed as well as fail. I will donate to organizations to help those who fail on my own, not due to force of government.

                  Youre not a fucking libertarian.

                2. In my libertopia there would be no government involvement in homelessness. At least not at the federal level.
                  There is a quote from Madison where he says, after some flood or other natural disaster, he cannot lay his finger on a place in the Constitution that allows Congress to use taxpayer monies for charity.

                  1. 2 good posts from you today. Hope you are starting to realize which side you’ve teamed up with and their ideals.

                    1. Sarc’s not a real lefty like Lying Jeffy and Dee. But he’s broken, so he’s been reduced to doing what he can to join their tribe.

                  2. There’s a great anecdote about Davy Crockett too.

                    https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/

                    1. The farmer’s speech looks contrived, in fact the whole thing does. Like George Washington cutting down a tree. But it’s a good read nonetheless.

              3. And the larger denominations have agencies like Catholic or Jewish social services. I think it is still true that there is a homeless problem anyway. I really don’t know the answers to that. It seems that just throwing money at it doesn’t do any good. The rent moratorium should never have happened.

                1. “…It seems that just throwing money at it doesn’t do any good…”

                  San Francisco has proven (if the city ‘leaders’ were capable of any sort of analysis) that ‘throwing money at it’ makes it worse.
                  To anyone capable of critical thought, it is obvious that the process of rewarding people to show up with no way of affording housing increases the numbers of those who do.
                  San Francisco is the shining example of such an experiment.

                2. Subsidize something to get more of it…

        2. Homelessness isn’t a problem. Billions are spent on the issue to no resolution. You are free to create a charity woth others if you think it is an issue. Spending tens of billions of government money is as pointless as the war on poverty or the war on drugs.

          Again, youre not a libertarian. You just latch on to DNC platform planks. Government has no role in homelessness. It is better handles through churches and charities.

          1. Homelessness isn’t a problem.

            And there you are, denying the problem even exists in the first place.

            1. Because homelessness isn’t a problem. Mental illness, whether drug induced or otherwise, is the problem. Homelessness isn’t going to go away until society addresses the actual cause of 99.99% of homelessness.

              1. There are two populations. Those you mentioned and those who are just down on their luck for some reason. You can help the latter.

                1. Yes. And charities exist to do so. Government has no involvement outside of temporary unemployment assistance.

                2. There’s more than enough to help the latter, and the second population is utterly miniscule compared to the first.

                  1. The legitimately down on their luck are the 0.01%.

                    1. A number you just made up.

                    2. Oh, what’s your estimate of the number of people genuinely homeless for reasons unrelated to mental illness, whether drug induced or not?

                    3. You just gave me one. 0.01%

                      Back it up.

            2. You are free to donate your house to the homeless on your own shithead.

            3. There are an estimated 550k homeless people in the US. That’s about 0.17% of the US population.

              So no, not really a problem. More like a local issue.

              1. It is a problem. It is not a LARGE problem but it is a problem.

            4. There is no right to housing. Anywhere.

              Homelessness is not a problem. The underlying conditions of why Sarc can’t hold a job or a relationship because of his heavy drinking is the problem.

              1. Showing off to the girls? Very cute.

                Tell you what. I’ll give you one chance to talk about ideas and concepts instead of people. If you fail you’re on permamute. Except that you don’t care. You’d rather virtue signal to thirteen year old girls than have a conversation about ideas. So fuck off.

                1. Sarc hates “thirteen year old girls” because of all the rejection. And if you don’t love him and think he’s “hilarious”, then your a mean old thirteen year old girl too.

                  The guy is an absolute mess.

        3. The solution to homelessness is to teach them how to fish. Volunteers simply give them fish. If they don’t want to work, fuck ’em. Let ’em be homeless.

          1. And they often sell or trade that fish for drugs.

            1. Thing is most drug users don’t end up homeless. They are right there in your neighborhood or job and you would never know.

              1. Nice non sequitur. Not sure how you think that was responsive to what I said.

          2. The solution to homelessness is to teach them how to fish. Volunteers simply give them fish.

            Lots of different charities do lots of different things.

            1. Voluntarily? Is that why you’re offended?

            2. My step uncle is a minister. His church sends care packages to Africa. They had to stop sending soap. Turns out it’s rare enough that it’s almost like currency. The recipients would take the soap and throw everything else away. So to make sure the care packages were used, they nixed the soap.

              1. I knew a guy who went to a missionary hospital in Africa couple times a year. He got an ultrasound company to donate a portable machine. He had to physically take it there himself because he told me if he had it shipped it would never get out of the port.

              2. Good for your step uncle, but that’s pretty sad about the soap.

                1. My point was that his church is a charity. The church my mom goes to does something similar, but local. If you do the slightest bit of digging you’ll find most churches have some charitable mission.

                  You keep saying charity and volunteerism is the way to go. Well there it is. Call around, find a church doing something you can support, and go give them a hand. Put your money where your mouth is. You don’t have to be a believer.

                  1. I used to be more active with volunteering, in my youth. Right now my charitable acts are directed at my family.

                    1. So you’re a hypocrite.

              3. Good for them. Wouldn’t want to just give them more soap.

    3. Second, in a libertarian world, how do individuals find housing?

      Nobody ?finds? housing… People EARN it either by building it or exchanging their value to have someone else provide it!

      That’s the concept lefties haven’t accepted yet. Still looking for their *slaves* path to *free* shit.

      Still the party of Slavery.

      1. “Nobody ?finds? housing… People EARN it either by building it or exchanging their value to have someone else provide it!”

        Hmm, a response to Lying Jeffy that addresses an idea in his post without insulting anyone.

        Seems like the kind of post someone would respond back to if they were interested in discussing ideas.

    4. But who will donate to the private charities? What incentives do THEY have?

      The vast majority of charitable giving is to churches. I think we know what their incentives are.

      I’ve known homeless people who got churches to pay their rent, not to mention food banks and other charitable handouts. The churches never asked for anything in return.

      Sad how so many people have a reflexive hatred of religion and churches. They’re shitting on good people doing good things.

      1. Kudos on a good post. Agree 100%.

        Mormons are hated, as an example, butnspend billions a year on the poor and homelessness and not just for members of their church. But they are despised for helping. Likewise catholic adoption agencies.

      2. That is part of what I’m saying. If social problems are to be solved voluntarily, then the potential volunteers need to commit themselves, via whatever incentives they feel are important, to actually perform the volunteer acts.

        And I think one reason that churches get a bad rap when it comes to their volunteer efforts is because it often looks like they are using the desperate situations of vulnerable people to find more converts. I’m not saying it is all of them or even a majority, but it can look that way from an outsider perspective.

        1. Really? The complaint I see most is their tax exempt status.

          1. Well that is another reason.

        2. 3rd time now jeff has said people have to volunteer or give the action over to the government.

          That’s not liberty dumbass.

          1. You could make a libertarian argument for it.

            Say you have a homeless encampment. They don’t have a porta potty with predictable consequences and a health hazard. If we don’t get together and provide one the government will step in and do it for us.

            Or the local business owners are complaining that it is diving away customers. It does not affect them alone but a whole chain of individuals, employees, suppliers, the customer who misses their food, nearby homeowners. So the restaurant owners do not have the resources to fix the problem themselves.

            They could contact religious and community organizations to help create a plan to fix the problem.

            Or the government could.

            You don’t need empathy when something is a tragedy of the commons.

            Liberty and responsibility are the same thing. You can’t have one without the other.

            1. No you can’t make a libertarian argument for it. You can only make a statist one. The government expends resources from taking for others. If homeless are causing a need for sanitization, groups could form to provide it for them. Many charities already do this without need of government.

              Youre literally arguing for state action because of a moral issue you find pressing. That is not liberty, thats using government to make moral decisions for others.

              1. It has nothing to do with morality. I said that specifically. It is about a negative outcome. Poop all over the place or loss of revenue to local business. This is not theoretical it is what actually happens .

                Jeff is very clear on this point. If you want to rely on charity and voluntary action to avoid government interference than you need charity and volunteer action. I do want to keep the government out of it.

                Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.

                1. Here’s the thing; Charity cannot even lead a person to water anymore; let alone make them drink. Because …. *STEALING* goods and giving them to Nazi-Supporters is the Nazi-Regime’s supporting foundation.

                  Let’s get real here;
                  99.9% of the population doesn’t need charity – they need a swift kick of reality stuffed down their sold-out to criminals self-entitled spoiled lazy *sses.

                  Of the 0.1% that truly need dependency; as long as they aren’t a self-centered entitled *ss bag, they are going to find it either from family members or just general kindness.

                  Heck I see general kindness all over the place even for self-centered *ss bags already and wonder; what are those people thinking…

                  There is no escaping mother-nature; If someone doesn’t sow the seed there will be nothing to eat. And when the self-entitled Nazi-Support camp no longer find SLAVES to sow their seeds; they’re going to starve (i.e. You can’t eat Gov-Gun-Force).

                  And the very reason the Left is Criminal.
                  VALUE = WEALTH
                  … not …
                  Gov-Gun-Force = WEALTH; That’s criminal and unsustainable.

                2. Youre full of shit. Government does not have to right every negative externalities. That’s how you end up with repressive government.

                  1. And how you end up with an expansion of the problem government is attempting to solve. Subsidize something and you get more of it.

          2. 3rd time now jeff has said people have to volunteer or give the action over to the government.

            That is not what I said. You are lying.

            This is what I wrote:

            Libertarian solutions to social problems, seeing as how they rely on voluntarism, can only succeed if individuals have a spirit of voluntarism and charity within themselves.

            Nothing about government force there.

            But this is your MO, lie about what I wrote to try to provoke a reaction, and then to repeat the lie so often that it eventually drowns out the truth.

            1. Left unsaid; volunteer or else.

              1. It’s unsaid because he never said or implied it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a troll or listens to trolls.

            2. The people who are worth a conversation don’t care what the trolls say. So stop defending yourself from them. All they do is make you dance. And they’re going to keep up the lies to you and about you no matter what you say. So stop. Just… stop. All you’re doing is letting them manipulate you. You’re dancing to their tune. Mute the fuckers. Stop their song. Stop dancing.

    5. Dude just admit that you love all mandates already. I am kidding. I just wanted to rattle your cage a little before I actually responded.

      On the role of the state during a public health crisis, I struggle with this a lot. The most power I would give the state is to accurately inform the citizens of the existence of a pathogen. I feel like any power beyond this and you risk them taking advantage of the crisis to expand their power, which is what we have seen over the last 18 months. I also have a problem with “public health” in general. I feel like this term can be used to justify a lot of intrusions into private interactions. In my mind, it is best to give accurate information and allow the citizens to determine how they interact with each other (I.e. what mitigation factors are acceptable for each person and each type of interaction). I even have a tendency to think that the government making “recommendations” on public health is a step too far. At most, inform of existence and get out of the way.

      As for how libertopia handles housing, I know this sounds too simplistic, but I think the market can resolve this naturally. This can be done through several methods (conscious capitalism, philanthropy etc). Especially now, I think the market would reward a company going out and philanthropically making strides in housing problems. I know that when the pandemic hit, my family was largely unscathed financially so we started to look for ways to help out people locally. So I think there will always be people who want to make their own community as prosperous as possible. I think the number of these people would increase with increased individual prosperity. Also, as SQRLSY pointed out, housing regulations do cause large problems in the ability of the market to successfully respond to present conditions. I think removing those restrictions would go a long way.

      1. The most power I would give the state is to accurately inform the citizens of the existence of a pathogen. I feel like any power beyond this and you risk them taking advantage of the crisis to expand their power, which is what we have seen over the last 18 months.

        I understand that, but this minimalist approach does not solve the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ associated with quarantines during a pandemic. That is, the businesses who do the ‘right thing’ and close and/or offer mitigation strategies, that result in incurred costs to the businesses, are put at an economic disadvantage to the businesses who do the ‘wrong thing’ and treat the situation as business as usual and do nothing to control the spread of the disease.

        If the libertarian approach is truly to be so limited as you suggest, then a business that willfully remains open despite knowing that a deadly disease is going around, should *at least* be liable for negligence should their patrons get sick as a result.

        As for how libertopia handles housing, I know this sounds too simplistic, but I think the market can resolve this naturally. This can be done through several methods (conscious capitalism, philanthropy etc). Especially now, I think the market would reward a company going out and philanthropically making strides in housing problems.

        I largely agree, and my point here is that the individuals involved have to have a spirit of voluntarism to even consider the ‘conscious capitalism’ route in the first place.

        1. I want to get a more in depth response to you at some point today. I am little tied up right now. In short, I may have too much faith in a truly free market, but think the market can take care of those who make the “right decisions” during a pandemic. I do think that people need to feel the full force of their decisions. Unfortunately things like health insurance and government programs paying for health care end up blunting this effect and turns personal decisions into community problems.

          1. There is also the problem of resources. When the hospitals fill up they cancel procedures or transfer patients.

            1. Yes. There can be a problem with resources. I actually should have covered this in my other response, but the market valuing the “right” decisions also applies to the hospitals. If a hospital does the “right” thing and adds more resources during a pandemic to treat more people, they should be rewarded for that. The opposite is true for a hospital that does nothing and hopes people get vaccinated to reduce the demand. Unfortunately, we currently are not living with a free market health care system. The government overly restricts the ability of hospitals to meet the demands of their communities and has worsened resource shortages. Of course instead of loosening the reins on healthcare, the government is increasing their control. In their eyes, the only solution is more government to the problems largely caused by too much government.

              In Libertopia, I am totally fine with the hospital discriminating against any patient they want, price gouging etc. The resources belong to the hospital, so they can distribute them how they see fit. I also don’t necessarily think anyone should have the expectation of timely access to someone else’s resources. But again, a hospital that rises to meet the demands of the community should be rewarded.

              1. It is more complicated. To add six more operating suites is not like just charging more for a sack of potatoes. It is a very difficult and costly thing. Not just the physical and equipment cost but you need to staff that. You may need to find a neurosurgeon, cardiothoracic, orthopedic and general surgeons. You need many other skilled personnel to support that. The patient needs post operative intensive care. They will need other services. Lab, radiology, hospitalists, pulmonary, pharmacy, ICU, rehab.

                There are not many people like that. Hospitals work on slim margins.

                Then some of them have teaching, training and research missions without which the whole thing collapses in short order.

                It is not a short answer. Costs keep going up. There is only so much the system can sustain. It is not a free market. You see various systems everywhere. I do not know of any perfect ones.

                Nobody wants to deal with it. Our former president said, after a brief effort, “who knew health care could be so complicated?” and gave up for the rest of his term. Well it is and we knew.

        2. It is very possible to live with hardly going anywhere public. You can work from home. Anything you want, groceries, restaurant food, products from Amazon or whatever, you can even get booze here. You could have them all delivered or carry out if you prefer. Granted it costs more. It does give a nice living to the delivery workers though. I saw an ad for Golden Coral yesterday. Even they deliver.

          I don’t like bars and eating in restaurants anyway. My social life is centered around friends and family. So that is pretty much how we live and would with or without the virus.

          You go to a bar then that is your choice. I don’t see how you could sue them.

        3. Ok. I have a little more time. The only truly moral way to determine what is “right” is to allow the market to decide. I don’t think there is one universal “right” answer. People will always assess and value different things. If the pandemic is bad enough and people value businesses that take extra steps to mitigate the spread of a disease, then that business will gain customers taken from businesses with fewer mitigating actions. So I disagree that they would be necessarily at a disadvantage if they are bringing extra value through additional mitigation strategies.

          I don’t agree that the business should be held liable for negligence because there is a level of consent to an increased risk of getting sick when a person goes into an establishment that is taking little to no mitigating actions.

          “I largely agree, and my point here is that the individuals involved have to have a spirit of voluntarism to even consider the ‘conscious capitalism’ route in the first place”

          One thing I will add to this is that there is also some potential benefit to the business through increased good will in the community. So I don’t necessarily think these programs cannot be self interested in nature.

    6. Something people seem to forget is that poverty is the default state of man. Homelessness is the default state of man.

      We shouldn’t be looking into the causes of homelessness. We should be focusing on the creation of wealth that has brought us out of this default state of poverty.

      Poverty isn’t a cause. Wealth is a cause. Poverty is the default.

      Does that make sense?

      1. That makes a lot of sense. There seems to be a continuous expansion of what is considered a right or even a minimum living standard. I like to call this the hedonistic adaptation of rights. For example, once cell phones became available, it went from a nice convenience to almost a human right to have one and the government needs to provide access to them. Not that we should just accept these disparities, but we should recognize these as gifts of wealth creation and not rights.

        Anyway, I agree that there is an inverse relationship between wealth and homelessness.

        1. Not so much an inverse relationship. Homelessness is a lack of wealth like darkness is a lack of light. You don’t fix darkness by finding out what causes it. That’s kinda dumb. Darkness isn’t a thing. It’s an absence of something. You fix it with more light.

          Similarly you don’t fix homelessness by finding the cause. You fix it with more wealth.

          1. I actually really like this analogy. Nice work

            1. I stole it from an economist. Probably off cafehayek either from Don or one of his quotes.

    7. “First, what is the proper role of the state when it comes to public health during a pandemic, particularly as applied to housing?”

      That’s not a well-thought-out question. By “the state,” do you mean the Feds. Or State governments? Or Local governments? The Feds, by design, are supposed to be very limited in their powers within the borders of a State. Unless one is willing to accept the (oft-times) gross misinterpretations of the “commerce clause,” then the Feds, have basically, nothing to do with eviction bans concerning private property. Such powers belong to the States, and are dependent on their own laws and restrictions.

      1. Well, I mean “the state” broadly, meaning any level of government.

        1. “Well, I mean “the state” broadly, meaning any level of government.”

          And that is the problem: even a pandemic (imagined or not) presents different possible strategies depending on the locale. Certainly the challenges are different from New York city than a small town in Idaho. Or even in Los Angeles. And that means different solutions. My favored brand of minarchism (a form of libertarianism also called the “Night Watchman State”; can be interpreted that challenges be met by local communities — even neighborhoods, rather than a distant, overly-large government. Do the Feds have a role? Sure. And, more often they not, they screw it up royally. And I am certain that some local government also screw up regularly — but in that case, at least they only screw themselves, and, they have the power to change their strategy. The problem of homelessness also “looks” different in different communities, and no one solution is likely to address the problem in any significant way.

          1. Very true. Thing is the homeless cluster often in the poorest communities. So they would not have the resources without income from the wealthier suburbs. A lot of those are incorporated as separate cities or townships.

            1. No. They often cluster in warm climates or governments who provide many handouts.

              1. Ie. why Florida is not California.

            2. “Thing is the homeless cluster often in the poorest communities.”

              Sometimes. But while our community is a bit “poorer” than the larger, distant communities, here the problem is different. The homeless here tend to “live,” for the most part, outside of town. While they do panhandle in town during the day, one doesn’t see them congregate as I have seen in the cities (I grew up in the SF Bay Area). A lot of the homeless here fish and gather berries, nuts, and fruits which are available pretty much year round. We have a lot of homeless vets here, and while we do have a couple food-banks, we also have a couple of NPOs who concentrate only on housing those vets, through purchasing and rehabilitating older homes. Some of these places are pretty nice.

              That is in contrast to the large cities in which I spent much of my earlier years, where the homeless seemed omnipresent. Different local conditions require different strategies.

    8. The proper roll of the state (assuming we are operating in a more realistic minarchist not utopian anarcho-capitalist framework) would be to disseminate information to the public in as broad, concise, and truthful manner as possible. It need not incentivize or punish any behavior, that’s not it’s job.

      Fostering a spirit of cooperation and volunteerism, which I agree is necessary in libertopia, cannot be accomplished if one is demonizing the people who are calling for maximized liberty. Or by demanding that anyone else owes you a sense of security or safety. Human nature will kick in and you will soon have a whole bunch of people saying “if you’re going to try and force me, we’ll fuck you then”.

      1. The proper roll of the state (assuming we are operating in a more realistic minarchist not utopian anarcho-capitalist framework) would be to disseminate information to the public in as broad, concise, and truthful manner as possible. It need not incentivize or punish any behavior, that’s not it’s job.

        I would argue that this is not enough, for two reasons:

        1. In a society where division of labor exists, individuals will not all possess the technical understanding to know how to confidently assess the risks associated with a disease. If all the government does is give out information, how will the public at large know what to do with it, or how to confidently analyze it? We have seen what happens when the government tries to interpret the data for the people: either they do a poor job interpreting it, or even when they do a good job, demagogues on all sides try to fool an ignorant public about what the data “really” say in order to push an agenda.

        2. It does not address the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ problem that I posed above – firms that do the “right thing” are economically punished at the expense of firms that do the “wrong thing”.

        1. I think this is all very dependent on the disease and it’s deadliness. People have no problem navigating the risks of cold and flu season, for example. I believe that most people’s calculus for this particular pandemic would have been vastly different if it was killing young healthy people the way it’s killing old people with comorbidities.

          As stonebraker mentioned upthread, businesses that took the extra step to mitigate risks to their customers would probably fare better than you think thanks to the perceived good will it would garner.

          But worrying that John Q Public might not do what you perceive to be the right thing in any given scenario is a step on the quite slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

    9. I have the answer, but do I argue in good faith when I know your just a troll, or do I simply say fuck you because I know you will never listen, because your a stateist? I will let the commentariate vote

    10. The government should not be “solving” any problems, it’s not good at that. Since most of the social problems stem from poverty, if there is a role for the government it’s in funneling money to the needy (while taking a nice fat slice for the public employee union members administering the programs of course). But if enough people care about financially supporting the poor enough for politicians to campaign on that without losing, it seems like there would be enough concerned people to raise cash for those causes voluntarily. One of the main reasons people don’t donate more is because they think the government is (or should be) already taking care of the problem(s).

      1. The government should not be “solving” any problems, it’s not good at that.

        Well the whole point of having a government at all, or any institution at all, is to provide a framework for solving a particular set of problems. It is often not good at solving the problems that it is supposed to solve, but I do think it ought to try to solve those problems. We here just think it should be only a minimal set of problems that government ought to solve.

        And I do agree that government ‘charity’ tends to crowd out private charity.

        1. “Well the whole point of having a government at all, or any institution at all, is to provide a framework for solving a particular set of problems.”

          Actually, at the federal level, the first duty of government is to secure the rights of the individuals, providing for the common defense, and settling interstate and international issues. Sadly, they spend the vast majority of the taxes they collect on trying to provide what the States and Local communities should be left to deal with. And people might be inclined to vote for higher local taxes, and more inclined to donate more money, if the Feds didn’t tax every single thing they possibly can, and then give it to someone else two thousand miles away.

    11. “Libertarian solutions to social problems, seeing as how they rely on voluntarism, can only succeed if individuals have a spirit of voluntarism and charity within themselves.”

      People do have such a spirit, and Americans in particular are prone to charity. That spirits tends to be lost only when we accept that societal responsibilities fall to the government, rather than individuals acting in concert

      Anecdote time. Once I was helping a friend clean out their kitchen and they were throwing away a bunch of (unexpired) canned goods. I asked why they don’t donate them to the food pantry. They said why bother, the people can just go to the store with their foodstamps and buy food there. (I ended up taking the cans to the food pantry myself)

  17. https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/02/politics/harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming/index.html

    Hageman, 2016: Trump is a horrible person, Liz Cheney is great.
    Hageman, 2021: Liz Cheney is a horrible person, Trump is great.

      1. Liz Cheney is a neocon warmonger, like most of the Republican never-Trumpers always were.

        1. And I love watching her ship sink from taking fire on all sides. Nobody likes her.

    1. A lot of people including democrats realized how corrupt the media you worship was jeff. But keep persisting.

    2. jeffsarcmikeredneck: Not a libertarian, still

    3. She’s a legit warmonger, just like her father.

  18. Firstly, i would like to say – your post should be taken ‘as is’ in good faith. That is the way it struck me – although you were preemptively defensive near the end…;). A libertarian solution in a non libertarian world is a tough one… the entire mechanics of our culture would need re-working i imagine and that is a tough sell to people who ‘get stuff’ – which is almost everyone – at the cost of our spirit.
    I believe the spirit of voluntarism and charity was “offshored” to the gov’t for the price of “just a cup of coffee a month for you, citizen”. Of course each citizen now is in to the government for a couple hundred cups of coffee for the various programs that are ‘so cheap’. The only people such a spirit remains in are those in religious communities – which, if Christian, the govt and progressives are increasingly antagonistic to, [little sisters of the poor] and some non religious orgs.

    So a libertarian-ish suggestion for correcting the lack of said spirit might be to get the govt out of the value coercion business [education, ngo regulation etc.] and make it clear that parents and families are responsible for passing proper values to their progeny. Maybe even re-stucture govt to help families produce productive members of society rather than making it easy for them to unload them onto govt departments and bureaucrats.

    This, of course, is a long term undertaking – not unlike the long term project of the progressives to take over education, govt bureaucracies, universities, news media, social media etc etc etc. It is THAT project [I would say] that has borne most of the fruits of society’s many current dysfunctions.

  19. Biden’s disapproval numbers remain stubbornly above his approval numbers, and it seems to be getting worse over time.

    I’m interested in this, primarily, in regards to the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. We probably shouldn’t think that the Democrats will pass it if they have enough time. I’m not sure time is on the side of the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. The opposition to it among moderate Democrats in Congress appears to be correlated with Biden’s falling poll numbers in purple and red states and districts. Biden’s approval keeps dropping with Independents, even, and if your opponent in the upcoming can tie you to an unpopular Biden in the minds of swing voters, that’s an albatross around you neck.

    I think the longer this draws out, the less likely the bill is to pass. Blaming Trump for everything will get lamer and lamer as time goes on, and the need to head off primary challengers and opponents from the other party for local endorsements and fundraising will become more intense as time goes on. My understanding was that Congress usually takes a month long recess in August for fund raising and campaigning at home, and they do that because it’s necessary to help them keep their seats.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-congress-take-a-month-long-vacation-in-august

    I don’t believe there was an August recess this time (someone correct me if I’m wrong), and I bet the moderate Democrats, who are most vulnerable in 2022, are itching to get home already. They’re already being asked to commit political suicide by backing this reconciliation bill, and the longer this drags on, the more likely they are to go home and campaign rather than negotiate their seats away.

  20. the Treasury had dispersed 99 percent of the first $25 billion

    Probably meaning “disbursed”.

    1. “Dispersed” may be unintentionally accurate.

  21. If the CDC can stop landlords from evicting tenant because of “public health”, then can they also stop vehicle repossessions?

    After all, essential workers need to get to their essential jobs. If the bank is allowed to repossess a car for non-payment, then they can’t get to work anymore.

    Next, they’ll allow shoplifting for health products, food, and other necessary items. Once I’ve put the stuff in my basket, what right does the store have to take it back just because I didn’t pay for it?

    1. I think SFC is on your side.

  22. But landlords are evil, and, like small business owners, tend to be Republicans.

  23. fatty jeff up above just spins his wheels against everyone, using his mind reading powers and when challenged devolves into cognitive dissonance. It’s quite a performance, but that’s all it is of course, because he’s a far left shill who is quite happy with the current government.

    1. Beginning to doubt that jeff or sarc is ‘left’.
      The more I read of their bullshit, it seems that they (among others who post here) are simply too stupid to understand what their posts imply. And, given the limited mental abilities, the lot are extremely defensive when someone mentions they are full of shit.
      Simply, we might have a ‘sandbox’ forum from which they might graduate if they learned and progressed beyond their current mental limitations. Or stay there and scream at each other like the infantile shits they are.

    2. Yeah, they’re not smart enough to understand what they read. When you think they’re doing it to be deceitful, check again. It may just be that they’re even dumber than you think. To be deceitful, they’d need to understand what they’re regurgitating and why it’s inaccurate. They say things that contradict themselves and reality because they don’t understand anything–being wrong doesn’t phase them because they don’t know the difference between correct and incorrect. It’s really that bad.

      Half the people in this country are of below average intelligence, and we should expect to see people like this–who can’t tell the difference between smart and stupid. If Socrates was right about being the wisest man in Athens because he knew what he didn’t know, the commenters we’re talking about are some of the dumbest people on the internet. They have no idea what they don’t know. By Socrates’ formulation, they’re the dumbest people possible.

  24. I’m late to this, but I just heard about it: The Biden administration “strongly opposes” allowing people in the military to be honorably discharged unless they’ve been vaccinated.

    “Biden administration ‘strongly opposes’ honorable discharge for service members who refuse COVID-19 vaccine”

    —-Yahoo News

    https://www.yahoo.com/now/biden-administration-strongly-opposes-honorable-185100665.html

    That’s both nasty and stupid.

    They didn’t serve honorably because Biden said so?!

    1. That is nasty.

    2. Showing anything but sniveling loyalty is insurrection these days. Only months after resistance was patriotism!

      1. My understanding is that you don’t qualify for the GI bill for college without an honorable discharge. This is just nasty. They should be shamed for this.

        This is why they’ll end up reinstituting the draft! Once all those stout lads decide the progressives in the government despise them and aren’t worth fighting for, they’ll need to resort to a draft for military service again.

      2. Sure, getting vaccinated is “sniveling loyalty”.

        1. If I present facts from government health agencies on the numbers dead of the shot and add the fact that it doesn’t work as advertised, will you shrivel up like a slug rolling in salt?

          Haven’t even brought out past mRNA trials against SARS that saw the shots exacerbate infections rather than preventing them.

          Oh, and Mexico is having better Covid outcomes that the US now after starting Ivermectin trials.

          1. Go ahead and provide some citations for your claims.

        2. “Sure, getting vaccinated is “sniveling loyalty”.”

          This is a prime example of the poor mental abilities of the shits here, commonly thought of as left.
          The asshole Mike assumes the personal choice by another of whether to get vaccinated or not is something HE should have a voice in.
          It isn’t, but he is simply too fucking stupid to understand the issue.

        3. What about purity tests?

          1. What kind of purity tests are you referring to?

            1. Ones which would confuse assholes like you,

          2. Don’t mask, don’t tell

    3. Well, correct me if I’m wrong here, but: Soldiers are required to follow lawful orders from their commanders, right? If they don’t, their refusal is a type of insubordination, which is a punishable offense. Aren’t honorable discharges only given to soldiers who didn’t engage in insubordinate conduct? And isn’t an order to take an approved vaccine a lawful order? Why should it be the policy of the military to excuse or tolerate this type of insubordination in this specific case?

      1. I agreed with Ken above that it is nasty of Biden because I was thinking of the case where a soldier behaves quite honorably but refuses to do this one thing. Biden could show some graciousness, or at least let people familiar with the individual soldier decide whether their discharge is honorable or dishonorable.

        But then I saw the way over the top, exaggerated statement above that getting vaccinated is “sniveling loyalty”. That’s ridiculous for the reasons you give — it’s a routine thing in the military to have mandatory vaccinations. I don’t forget how some commenters here by we’re firmly for soldiers unquestioning loyalty to Trump when he was Commander in Chief.

        1. Biden could show some graciousness, or at least let people familiar with the individual soldier decide whether their discharge is honorable or dishonorable.

          The NDAA amendment in question would prohibit this type of discretion entirely. That is part of the problem here.

        2. Routine vaccines. This is not routine and it’s not a vaccine.

        3. Mike has memory-holed the whole ‘we’re going to pause and look at the troops to ensure loyalty.’

          1. The subject was vaccination. Why are you changing it, and then trying to say I was taking a particular stance on a topic we weren’t even discussing?

    4. Ooh, fuck Joe Biden. May a rabid possum cuddle his feet tonight.

      1. We’re talking about Americans who have done tours in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban . . .

        The Taliban wouldn’t force people to be vaccinated–but the progressives would.

        1. Wait, you are arguing we should take our queue from the Taliban. And the reason you give is that we were fighting them. Ken, that is not particularly logical.

          1. I believe Ken was pointing out that an extremist government isn’t even going as far as the Biden administration.

            1. Yes, but Mike is disingenuous as all fuck and hates Ken more than I hate shrike.

            2. Yeah, and demanding an explanation for the obvious is a classic shit-posting tactic.

              Y’all should consider muting her already.

        2. Well Ken.

          The US and any effective fighting force places top priority on medical services. That is essential to the mission. Soldiers die or are not able to function from infection. Our medical teams are among the best in the world. Imagine if Covid or any other infectious disease breaks out in a submarine or other naval unit. Or a ground unit, air wing, anything.

          You don’t get this Ken? Medical units at all levels have been fighting all along. That includes a shot in your arm soldier. Next?

          So the Taliban do not have that. Too bad for them.

          1. “The US and any effective fighting force places top priority on medical services. That is essential to the mission.”

            We’re talking about people who are leaving the military. Try to keep up with the conversation.

            1. They are in the military and under orders until the day they are discharged Ken.

              This is an order under the chain of command. There is no ambiguity here.

              I don’t care if they are leaving next week.

              Even in civilian life if I am planning to resign I still have a contract with my employer. I need to fulfill the terms of that contract until the end of the last day or I can be sued.

              Try to keep up Ken. Sometimes you at least have a good argument. This is not one of them.

        3. “The Taliban wouldn’t force people to be vaccinated–but the progressives would”

          The Taliban would just slice your head off if you shaved your beard.

          Dude you lost it here.

  25. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/china-ban-video-games-featuring-095000133.html

    “Games that feature queer relationships or ‘effeminate males’, the memo states, should not be approved for release in China.”

    Ken insists that the Chinese Communists and American progressives are totally the same. Certainly not on the issue of gay rights.

    1. They both want to control and force their own morality rather than letting people freely choose, so they are the same principle just different targets

      Like the klan 100 years ago and progressives today. Just as racist, just different targets

      1. That’s very dramatic.

        1. You misspelled accurate.

    2. Just watch. Like magic– presto changeo–, gays, transexuals, jews (especially the jews), and any kind of deviant will be shunted from The Party. You think the left is the party of inclusion and minorities but just watch, it’s going to happen at any moment now:

      Where we are now: “It’s the duty of all straight rich honkeys to bend over for LGBTQ, women, POC, whatever. We need black and female and trans voices to run everything.”
      One step away: “Those ungrateful deviants! Look at all these rich white people who are super smart and moral. Why shouldn’t they be in charge? You want the smartest and most moral people in charge, right?”

  26. Every condition specified for abolishing a government that is specified in the Declaration of Independence has been met, and then some.

  27. OT, sort of:
    Used to to subscribe to Sci Amer; really enjoyed it for a long period of time. And then, sometime back, the articles began to include a social coda toward the end of the articles. And then the (“woke”) coda began to inform the entire article!
    Unlike Fortune, which went through the same evolution, SI stopped sending issues. Fortune spent years selling my info before finally realizing that they weren’t gonna get another penny (Reason has yet to figure that out; still get print mags to fill the recycle bin).
    So I was given a recent copy of “Nature”. Never sub’d to it as it was, last I looked, too technical in subjects which I’ve not studied to be worth reading.
    Turns out the new issue is worthless; regardless of the subject of the article, the ‘woke’ value must be established first, and never be allowed to interfere with the data.
    Similarly, “Nearest Star” (book, recommended, L Golub and J Pasachoff) provides truly amazing data and insights, presented in ways which are such as to I’ve been guilty of forgetting the 4th dimension in determining accurate data.
    But for ‘scientists’ to make the claims regarding what ‘we should do’ reminds any thorough reader of the 20th century of Oppenheimer’s answer to Truman’s request that Oppie’s commitee determine the targets:
    ‘We are scientists and engineers capable of designing the weapon; the target is a pollical decision beyond our expertise’
    (somewhere in “The Making of the Atom Bomb”, Rhodes).

  28. I would like an answer to my solution to this and other problems ..

    I think any subsidy at all should always be a transfer payment. So, when shit gets tight, everyone gets cash… no trying to micromanage things like landlord tenant relations.

    In general, if both building new apartments and kicking people out were allowed, housing would be a cheap and easy good.

  29. All of this, including these pesky unconstitutional takings, will pale in comparison to the Soviet trained pick for comptroller of the currency. The democrats are going for the banks. The great leap forward.
    God help us.

  30. The CDC has NO constitutional authority or any business declaring a moratorium on rents. None.
    It is another example of government out of control, run by bureaucrats drunk with power alongside governors and mayors who locked down their cities and states, thus creating the worst economic condition so far. And it’s only going to get worse.
    The supply chain is broken. Container ships are backed up at U.S. ports. Delays of weeks and even longer to unload. The lack of truck drivers is causing consumer goods deliveries to be delayed to stores thus costing merchants to lose money and possibly their business. Christmas sales are looking gloomy and for some and probably many, there will be no recovery.
    Farmers, cattle raisers, poultry and hog farms have had to slaughter entire herds. Farmers have had to destroy crops. All because there were no plants open to slaughter and process beef, pork and poultry. No plants opened to get vegetables ready for market.
    Car manufacturing has ground to a halt because the chip manufacturers closed down.
    Just take a walk down the aisle of a grocery store and take note of all the empty and emptying shelves.
    This what power drunk politicians created. Stupid, ignorant power drunk politicians.

Please to post comments