Reason Roundup

Manchin on Biden's Plan To Let IRS Snoop on Bank Transactions: 'It's Screwed Up'

Plus: RIP to political humorist Mort Sahl, a look at which households pay the largest share of sin taxes, and more....

|

President Joe Biden's plan to snoop on Americans' bank transactions is "likely to be gone" from the final version of the massive bill working its way through Congress, says Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.).

While speaking at an event on Tuesday, Manchin criticized the proposal to mandate that banks report all transactions of at least $600 to the IRS. Biden has pitched the idea as a way to ensure that wealthy Americans are paying their fair share in taxes, but the real goal seems to be the establishment of a financial surveillance state that can tell whether you paid taxes on your Venmo transactions.

"Do you understand how messed up that is?" Manchin said he told Biden, according to Politico. "This cannot happen. It's screwed up."

There has been some discussion among Democrats about raising the threshold from $600 to $10,000 in an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent. As Reason's Matt Welch has pointed out, that's hardly comforting since $10,000 is what someone earning minimum wage in New York City will make in about four months.

Manchin, whose vote is crucial to Democrats' efforts to pass the Build Back Better plan through the 50-50 Senate, says he opposes the idea even with a higher reporting threshold.

Faced with the prospect of having to file a ton more paperwork with the feds, banks and businesses are also pushing back on the idea. In a letter to Biden earlier this week, 98 different trade associations representing a wide cross-section of the American economy urged the president to ditch the bank-reporting scheme. "This is a substantial expansion of the IRS's authority that, once established, is sure to expand rather than roll back," they wrote.

Given the current makeup of the Senate, Manchin is the most important Democrat to voice opposition to the idea. But it's notable that he's not alone. Rep. Charlie Crist (D–Fla.) opposes the IRS reporting plan, and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D–Va.) has said it could "jeopardize my constituents' rights to privacy without any clear tax law enforcement purpose." Sen. Jon Ossoff (D–Ga.) says he has "very serious privacy and cybersecurity concerns" about the bank-reporting rules too.

As for what will remain in the bill, well, it's pretty much anyone's guess right now.

Democratic leaders in Congress are still hoping to hold a vote on Biden's Build Back Better package before the president jets off on Monday to attend a meeting of world leaders in Rome.


FREE MINDS

Political humorist Mort Sahl, whose acerbic comedy helped pave the way for everyone from Lenny Bruce to Bill Maher, died at age 94.

From The New York Times' obituary:

His own political leanings were difficult to track. The left wanted to claim him, especially early in his career, but they couldn't quite do so. Among other things, he could be crudely sexist and, though he supported civil rights, he was acerbic in confrontation with knee-jerk liberal dogma on the subject. Over the course of his life he kept company with politicians of varying stripes, from Stevenson, Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy to Alexander Haig and Ronald and Nancy Reagan. He said he had voted for Ross Perot; he praised Ron Paul and defended Sarah Palin; he cast a skeptical eye on Barack Obama's presidency and was as scathing about Hillary Clinton as he was about Donald Trump.

"Are there any groups I haven't offended?" he was wont to ask from the stage. If nothing else he was a pure iconoclast.

"If you were the only person left on the planet, I would have to attack you," he once said. "That's my job."

Tributes to Sahl bounced around Twitter on Tuesday night:


FREE MARKETS

So-called "sin taxes" like those levied on alcohol and tobacco are overwhelmingly paid by older, less educated, poorer households, a new study concludes:

We find that sin good purchases are highly concentrated with 10% of households paying more than 80% of taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Total sin tax burdens are poorly explained by demographics (including income), but are well explained by eight household clusters defined by purchasing patterns. The two most taxed clusters comprise 8% of households, pay 68% of sin taxes, are older, less educated, and lower income. Taxes on sugary beverages broaden the tax base but add to the burdens of heavily taxed households. Efforts to increase sin taxes should consider the heavy burdens borne by few households.


QUICK HITS

• The Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel voted in favor of letting kids ages 5 to 11 get the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

• Clinical trials show the vaccines to be very effective for children, though nothing can stop kids from being kids:

• Nine months before Rosa Parks' more famous protest, Claudette Colvin refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She's still on probation for that "crime," though that might change this week.

• The White House might impose fines of $100 per container per day on companies responsible for the empty shipping containers clogging some ports, because that will surely help.

• Meanwhile, protectionism is contributing to a coming shortage of milk, butter, and cheese:

• Cigarette sales in the U.S. rose in 2020 after years of steady decline. It's almost like the government's war on vaping was a bad idea.

• The annual reminder: No one is wasting their drugs on your kids' Halloween candy.

NEXT: Dopesick Resurrects an Opioid Narrative That Is ‘Neat, Plausible, and Wrong’

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. Sin taxes? What happened to the separation of church and state?

    1. You misheard. It's a syntax error that you have to pay for.

      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. everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

        So I started........ Visit Here

    2. Where have you been? Wokeism is our new state religion, with myriad sins already defined and punished. We should expect taxes targeted on whiteness, maleness, objectivity, and any behavior not in compliance.

      1. And here I thought the minor threat song guilty of being white was not prophetic

        1. all minor threat songs were prophetic.

    3. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.HFx You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

      Go Here..............Earn App

  2. Please tell me how these aren't political state actions.

    Judge Jackson, Obama appointee, releases jan 6th parader kept in jail for months solely for writing a letter denouncing trump. This is the shit seen in authoritarian states.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanOnRecord/status/1453000457920688151

    1. Anyone involved in that HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTION should get a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

      #1/6WasWorseThan9/11

      1. Or shot for trespassing on public property.

        1. There's now precedent.
          Plus, prominent legal theorist, White Mike Laursen, has hailed the action.

      2. Ray Epps first.

    2. Hopefully the parader is banned from purchasing fire extinguishers.

      1. The terms actually require him to not watch news or participate in politics at all.

        1. What about voting or recieving communications about candidates for office in upcoming elections?

          I read the thread. The judge is holding his FATHER responsible for the terms as well. So if Junior watches Fox News while dad's a work, dad gets arrested too?

          WTF.

          1. Like asking a 16-year old Burger King employee to enforce a mask mandate.

          2. Might be time to impeach a judge for flagrantly abusing power.

    3. Nothing will happen to the judge for his abuse of power, so it won't matter if it is.

    4. Trump broke so many people.

      1. He is smarter than them, more successful than them and not shy about calling them assholes when they were shilling their assholery messages.

      2. Most broken being the people who were close and loyal to him, like Giuliani. He’s willing to throw them under the bus in a heartbeat.

        1. Sure buddy.

        2. Trump threw Giuliani under a bus? How do you figure?
          You've been eating some CNN or something?

    5. Just read the thread. I smell future mission creep. These techniques will be tried for any number of charges.

      Better to not let them arrest you.

      1. Better to not let them arrest you.

        Neighborhood sweeps for PTA terrorists and MAGA sympathizers will mean everyone is snagged eventually.

        1. Not everyone; just the people who obviously deserve it.

          1. No everyone has a date with room 101. Even the lefties here will one day be moaning "If only Stalin knew".

  3. "President Joe Biden's plan to snoop on Americans' bank transactions is 'likely to be gone' from the final version of the massive bill working its way through Congress, says Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.)."

    That's unfortunate. Spying on transactions as low as $600 would have been a great way for Democrats to show their contempt for the middle and working classes who used to be their base a few decades ago.

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. Even if they bump it up to $10,000, I'm still in trouble. We had a kitchen fire a while ago, and my insurance company just cut me a check for $25,000 or so to cover some of the damage. It's not wages, so I'm above the $10,000 annual transaction limit and would be reported to IRS. Guess I better start saving all correspondence relating to the insurance claim.

      1. Remember that Mr Boehm, like many other reporters, is being sloppy on his reporting here. The measure is CUMULATIVE transactions. So, if your bank has over $10,000 per year of cash flow in/out, then the banks will report you to the government. This is designed to pretty much track every single person in the United States.

        1. And to be clear, this is to catch everyone with a side gig, trading crypto or working for cash under the table. Those are not billionaires. They aren't even millionaires.

          1. This exactly. They want to make sure NOBODY escapes the net. They've fucked up the economy so bad, they know that more people will be trading services for cash under the table to make ends meet, so they need to crack down on people making an unauthorized living.

          2. It is reminiscent of Greece using helicopters to identify citizens who didn't pay their pool tax.

          3. It’s almost like they are the most horrible people in America or something.

            1. Don’t tell Dee you think that or she’ll start squawking at you.

              1. Noted libertarian advocate for "smart regulations" and the judicious use of authoritarian measures.

              2. I'm surprised Mike or sarc haven't come to scold me for dehumanizing them.

                1. Give it time.

          4. $5k in + $5k out is $100 a week coming in and going back out.

            Yeah, that's bloody well near fucking everyone in the country. I probably had that much cash flow churn from my paper route 30 years ago.

        2. Yep. We're looking at $800/mo in activity. That's basically everybody.

        3. This is designed to pretty much track every single person in the United States.

          It is not a coincidence that their original request was for transactions of $600 or more, which is the threshold at which payments to an individual or sole-proprietor have to be recorded on a 1099-misc. It was always intended to catch little fish and raising the amount to $10,000 for all inflows and outflows is still going to catch most.

      2. Luckily the IRS is hiring 87,000 new agents. One of those helpful chaps will be by in a few weeks to make sure that "kitchen fire" was in fact accidental....

  4. Prosecutor against Kyle Rittenhouse lists all the crimes and rioting committed by the people chasing Kyle. Says their crimes are irrelevant to self defense.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-prosecutor-lists-numerous-alleged-crimes-of-man-kyle-rittenhouse-fatally-shot-downplays-as-irrelevant

    1. Crimes such as assulting Rittenhouse with a skateboard and attempting to shoot him point blank with a pistol. Clearly no cause for self defense.

    2. Not allowing the past crimes is one thing but trying to fit every action in the 10 minutes up to the shooting into that box is absurd. Using this logic Kyle didn't kill him, Kyle pulled the trigger and totally unrelated, the man was hit by a bullet and died.

      I get that allowing any extended video of the night destroys the prosecution's character assassination and bolsters the self-defense claims but this is silly.

    3. They're mainly trying to deflect from the fact that the whole video clearly shows Rittenhouse acting in a manner consistent with self-defense--he's continually attempting to extract himself, he only engages those who are a direct and immediate threat, and willingly surrendered to the police. The whole video is a textbook example of how to ward off a violent mob and get to a safe haven.

      In any other context, the case would be over by Day 1, but because Rittenhouse hurt leftists that were trying to kill him, they're going to try and make an example of him in order to send a message that only leftists get to commit violence without consequences.

      1. That’ll end really well, I’m sure.

      2. Yeah, he showed amazing restraint and control. Never shot anyone that wasn't trying to kill him. Never shot more than absolutely necessary to defend himself.

        1. Never shot more than absolutely necessary to defend himself.

          Exactly. The last guy in particular proves this. He is moving toward Rittenhouse who then covers him. At this point the guy raises his hands, stops moving toward RH, then moves slightly backward resulting in no shots. Then RH fires only when his attacker misinterprets his not firing and begins moving toward him again.

          Frankly I'm amazed someone so young could exercise such restraint in that chaos.

          1. Then RH fires only when his attacker misinterprets his not firing and begins moving toward him again.

            More to the point, the video shows that Rittenhouse shot him after the guy started swinging his gun-hand up after feigning surrender. The pics may have been scrubbed off the net by Google's janny admins by now, but there were a few that clearly showed the hand of his hamburgered arm using a pistol to prop himself up.

            Rittenhouse must have killer reflexes to react like that, because if he had hesitated for even a half-second, he'd likely have been shot by the Antifart cancer cell.

            1. He did infinitely better than the overwhelming majority of cops would have done. Or that I would have done, frankly. Instant correct, "Shoot/No Shoot" decisions.

              In his place, I likely would have tried either headshots or repeated COM hits, regardless of whether the threat was continuing. Which would be pilloried by the prosecution.

              You can't do it any better than he did, and he's still getting jammed up for it. There's a lesson there, and it's an absolutely awful one.

    4. You guys keep confusing the modern definition of "crime" with our 250 year tradition. Today, a crime is any transgression of political orthodoxy, and has nothing to do with actual events or universal principles.

  5. The Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel voted in favor of letting kids ages 5 to 11 get the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

    I was on pins and uh needles waiting to see which way they would go.

    1. Rigged election.

    2. Meanwhile sweeden stopped giving kids the Vax due to adverse events

    3. In the Washington Post, Leana S. Wen says: Since the beginning of the pandemic, at least 1.8 million children between 5 and 11 have been diagnosed with covid-19. Kids in this age range currently constitute more than 1 in 10 new infections. More than 8,600 children have been hospitalized, with 1 in 3 hospitalizations requiring intensive care. Tragically, 143 young children have died.

      143/1800000 = 7.94e-5

      1. The overwhelmingly hospitalizations are just to monitor children with asthma and the like. Friends kid was in a hospital for 24 hours solely for that reason. Never was at risk. The numbers are bunk.

      2. Number of children hospitalized with COVID in NJ, 3/2020 - Present: 1,555 plus 59 MIS-C cases.

        Number of children hospitalized each year for bronchitis, influenza, or pneumonia, 2015-2018: 5,200.

        Sure, let's just keep panicking over this one thing.

    4. They were waiting on that long-term testing. Happily, pharma companies provided all the safety data needed.

  6. Botcher Biden’s Bilk Back Better

    1. A line from Blik Back Mountain.: "I wish he would quit us!"

  7. One kid swallowed a penny, which is exactly (and hilariously) what you'd expect during a trial that includes 5-year-olds.

    Delightful anecdotes means there's no need to journalism further.

    1. I'm not sure I'd expect that during a trial.

      1. Swallowing pennies cures Covid. It is known.

        1. So that explains the damn change shortage we had earlier in the Pandemic! It's not only the WuFlu, it's the Woo Flu!

        2. What a coin-cidence.

          1. spooky-rific to coin a phrase.

      2. The kids aren’t sequestered. They are at home living their normal lives.

        1. How many pennies do you expect your kid to swallow?

    2. We know the COVID-19 vaccines are bad, so we need to keep digging until we find some reason they are bad!!!

      1. The vaccines are possibly wonderful but, like all vaccines, come with risks. The journalism here would be giving parents the information to make a cost/benefit analysis on whether the risk for that age is higher for adverse effects of infection than for inoculation of a new type of vaccine.

        But cute stories are useful, too.

        1. Did you follow the link to Katelyn Jetelina's substack post? It has exactly what you are asking for.

          1. Not really.

            The hand waving of possible long term effects due to supposed urgency of need part didn't bother you? There appears to be very little if any skepticism one would hope for in journalism. Nothing is challenged. This seemed like the same naked advocacy today's actual journalists regularly provide.

            1. Mike is only skeptical of certain people.

            2. The ol’ long-term side effects talking point. What would be the mechanism that could possibly cause long-term side effects of a vaccine that is so unstable it has to be specially refrigerated just to last long enough to get it to the patient?

              1. The ol' line of bullshit from Mike.

              2. Notice that Mike let the mask slip here. He was never interested in discussing things. He asked questions to FoE so that he could deride them as "ol' talking points". He doesn't actually want to convince anyone, otherwise he would see these things as legitimate concerns that (perhaps) he doesn't share. But no, to him these are TALKING POINTS. Because Mike is only here to present talking points. He is here to shill for Team Blue, while pretending to be reasonable.

                1. It's so blatant as to be almost humorous. Almost.

                  1. I can't really understand how Mike and sarc can keep clinging to these sort of talking-points.
                    They've seen them absolutely destroyed here hundreds of times, with loads of documentary evidence showing that they're lies, but like a dog to it's vomit they keep returning to them.

                    I don't think that they're fifty-centers, unlike Jeff and Shrike who're paid to push the party line, so I can't understand the willful blindness.

              3. What would be the mechanism that could possibly cause long-term side effects of a vaccine that is so unstable it has to be specially refrigerated just to last long enough to get it to the patient?

                What would be the mechanism that could possibly cause long-term side effects of a virus that is so unstable it can't survive outside of a human body for more than a few hours?

                1. What could be the mechanism that could possibly cause long-term side effects of plutonium that is so unstable it oxidizes in moments, bathing you in gamma rays and a cloud of radioactive dust?

                  Evidently unstable things can't cause long term problems? I don't know what Mike thinks he's arguing any more.

                2. Lung damage, mostly. The other day I read that it may also linger long-term in the nervous system and brain.

                  Your answer is very disingenuous: it doesn't acknowledge the virus can survive quite well _inside" of a human body. Which is, you know, the whole problem.

                  1. Point.

                    Mike Laursen

                  2. But "inside" the body wasn't what you first brought up, you weasel. You brought up refrigeration and he was replying to that.

                  3. Your answer is very disingenuous: it doesn't acknowledge the virus can survive quite well _inside" of a human body.

                    As can the vaccine. I was not being disingenuous, I was pointing out that you were being disingenuous.

                    I actually know quite a number of biochemists who work in pharmaceutical development who were/are quite concerned about potential unknown long-term effects to this vaccine "that is so unstable it has to be specially refrigerated just to last long enough to get it to the patient."

                    Are they stupid?

                    1. How can the vaccine survive long-term?

                      You are appealing to authority, and, conveniently, authorities that only you know.

            3. "The hand waving of possible long term effects due to supposed urgency of need"

              Sounds like you didn't even read the substack post. It was full of facts, talked about arguments that were made for and against during the meeting, etc. It's always curious when someone asks for factual reporting, then complains about factual reporting.

              1. Keep beating the hell out of that straw-man.

              2. Most importantly it discussed your preconceived notions and dismissed the others.

              3. Hence the hand waving complaint.

                1. You still haven't answered my question about by what conceivable mechanism the COVID-19 vaccines could have long-term effects.

                  1. Is your assertion things like myocarditis have zero long term effects? What about the few cases of paralysis? This is like asking long term effects of the flu vaccine and ignoring Gullian Barre.

                  2. You still haven't answered my question about by what conceivable mechanism the COVID-19 vaccines could have long-term effects.

                    The resistance to the virus that comes from taking the vaccine doesn't count as a "long-term effect?"

      2. Well, crapping out after six months on older variants and being effectively useless against new ones would normally lead people with brains to question their "goodness."

        The best part of the last 8 months or so has been watching the media gradually lower the reported effectiveness rate of these "vaccines."

        1. Cdc just announced a needed 4th shot within a year for some citizens

          1. I'd be curious to see if they did these tests like the ones they conducted last year, by goosing the antibody dump in the clinical trials way beyond what is found in a normal infection, in order to get the EUA approved because whatever protection it might offer starts declining dramatically within a few weeks of getting the shot.

            One thing that's notable in all of this is that, for several years prior to the pandemic, Fauci was regularly complaining that more people weren't getting their flu shots every year and he couldn't figure out how to convince the general public that everyone should get them.

            1. Dr. Mengele 2.0 is an evil piece of feces.

            2. I mean, the nanotechnology chips wear out after a while so they have to get people to re-up.

      3. well we know they dont work so there's that.

    1. That's rather big news for the media to completely ignore.

  8. #BidenBoom update!

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 the 10 richest Americans have gained a combined: $308 billion

    Most. Libertarian. President. Ever.

    #LibertariansForBiden
    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

    1. I've always been annoyed by the focus on "Minimum" wage laws. Do you know how hard it is for adults to make minimum wage long-term? To get promoted all you have to do is show up and not fuck off on the clock. Even the left's scapegoat WalMart moves people off minimum in 90 days. A friend's son worked there right out of high school and was promoted 3 times in his first year. To be the left's poster child of two adults with kids making minimum wage you have to be completely incapable of holding a job due to drugs or attitude.

      1. So your average dem voter? Ba da ching.

  9. FBI is handing over J6 material only to democrats in the house, refusing all GOP inquest.

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/27/exclusive-biden-fbi-joins-pelosi-in-blocking-gop-from-investigating-january-6/

    This is after arguing to judges against the release of J6 footage showing paraders essentially doing nothing inside of the Capitol despite FBI/doj propaganda regarding J6.

    Still no charges of insurrection. Only one charge of violence of any kind.

    1. Disband the FBI and release all those who are still held for the not-insurrection. At this point, I don't care what they may have done or not done.

    2. I'm glad Reason is really on top of this unjust pre-trial detention of people charged with trespassing.

      1. Give them a break. Reason writers are saving their finite resources for the next police-shoot-dog story.

    3. Might be time for the GOP to run on dismantling the FBI brick-by-brick.

  10. Can we please just start at the beginning?

    Where does the Constitution Grant the federal government the authority to demand that every transaction over any threshold, $600 or not, to them?

    It certainly is not anywhere in the enumerated powers. I suppose they stick it in the IRS to try to shoehorn it into the 16th amendment.... Which is pretty insane. That reading means "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" gives the federal government the power to require that every single transaction be reported to them.

    Every transaction. Any transaction by any citizen anywhere in the world, and any transaction by any entity interacting with any US citizen or US company anywhere in the world, and any transaction by anyone who is within US jurisdiction, be it the US, a US territory or any other such place.

    They could require all transactions to be electronic and traceable.... Something Biden and crew has been in favor of for at least a couple of decades. (I remember talk of moving solely to credit/debit cards in the 90's).

    We the people have got to stop tolerating expansion of the government beyond constitutional limits.

    Every public official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, but it has become completely acceptable for executive and legislative members to ignore that oath. How many times has Biden said "this is unconstitutional, but I am doing it anyway"?

    That simple statement, that an official is going to knowingly violate their oath of office, should be enough to immediately remove them from office.

    But we just shrug our shoulders and move on.

    We have got to stop tolerating this notion that it is OK to push through unconstitutional laws and policies and "just let the courts sort it out later".

    1. Yeah but Trump said he has the authority to fire appointees of the executive branch, so BoAF sIDeS!

      — Jeffsarc

      1. That was so idiotic yesterday as both cried about people arguing honestly.

    2. Not only is it unconstitutional, even the utilitarian argument for it sucks. Why am I expected to believe that the ultra wealthy are hiding their wealth in Christmas Club accounts at the local bank?

      1. It doesn’t matter to them if people believe their lies or not anymore. The corporate press will cover for them.

        1. In fascism, it helps to be on the right side.

    3. The 4th amendment. Duh.

      1. Clearly if you have paperless statements, there are no "papers and effects", so no 4th Amendment issue. And the electronic data are easy to transmit, as Yellen helpfully pointed out.

    4. General welfare clause; in general, it's welfare for the accountants and lawyers.

    5. It's a dragnet.

    6. I thought there was this thing called the 4th amendment to the Constitution. You know, the one that says the government needs a warrant particularly describing the thing to be searched and particularly describing that which is to be seized.

      Guess not.

      1. Hasn't been necessary since the supremes invented asset forfeiture.

    7. "Where does the Constitution Grant the federal government the authority to demand that every transaction over any threshold, $600 or not, to them? "
      It should be obvious by now that the Constitition is meaningless.

  11. ...Manchin criticized the proposal to mandate that banks report all transactions of at least $600 to the IRS.

    Just because you're from a kinda red state is no reason to go all red pill.

  12. " Clinical trials show the vaccines to be very effective for children, though nothing can stop kids from being kids:"

    So what? There is no reason for children to be vaccinated from COVID. Regardless of how low risk it is, it isn't going to be a low enough risk to justify approving it for kids under 5 who have zero risk (unless they have a complicating risk factor).

    Eric Boehm surely knows what is being done here. NEVER before have Americans been forced to vaccinate for a disease that poses no risk to themselves. It is not even common practice to APPROVE vaccines for a population at no risk. (The closest example might be Chicken Pox, but given the risk of Shingles to kids when they are older, the vaccine does protect them.) And yet this is obviously what is being done: They are laying the groundwork for mandating vaccines- a massive, collectivist effort.

    The logic that allows the country to require kids perform a medical procedure to protect others is the same logic that allows for the draft. I agree that there is low risk for kids from this vaccine- the real risk is to our liberty and the freedoms these kids will lose in a country that sees them as cogs in an enormous machine. Mr Boehm would rather talk about the safety of the vaccine than the risks to our liberty.

    1. The same safety trials found no risk of myocarditis either. Now Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland have banned the use of the moderna vaccine for those under 30 for risk of myocarditis. If anything, we know nothing that has come out of these trials is accurate. The mRNA vaccines are clearly not 97% effective in preventing infection.

      1. And might be effective at promoting infection... But because the press is now propaganda and social media is policed, we can't find out. Nobody can have an open discussion about the research results, what they mean, what should be done next... None of it.

        So conspiracy theorists get to latch on to scraps from the edge and everything except what the government says is discredited.

        This does not make us safer.

        1. ^Well said.

      2. They didn’t see the myocarditis because it is exceedingly rare. Even then it is near always self limiting and often missed clinically.

        When they first started giving the vaccine there was no way to know that overall protection would wane over the next 6-8 months.

        1. The reported cases of myocarditis is already greater than the reported cases of severe covid in children... What are you defending here?

        2. When they first started giving the vaccine there was no way to know that overall protection would wane over the next 6-8 months.

          Gee, think the way the clinical trials were conducted might have had something to do with this?

          This is why it was incredibly stupid for Trump to try and push this through so fast, even if he understandably did it for both political and economic reasons. Instead of finding out all this shit in real time, proper tests should have been done, across all age groups, just like they're normally conducted. He could have helped cut some unnecessary red tape in areas to expedite things a bit, but this is a big reason why these tests are done over the course of several months or even years, and why even some drugs or vaccines that gain full authorization are later pulled from the market.

          At this point, with the Booster of the Month Club on the horizon and social control mechanisms in place to require JUST this specific shot to even be able to make a living, the Cabal is clearly begging people to start a legitimate revolution so that they have a war on their hands they think they can actually win this time.

    2. The real long term effects are unknown and unknowable.

      1. Pfizer in their application admitted the study on children will come 'post approval.'

        1. You have to take the drug to find out what is inside the drug.

          1. You have to take the drug to find out what it will do to you.

            Pharmaceutical Roulette!

            1. That is literally any drug you can name that isn't a sugar pill.

        2. What are you talking about?

          They did a three phase trial with 4500 children. That is what they submitted to the FDA and the panel recommended approval.

          “The Phase 1/2/3 trial initially enrolled up to 4,500 children ages 6 months to 11 years of age in the United States, Finland, Poland, and Spain from more than 90 clinical trial sites.”

          1. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

            "A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,"

          2. “Long term” means way more than a few months.

      2. The long-term effects for me is I'm living to fight many other days and at this rate, maybe I'll even outlive the Civil War 2.0 crowd, the Televangelist crowd, and big chunks of AM talk radio. Evidently, it's a repeat of The Lost Cause as well.

    3. "the real risk is to our liberty and the freedoms"

      I think a lot of people miss or ignore the creepy precedent that a lot of these actions set when assessing these mandates or even social demands. Unfortunately, precedent is a widely accepted justification for new government action so we need to be extremely careful what we just accept or even actively demand of others because that can easily be turned around against us.

      1. Yes. The fact that employers, teachers and the government are intimately monitoring and advising your personal medical history is Deeply Creepy as Fuck (DCaF) and Boehm doesn't seem to care.

    4. Mumps is near eliminated in the US and mortality is exceedingly rare.

      Rubella is near eliminated.

      There has not been a polio case originating in the US since 1979.

      Yet these are required for schools.

      Pneumococcal and influenza vaccines are both recommended in children.

      I don’t hear any howls of protest about those except from the nut jobs. Why is this one different? Sure they haven’t even officially approved it yet. They will try it out on Israelis first.

      1. Mumps, Polio and Rubella are dangerous to the child. They are vaccinating to protect themselves, not to protect a bunch of boomers afraid that little jimmy is going to give them the coof. Never in the history of our country have we mandated that children undergo a medical procedure to protect others from an act of nature. (Let alone the fact that forcing any medical procedure on a person, whether it is for their benefit or not, is immoral and a power claimed by the government that is deeply creepy as fuck)

        "Yet these are required for schools."

        They are in fact NOT required in schools, and it becomes tiring to point out constantly that except for a handful of states, most others have exemptions for religious, medical, or philosophical reasons. And it is noteworthy that those states disallowing philosophical objections ONLY mandate vaccines that protect those children from a pathogen that is dangerous to them. Finally, it is noteworthy that those states mandating vaccination only did so VERY RECENTLY.

        This was a complaint that I and others made when those vaccine mandates were being passed: They create a horrible precedent that should be resisted if we are interested in keeping the government out of our personal medical decisions. And what a fucking shock, here we are less than a decade later watching the government claim the power to force CHILDREN to inject themselves with an experimental medicine justified solely as a mechanism to protect the older people in power. And your "They have always been mandated" argument runs cover for that argument.

        1. Rubella is a self limiting illness that lasts about a week. Initial symptoms are similar to Covid. Then a rash for about three days. Mumps is also self limited and only very rarely causes complications.

          You are clinging to the myth that Covid does not make kids sick and has no risk even if small. I have seen it in my family. They have the same symptoms as adults they just fight it off faster. It is no fun for them and they have to stay home for a week or so.

          I have no idea if schools will mandate or not. I think it should be on the recommended list like influenza and parents can decide for themselves.

          In any case all we have is a trial. To really know anything you have to see it in the real world.

          Almost every state requires them and of course there are exemption rules which vary from one place to another. Even hospitals requiring Covid vaccine here have those.

          1. Rubella could be a counter argument, because the main goal is to inoculate future mothers. Mumps was vaccinated totally as a protection to the children because of the risk of complications from the disease including deafness of up to 4% of cases and ecephalitis. The fact remains that these were vaccines to protect children from a virus that could infect them.

            "You are clinging to the myth that Covid does not make kids sick and has no risk even if small."

            No, *you* are peddling a myth. The number of kids dying of COVID in this country is a rounding error. The number of kids hospitalized BECAUSE of COVID is a ROUNDING error. There is ZERO risk to children from this illness. "Getting sick" is not the same as a risk of hospitalization or death.

            I have been responsible for the monitoring of symptoms for children in multiple programs. And the argument that "They have the same symptoms as adults they just fight it off faster," is utter bullshit. *You* are peddling bullshit. The vast majority of children contracting COVID will have a low-grade fever and a headache for a day or two. The fever is so low, that we had to change our temp-taking regimen to more sensitive thermometers, and de-emphasizing lack of fever as a dispositive test.

            "I have no idea if schools will mandate or not."

            They already are. The state of California requires all students to be vaccinated at whichever age is currently approved. They have specifically said that they will require it for 5 year olds as soon as it is approved.

            "I think it should be on the recommended list like influenza and parents can decide for themselves."

            Agreed.

            "Almost every state requires them and of course there are exemption rules which vary from one place to another."

            Then it isn't a requirement if I can object for religious or philosophical reasons.

            And to be clear: Whether the state currently mandates any vaccines or not doesn't change the fact that Mandates are a violation of the NAP and immoral. Requiring others to undergo a medical procedure in order to protect themselves or (more especially) others from an act of nature is a violation of the NAP and immoral. That the state undergoes this immorality, just as it undergoes the immorality of war and drug prohibition, is no justification for doubling down on tyranny.

            1. +1

      2. Because those are no shit diseases that actually affect children.

        Also, could y'all stop with the tired "required for schools"? It's already been pointed out ad nauseum that you're wrong about it.

      3. "I don’t hear any howls of protest about those except from the nut jobs. "

        I was strongly against mandating vaccines when this was being argued last decade, so it was not just nut jobs.

        https://reason.com/2013/12/06/vaccine-free-riders-1/?comments=true#comment-4175092

        Full disclosure: All my children are vaccinated with the recommended vaccines for their age. My belief in vaccines for their medical effectiveness does not mean I am willing to cede the power to make those decisions to the federal government- an entity that has repeatedly demonstrated that it should never have those powers.

        1. That is a really interesting discussion to go back and look at. Even more interesting that Ron Bailey (if that is truly who it was) was a part of it. Your analogy back then is very similar to my bear/fence analogy from a couple of days ago.

          https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/?comments=true#comment-9176424

          I find it really interesting that libertarians have always had such strong and divergent beliefs on this topic.

          1. Yes, I read your bear analogy with nodding approval. Unfortunately I was out camping this weekend, else I'd have jumped in. Your analogy is almost identical to the one I have been using on this site, though mine tended to use wolves.

            https://reason.com/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory/?comments=true#comment-4409334

            Another one that has been effective is analogizing to a property with water running through it to downstream neighbors. If that water has giardia (a waterborne pathogen) when it reaches your land, you are not obligated to clean it before it goes to your neighbor. It is an act of nature, and each of us has responsibility to protect ourselves from nature.

            What I find so interesting is that Reason has now spent the better part of 2 years reviewing The Science! (tm) to decide whether the vaccine is safe enough or effective enough in the face of COVID's risks to justify mandates. That is the better part of 2 years that libertarians already knew how bad the moral case for Vaccination really is. It is the better part of 2 years that could have been spent pointing out how deeply creepy as fuck it is to give these powers to the US or State governments.

            "Even more interesting that Ron Bailey (if that is truly who it was) was a part of it."

            Yes, unfortunately, Mr Bailey is one of the other casualties of Trump and COVID. He used to regularly join these comments for a couple hours after posting, but during 2020 the toxicity in the comments pretty much ended that.

            1. "Another one that has been effective is analogizing to a property with water running through it to downstream neighbors."

              What's funny is that I actually started with trying to make an analogy of water running off my property that contains high levels of naturally occurring arsenic. A common problem in my area. I eventually decided to settle on the bear/fence analogy. I figured that I could not have been the first person to come up with analogies like that.

              I was getting tired of seeing the same discussion on this over and over. I was hoping that moving the discussion points away from the virus and vaccines would shake up the talking points. Everyone seems to dig in their heels once virus or vaccine shows up in a discussion.

              "That is the better part of 2 years that libertarians already knew how bad the moral case for Vaccination really is."

              Going back through your links and seeing those Reason articles from pre-COVID, it looks like the general consensus at Reason has always been that they don't accept the moral case against vaccination to protect others. In fact, it looks like they accept the opposite - it is immoral to refuse vaccination. They seem to subscribe to the "throwing your fist through the air" analogy, which is incredibly weak in my opinion.

              "Yes, unfortunately, Mr Bailey is one of the other casualties of Trump and COVID"

              That is too bad. It would have been interesting to still have him in the comments section.

              1. Sure enough, after skimming an old comments section, I came across basically my exact analogy.

                https://reason.com/2013/12/17/vaccines-responsibility-not-to-put-other/?comments=true#comment-4194659

              2. I’m always wary of arguments that depend on analogy, especially if no direct argument is ever made about the actual scenario being discussed.

                1. "I’m always wary of arguments that depend on analogy, especially if no direct argument is ever made about the actual scenario being discussed."

                  For the benefit of the thread, understand that Mike is actually wary of arguments that he does not like, or that do not go in the direction he wants. Mike has argued by analogy several times on this site. He merely makes this statement because he wants to look reasonable while doing the shilling he always does.

                  It is a fact that these analogies are regularly used by

              3. "Going back through your links and seeing those Reason articles from pre-COVID, it looks like the general consensus at Reason has always been that they don't accept the moral case against vaccination to protect others."

                The general consensus of reason staff was, "It should be a parent's choice, but the Disciples of Jenny McCarthy are fucking crazy." Bailey's endorsement of mandates was heavily criticized, and you can go back to contemporary articles where I think Singer was hosted on the site for a rebuttal.

                Among the Commentariat, it was quite interesting to see the complete difference of opinion when this was not fitting neatly in the Team Red/Blue dynamic. Interestingly, people like RC Dean, who I would consider right leaning (and John, who was much like many on the trump side here) were very pro-vaccine. However, most people agreed that mandates were wrong, even if they believed in shaming folks who do not vaccinate. The difference seems to be that those who vehemently encouraged vaccinations, but did not support mandates would actually take a stand against mandates, unlike many of the pro-vaxxers in the comments today who claim to not support mandates, but cannot ever be bothered to even criticize them.

                Even more interesting is that when I search on Google for many of the past articles, they are HEAVILY redacted. Articles by Bailey are easy to get to, whereas dozens of reason articles that are more nuanced have been suppressed.

                1. Actually, you are right on the consensus. Right after I posted that, I realized that I had only been seeing Bailey’s positions on this topic. So definitely not the consensus of Reason.

          2. "I find it really interesting that libertarians have always had such strong and divergent beliefs on this topic."

            Actually I would note that Mr Bailey's initial position in defense of vaccine mandates was extremely controversial among libertarians (as was his endorsement of Carbon Taxes to combat AGW).

        2. It is not the federal government. It is the states.

          So I think they should make it on the recommended list like flu.

      4. Why is this one different?

        For a multitude of reasons that you'll just hand-wave away.

  13. "Are there any groups I haven't offended?" he was wont to ask from the stage. If nothing else he was a pure iconoclast.

    Mort Sahl, like George Carlin and Bill Maher, didn't want to be on anyone's "team".

    You got to like that.

    It's very libertarian.

    I guess that is why I don't get the Cult of Trump.

    1. We know. You prefer the Cult of NAMBLA.

    2. SPB2: "I totally respect people who don't play the Team Game. Unlike those guys who aren't on my Team- that team likes to play the team game too much. Stupid team playing team games!"

    3. Hmm.

      The person who introduced me to Reason.com told me you literally spent Obama's entire Presidency praising him on a daily basis — even giving him 100% of the credit for creating what you described as the strongest economy in US history. In fact he told me your typical post from 2009 to 2016 went something like this:

      Hey Peanuts can you believe how amazing this Obama economy is???? Want proof it's amazing? Definitely don't look at GDP growth. Instead look at Warren Buffett's net worth: it went up a lot this week! BEST ECONOMY EVER!!!!

      I think that qualifies as being on a "team," doesn't it?

      1. Yes. I call it Team US Recovery From the Worst Financial Collapse in US history.

        If you recall the conservative FreakOut Factory was busy claiming that Obama was born in Kenya and the he wouldn't wear a US flag pin with his suits.

        #82monthsjobcreationStockmarketrecordsbiggestjobgainsevercutdeficitinhalfLeftIraqKilledBinLadenFreeTrader

        1. turd lies. It's what turd does. turd is a pathological liar, so fucking stupid he forgets which lie he told 5 minutes ago, and doesn't understand everyone else knows he constantly lies.
          If turd posts something which isn't a lie, it is purely accidental.
          turd lies; it's all turd does. He never does anything else.

        2. Yeah that dastardly conservative Hillary clinton

    4. turd lies. It's what turd does. turd is a pathological liar, so fucking stupid he forgets which lie he told 5 minutes ago, and doesn't understand everyone else knows he constantly lies.
      If turd posts something which isn't a lie, it is purely accidental.
      turd lies; it's all turd does.

    5. Maher didn't want to be on anybody's team? Then why did he spend eight years hating on George W. Bush, then the next eight with his mouth glued to Obama's ass, then the next four hating on Trump? If he's not playing for Team Blue, he's definitely a cheerleader.

      1. Maher publicly endorsed John McCain during the 2000 decade until McCain went air-headed bimbo with his VP pick.

        1. Short version: he endorsed Obama.

    6. And why I don’t get communists.

  14. Nine months before Rosa Parks' more famous protest, Claudette Colvin refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She's still on probation for that "crime," though that might change this week.

    How old is her probation officer?

    1. Interesting how much chance matters in history. She was a high school student who was pregnant out of wedlock.

      That is why her case wasn't included in the half dozen cases that were appealed for purposes of getting the appeal to the Supreme Court. She was considered to be too young to handle the media pressure and her pregnancy would create the wrong focus of attention.

      Of course it's no surprise that the powers that be didn't even get rid of her juvenile court probation. And she still endured the local pressure that forced her to leave Montgomery and move north. And she (along with the others not named Rosa Parks involved in those court cases) was forgotten by civil rights crowd too.

    2. This heroic black woman refused to give up her bus seat in San Francisco. Where's her statues and National Holiday?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rm4SazjKsQ

  15. There has been some discussion among Democrats about raising the threshold from $600 to $10,000 in an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent. As Reason's Matt Welch has pointed out, that's hardly comforting since $10,000 is what someone earning minimum wage in New York City will make in about four months.

    Well, then LOWER THE MINIMUM WAGE!!

  16. "Clinical trials show the vaccines to be very effective for children"

    You know what else is effective against COVID? Being a child.

    1. Effectiveness isn't measured in health, it's measured in obedience and power

  17. The White House might impose fines of $100 per container per day on companies responsible for the empty shipping containers clogging some ports...

    Joke's on Biden. Thanks to inflation that c-note isn't worth hardly anything.

    1. Meanwhile .gov will need to hire 1000 workers @$80k/yr + benefits and retirement to count empty containers.

    2. I realize that's what the summary of the article says, but the article itself doesn't say anything about *empty* containers.

      I think the plan is to fine trucking companies for not moving full containers out of the port. Which they can't do because their container chassis are full of empty containers the ports won't let them unload, and they don't have anywhere else to put.

      So it's actually *even dumber* than the summary makes it out to be.

      1. Expect a lot of containers to end up sinking to the bottom of the harbor unexpectedly, and further impeding shipping.

  18. Meanwhile, protectionism is contributing to a coming shortage of milk, butter, and cheese...

    With communism everyone is lactose intolerant.

    1. We will drink potato milk, eat potato butter and cheese, and we will be happy to have it.

    2. This is why I stocked up on non-fat powdered milk. Even if you don't like the taste, a medicine bottle of powdered milk with your water bottle can help you take the burn out of pepper spray during a riot, civil disturbance, or other Shit Hits The Fan (SHTF) scenarios.

  19. Yair Rosenberg
    @Yair_Rosenberg
    The vaccine clinical trials for kids had 5 adverse events, none of them related to the vaccine. One kid swallowed a penny, which is exactly (and hilariously) what you'd expect during a trial that includes 5-year-olds.

    The Pfizer report also stated that effectiveness of vaccines is inconclusive for decreasing harm from covid as covid is almost zero risk to kids.

    176 kids have died with covid in the 5-12 age group. A population in the tens of millions. And each one of those had a major comorbodity associated with the death.

  20. Cigarette sales in the U.S. rose in 2020 after years of steady decline. It's almost like the government's war on vaping was a bad idea.

    The tobacco lobby's greatest idea, in fact.

  21. The annual reminder: No one is wasting their drugs on your kids' Halloween candy.

    Breaking news: Selfish libertarians bogart.

    1. I just blew about fifty bucks to buy enough candy to feed the young king hordes on Halloween. No money left for drugging them.

      1. Poor Mikey. Only has $50.

        1. Hey! It takes 100 posts to save up $50.

  22. "Democratic leaders in Congress are still hoping to hold a vote on Biden's Build Back Better package before the president jets off on Monday to attend a meeting of world leaders in Rome."

    If all 50 Democrat Senators vote for the bill, America will be screwed, and Mitch McConnell will be blamed (by others in the GOP, as he should be) for extending the debt limit until December, which gave the Democrats an additional ten weeks to negotiate with and get Manchin and Sinema on board.

  23. Clinical trials show the vaccines to be very effective for children

    Against a virus that has almost no effect on children? I'm sure saline is just as effective.

    1. My tiger repelling rock is still working.

  24. Gold price $1944/oz Jan 2021 when Biden was inaugurated.

    Gold price today $1796/oz.

    HAPERINFLATION BOYS! ITS KILLIN' US!

    1. Jared from Subway white knighting for Biden. How precious.

      1. Mr. Buttplug needs to push back against what he refers to as "wingnut.com." Meaning websites that promote the ridiculous assertion that there are legitimate problems Biden hasn't completely solved.

        A good recent example of wingnut.com is The New York Times.

    2. Your commitment to #DefendBidenAtAllCosts by dismissing every criticism of him with an all-caps slogan is really admirable. Although I think HAPERINFLATION ranks below SLOPPY PULLOUT because the latter also incorporates your trademark potty humor.

      #LibertariansForBiden
      #HesDoingGreatAcrossTheBoard

      1. HUNTER BIDENS FINGER PAINTINGS! WHY WON'T THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA COVER THAT STORY?

        1. turd lies. It's what turd does. turd is a pathological liar, so fucking stupid he forgets which lie he told 5 minutes ago, and doesn't understand everyone else knows he constantly lies.
          If turd posts something which isn't a lie, it is purely accidental.
          turd lies; it's all turd does.

      2. He's a Bidet for Biden, it's his duty to lick the bowl.

    3. LOL, using the price of one commodity (that most people don't buy) to "prove" that there is no inflation...that's some weapons grade logic for ya.

      1. The inflation is happening all over the world in every country. America is actually doing well by comparison.

        1. Are we? How is that possible?

        2. Kind of the same way global warming is happening twice as fast everywhere at the same time.

        3. shitlord is lying, as is normal.

        4. That's just blatantly false.

          The 5.4% inflation rate in the US places it in the highest third third of G20 countries. It would place in a similar spot across Europe (and well above the European Union's average of 3.6%). Even in the Americas, the US is solidly higher than more than half the countries.

      2. Once you eliminate anything that had a price increase there is no inflation. Democrats have been doing that for months.

    4. turd lies. It's what turd does. turd is a pathological liar, so fucking stupid he forgets which lie he told 5 minutes ago, and doesn't understand everyone else knows he constantly lies.
      If turd posts something which isn't a lie, it is purely accidental.
      turd lies; it's all turd does.

    5. BTC on election night: $16k
      BTC today: $59k

      1. Gas has nearly doubled in just 9 months. Way to go, Joe!

        1. From roughly 1.80 a gallon in January to 3.10 a gallon now for the lowest tier.

    6. I see you've decided to fight for your title of stupidest poster here.

  25. Regarding bank snooping. It is always good practice to have a trial run to see if the proposed program is worth implementing. So let's have a trial run: only all members of Congress, the executive branch employees, and accredited journalists will be subject to the bank reporting rule for the next two years. Then we will analyze for effectiveness.

    1. Snowball … hell

    2. Add in Bernie Bros, Elizabeth Warren voters and AOC voters. See how they like having their bank accounts drag netted.

  26. But at lunch, they were told there key issues not yet resolved
    1) Medicare
    2) Medicaid
    3) paid family leave
    4) immigration
    5) Taxes
    Also Climate hasn’t been resolved but Ds say they’re getting closer

    On the bright side, the food has been very well prepared and everyone is looking forward to the tiramisu.

    1. 1) eliminate
      2) eliminate
      3) up to employee and employer
      4) make work visas easy; no social spending for visitors
      5) lower them and simplify the code
      Climate) stop directing Climate Tsar Kerry to galavant around the planet on his private jet

      1. Healthcare plan quality only increased after after mandates in the ACA bill... pinky swear!

        1. My household’s premiums went up $4600/year and the plans we had were made illegal. Something that cost me $120 out of pocket two years prior became $1200 a year later with no insurance covering it.

          1. don't forget the FSA limit was cut in half too. even the Progs didn't like that one.

      2. Too bad libertarians never get invited to those lunches. Of course the real reason is because they have all the answers and could solve everything in one word before the waiters even bring the menu and water and bread. So there would be nothing to talk about during the meal. But the libertarians would insist on talking about privatizing the roads and legalizing slavery contracts. So by the end of the meal everyone would be looking to get out of there and would even skip the tiramisu.

        1. This from the arm-waving asshole who claims to know how to solve everything and as yet managed only to come up with bogus predictions and PANIC flags.
          Stuff it up your ass and spin.

          1. He did demand the unvaccinated be banned from hospitals

        2. Government does a horrible job of trying to solve problems that are an individual’s responsibility.
          There is an argument for private roads though I am skeptical on that.
          The slavery gibberish comes off as projection.

          1. "The slavery gibberish comes off as projection."

            Yeah, lefty shits lecturing libertarians on slavery is a bit rich.

          2. 'Government' does not force out individuals from being able to resolve stuff on their own. It forces out voluntary/civic/social associations from being able to resolve stuff. Basically one manifestation of the social contract competes away other manifestations of it. Classical liberals (founders, detoqueville, 1848'ers) understood this. The first generation of modern libertarians (AJ Nock, Hayek, etc) understood it. More modern 'Libertarians' who derived their views from anarchists and egoists have never understood that and can't.

            The slavery gibberish comes off as projection.

            I ain't the one who puts 48 pages of that sort of gibberish on my web site. Rockwell/(Mises - I hesitate bringing him into this. I think he'd sue for defamation of character if he was alive) do -
            Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein

            1. One of the foundational principles of libertarianism is self-ownership.

              Based upon that I fail to see how anyone can honestly argue that libertarians support any form of slavery.

            2. "'Government' does not force out individuals from being able to resolve stuff on their own...."

              I guess the lock-downs and mask mandates were just suggestions, right you lying pile of shit?

            3. No true libertarian…
              Slavery violates free association as well as the NAP.
              Government forced me out of my healthcare plan. And forced me into a lesser, more expensive version (or face a penaltax). All in an effort to try and provide something to folks that chose not to do this for themselves.

              1. No government did not force you out of 'your' healthcare plan. It forced 'your' healthcare plan to include people in 'their' risk pool that had previously been excluded and dumped on government plans or 'individual reliance' (ie no access at all). That raised the prices for health coverage and the insurance companies thus changed the plans they offer.

                You property rights do NOT extend to particular circumstances of transactions in a market. It never was 'your' health plan. In fact, it wasn't even the 'insurance company's' health plan (though that is at least closer to actual property right).

                1. My plan became nonexistent. It was no longer allowed by said government. Those of us on it were all forced out.
                  I was then forced into a plan (or pay a penaltax) that cost more and covered less.
                  It was my plan that I and my insurance agent agreed to. The only time government should be involved is if someone breaks the contract and we can’t resolve it amongst ourselves.
                  The collectivist bullshit is just a distraction. It is about votes and control. And it is a disaster.

                  1. It's not 'your' plan. And no 'plan' covers more than one calendar year. So whatever plans you were accustomed to paying for in past years, those are not 'property' and did not create a property right now or in future years. If you feel you were entitled to that expectation in future years, then you are basing stuff on feelz.

                    I disagree heartily with the specifics of how the federal government (read Obama and the D's) attempted to cover the uninsured by transferring that risk-pool to the 'insured' sub-market rather than the entire pool of medical customers. But they did what they did because they/we are too chicken to have an actual public discussion about how the medical system is broken. So - here's some more spit and duct tape.

                    1. JFeelingz, the elimination of my plan wasn’t due to inflation, my age, my health condition, them underestimating costs, market fluctuations, etc. It was due to feelingz from a progressive government that felt I was (1) overinsured and (2) under paying even though nobody else was subsidizing it and both parties willfully agreed to the contract. The change was due to jealousy, envy, hate, selfishness and a desire to control. Basically negative feelingz and the zero sum game fallacy.
                      The government should provide health insurance options for their employees and act as contract arbiter when one or both parties to that contract have a dispute. That is it.

                    2. It was NEVER 'your' plan.

                    3. It was. You know who’s plan it never was? Yours. Governments. And all the folks that received my money redistributed to them from government that was taken by government when I was forced into a lesser plan that cost more. But that is ok because…FEELINGZ.

                2. "You property rights do NOT extend to particular circumstances of transactions in a market."

                  This is an inappropriate application of Property Rights.

                  We have the right to associate with the people of our choosing and form contracts of our choosing. That is not about property rights, it is about freedom of association, and the government interfered with a pre-existing contract, forcing it to end. That is just as big a violation of the NAP as forcing someone to sell their property.

                  1. Government did not interfere with any existing contract. Health insurance coverage is year-to-year. It is the primary reason there is no interest in either preventive medicine or primary care doctors in the US - because preventive medicine delivers benefits in future years not current year. It is the reason the individual insurance market broke a long time ago - if you got sick, the insurance company was only on the hook for a few months and then you got dumped (or fired if on an employer plan) with no ability to get coverage because now you had a preexisting condition -- so those folks basically got dumped on government.

                    That is NOT free association. There is no such thing as a valid contract that prohibits people outside that contract from being restricted. And like it or not - government has every right to decide how they are going to pay for the medical care of people who are dumped on their doorstop. Even if they are incompetent at that (or have politicians who continually troll for credit rather than solve problems) and no one wants to talk about any of this in public lalalalalalalalala.

                    1. Truly amazing mental gymnastics.

        3. Libertarians are humble enough to know we don't have the answers, and we certainly don't have ideas worthy of being backed up with violence. That's why we support markets. In markets bad ideas fail and go away. In government bad ideas get more funding and more men with guns. That's what separates libertarians from people like Tony or Ken.

          1. I think you're probably right re that term libertarians - for most people. But there is no copyright/protection on that term and there's a ton of people who are shitting in that punch bowl for their own purposes. Whether its the R crowd or the 'Mises' crowd or the mainstream/D media. And those are the folks who are heavily marketing their shit under the term 'libertarian'.

            So I'm at a bit of a loss to know what to call that crowd of deceitful folks.

            1. I call them muted assholes.

              1. But enough about talking about only ideas and not people, what do you think of the people?!?!

                Is everything you've ever claimed just a lie?

            2. Seriously though, it's just like police reform or the TEA Party. Good ideas always get coopted by opportunists. Police reform turned into racism and then got really stupid. Taxed Enough Already became a rally cry for conservative (Republican) talk radio and then got really stupid.
              On these comments you've got "True libertarians are Republicans, and if you're not then you're a leftist!" which is really stupid.

              1. Yeah. But with the term 'libertarian' now corrupted - maybe it's time to restore the term 'liberal' to its rightful place.

                OTOH - maybe it's just better to become a Pirate. A lot of that kind of fits me - and the term is unlikely to be appropriated.

                1. Libertarian still means something to libertarians. It's not my fault assholes have sullied the term.

                  1. The lack of self realization is amusing.

                2. Though "Darrr!" would make a catchy slogan for a political party.

                3. Classical liberal seems to be understood, and has not had its meaning corrupted.

            3. "...And those are the folks who are heavily marketing their shit under the term 'libertarian'...."

              This from a lefty lying piece of shit.

        4. "could solve everything in one word"

          One word?

          fuckyoucuttaxes?
          fuckoffslaver?

          ...

  27. The vaping situation is the perfect window into how people think, and it should inform everyone as to our current situation.

    The initial goal was to stop people from getting cancer. The only viable option was to get people to stop smoking. This took many forms over the years: explaining the health risks, raising the cost through taxes, raising social stigma, public bans, bans on advertising, bans, and finally lawsuits of somewhat dubious prominence that aimed to bankrupt "big tobacco"... and promptly morphed into a funding scheme for state and activist organizations.

    By the end, everyone forgot what the goal was... Preventing cancer and other disease. The enemy became " big tobacco" and profit. You here the big anti-smoking organizations say this explicitly, time after time. Big tobacco is behind vaping. They are making profit!!!

    The goal of stopping preventable cancer is gone.

    How should you use this knowledge??

    "Two weeks to flatten the curve".

    Remember that? The virus was endemic and could not be stopped by quarantine measures... So the plan was simply to slow the spread enough to keep our hospitals running. That would allow them to properly treat people with the virus.

    And what happened? That entire notion is long gone. Now we are vaccinating 5 year old kids who are neither in danger from the virus nor are they significant vectors.

    We still have businesses shut down. We still have people getting checks from the government. We still have kids with sitting in masks or remote learning.

    And not one mention of protecting hospital capacity. Now they say we have to protect our children... From AA disease that dies not endanger our children...

    We force people who have already had the virus to get a vaccine or be fired... Even though that vaccine will not benefit them or anyone else in any way (well, except for the people providing the shot... They all get paid).

    That is where we are... The goal is obscured. Nobody even remembers the goal. Even the guy who initially told us the goal has forgotten.

    People are astonishingly malleable. The mind twists and morphs, accommodating the unthinkable with aplomb.

    That is not so damaging if you are Sally in accounting who forgets why the TPS report needed a cover sheet and just keeps mindlessly enforcing the rule after the need is gone. But if you are the President, or the director of the CDC, etc., it is dangerous and inexcusable.

    1. People are astonishingly stupid.

      That includes Sally, the president (elected by people like Sally), and the director of the CDC (appointed by the president).

      Perhaps expecting effective, logical outcomes is also stupid.

    2. Increased chances of getting cancer by 15%. Saved a negliglible amount of lives as precedent for what we're trying to implement now.
      Please not that although female rate of smoking is down over 70%, their rate of lung cancer has increased.
      Also please note that there has been 0 reduction in smoking deaths over the last 30 years, even though smoking is down 60% (per thetruth.com).
      In fact, smoking is still the number 2 cause of death in the US according to "the science".

  28. "Australia pledges net-zero emissions by 2050 without taxes or mandates"
    [...]
    "Australia has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by midcentury without major new legislation restricting fossil fuels, a commitment that brings the country into alignment with its rich peers ahead of the Glasgow climate summit but that was met with environmentalist skepticism.
    Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the country would lean on investments in renewable and other clean energy technologies to meet its target and not introduce taxes or other mandates to cut emissions, which other countries have maintained is necessary to meet Paris Agreement aims of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius..."
    https://news.yahoo.com/australia-pledges-net-zero-emissions-155600534.html

    That wasn't "skepticism", that was loud and sustained laugher! You might just as well claim turd can post without lying.

    1. Australia may just resort to martial law to enforce this. Not that they have ever done anything like that before regarding something that individuals should be deciding for themselves.

      1. I suppose ad hoc emergency martial law does not require taxes or mandates.

    2. They will just buy carbon credits from China, who "cross our hearts and hope to die" promise are real offsets.

  29. RE Mort Sahl:

    "Among other things, he could be crudely sexist and, though he supported civil rights, he was acerbic in confrontation with knee-jerk liberal dogma on the subject."

    So, in 2021, his social media accounts would be suspended, and the main-stream, lame-stream, blame-stream media would do everything possible to cancel him.

    Perhaps the US deserves to end.

  30. "So-called "sin taxes" like those levied on alcohol and tobacco are overwhelmingly paid by older, less educated, poorer households"

    At least the bottom 60% of households pay some taxes.

  31. "White House eyes new climate change strategies in Biden bill"
    [...]
    "The White House is zeroing in on a package of clean energy strategies for President Joe Biden's big domestic policy bill that officials believe could reach similar greenhouse gas emission reduction goals as an initial proposal that was quashed by opposition from a centrist Democrat..."
    https://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article255309171.html#storylink=cpy

    Translated from media propaganda:
    'Droolin' Joe's attempts at taking over the economy didn't fly and now they're flailing about without a clue, trying to save face

    1. AKA Build Back Bronze Age

  32. The Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel voted in favor of FORCING kids ages 5 to 11 get the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

    FIFY

  33. • Cigarette sales in the U.S. rose in 2020 after years of steady decline. It's almost like the government's war on vaping was a bad idea.

    At many public hearings held by FDA, State Legislatures, City and County governments since 2014, I predicted that FDA's proposed e-cigarette regulation (which banned >99.9% of nicotine vapes now on the US market), state and local vape bans (everywhere smoking was banned) and excessive taxes on vapes would protect the cigarette industry and result in an increase in cigarette sales.

    But of course, Obama's FDA tobacco director, Mitch Zeller (who was previously a lobbyist for GSK who lobbied to ban very low risk vapes and smokeless tobacco products) and Democrats in state and local governments continued to lie about vaping, and enact these cigarette protecting policies.

    Since 2009, the following organizations received funding from J&J, GSK, Pfizer, Bill Gates and/or Michael Bloomberg to lobby to protect Nicorette, Nicoderm and Chantix, as well as deadly cigarettes, from market competition by far less harmful vapor products (which are 99% less harmful than cigarettes) by lobbying for FDA's e-cigarette ban/regulation, state/local vaping bans, and outrageous taxes on vapes at federal, state and local levels.
    Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
    American Cancer Society
    American Heart Association
    American Lung Association

    The American Legacy Foundation (created and massively funded by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which was deceitfully renamed "Truth") has also been lying about vaping since 2009 (when they first lobbied FDA to ban vapes).

    State and local health agencies (funded by CDC) have also lied about vaping since 2009 and have spent lots of public funds lobbying to ban vaping and tax vapes.

    The CDC and the US Surgeon General's office have also protected the cigarette industry by lying about very low risk vapes since 2009 (and about very low risk smokeless tobacco since 1986).

    During the past six years, CDC, the SG office and the FDA had issued at least ten times more press releases and reports condemning vapes than they have against cigarette smoking.

    So thanks to federal, state and local public health agencies (and lots of lobbying by Big Pharma funded groups that falsely portray themselves as health advocates), cigarette sales increased last year.

    1. Starting to regret selling Altria stock.

    2. Since 2016, the CDC has lied about their survey findings on youth vaping with press release headlines like "Teen vaping skyrockets, alarming public health officials" by deceitfully classifying all teens who reported vaping THC/cannabis as "tobacco users".

      Most of the increase in teen vaping during the past five years was/is due to teens increasingly vaping THC (instead of smoking it), while most of the increase in teen vaping from 2011-2016 was due to teens vaping nicotine (instead of smoking cigarettes).

      THC vapes now account for about half of all vaping in the US, and also account for about half of all teen vaping.

      But in order to scare the public and impose a cigarette protecting FDA vapor product regulation, the CDC falsely claimed that teens who truthfully reported vaping THC were "tobacco users".

      FDA's tobacco center director Mitch Zeller also knowingly and intentionally repeated CDC's lies about teen vaping (after he was provided lots of data showing most teen vapers, especially among frequent vapers) reported vaping THC.

      1. Meanwhile nobody even mentions vaping CBD. Maybe they just don't know how to spin that.

        1. CBD vaping grew rapidly in 2016-2018, but has declined since then (even as CBD sales continue to grow), as CBD is available in many other forms/products now.

          1. Sales have evaperated

    3. Or people are working from home, and it's much easier to take a smoke break there than it is at the office.

    4. They lied about almost everything from the beginning. Smokers are gross poor people though... So NBD.

  34. I found out just a couple years ago that Mort Sahl was still performing, which was amazing to me. I guess going on stage and talking isn't that strenuous. Every year or two, I'd thought we really needed Mort Sahl then, but then I found out we'd never actually lost him. Until now.

  35. Clinical trials show the vaccines to be very effective for children, though nothing can stop kids from being kids:
    ---------------
    You realize that in the trials, kids were SO UNAFFECTED by actually getting sick, they just measured their antibody counts, right?

  36. Shortage of milk I could understand, but I thought every milk-producing country in the world had years' supply of cheese and butter, due to subsidies.

  37. Remember that letter that the National School Boards Association sent to the President Biden asking him to sic federal law enforcement on parents for opposing the policies of their local school boards? Well, it's now been revealed that, due to the extreme backlash against the National School Board for sending that letter, they've officially apologized.

    "As you all know, there has been extensive media and other attention recently around our letter to President Biden regarding threats and acts of violence against school board members. We wanted to write to your directly to address this matter.

    On behalf of the NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter.."

    ----National School Boards Association Board of Directors

    October 22, 2021

    http://www.osba.org/News-Center/News_releases/20211022NSBA.aspx

    Elsewhere, they say, "There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter", and they promise to complete a thorough review of their processes and procedures to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. According to The Wall Street Journal (link below), 21 state school boards distanced themselves from the letter, and school boards in three states--Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--completely severed their ties with the National School Boards Association over this.

    Notice that this official letter came out days ago? Three interesting observations to make here about three different groups of people.

    1) Despite the fact that the NSBA has apologized for sending the letter to Joe Biden, to the best of my knowledge, Biden still hasn't rescinded his order to the Attorney General.

    That shouldn't be surprising because although the interim director of the NSBA didn't bother to consult the members of his own board before he sent the letter to Biden--the NSBA interim president wrote the letter in consultation with Joe Biden's White House staff!.

    2) Despite the fact that the NSBA has retracted the letter, to the best of my knowledge, Merrick Garland still hasn't rescinded his memo to the FBI directing them to investigate parents for opposing the policies of their school boards under the auspices of the Patriot Act. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising since, as already mentioned, the whole letter was orchestrated by White House staff.

    3) Despite the fact that the NSBA has retracted the letter they sent to Biden asking for federal law enforcement, progressive trolls everywhere are still arguing that parents should be targeted as if they were insurrectionist terrorists for opposing the policies of their local school boards. This just goes to show that the average progressive you meet in a chatroom or on the street is probably on the back end of the IQ spectrum.

    1. I may have forgotten to close an italics tag.

      I'm just sayin'.

    2. Shorter version with no italics:

      1) The NSBA apologized for and retracted its letter asking Biden for federal law enforcement to step in.

      2) The letter wasn't written by the Board of Directors of the NSBA. It was written under guidance of Biden's White House staff.

      3) Neither Biden nor Garland have rescinded their memo to the FBI directing them to target parents for opposing their school boards.

      4) Average progressives are making fools of themselves for continuing to defend Biden and the FBI treating parents like terrorists.

      1. Even shorter Ken: Vote Republican! They're "mere" authoritarians!

        1. I thought you only talked about ideas, not people.

          1. Distill Ken's message and that's what you get.

            1. So you didn't talk about an idea, you talked about a person?

        2. Shorter Sarc: Real libertarians don't pay any attention to left authoritarianism!

          1. Accurate shorter sarc: Real libertarians pay attention to both left and right authoritarianism. Real libertarians don't join Team Red or Team Blue.

            1. It is amazingly how much you all lie to yourself.

      2. Ken, some of those parents that attend school board meetings to voice their displeasure over woke curricula actually own unregistered fire extinguishers.

        1. The horror.

        2. Not me. I always carry my fire extinguisher on my boat to be safe, and well, you know what happened to my boat earlier this summer.

    3. Damn, I'm actually shocked the backlash got bad enough to convince them to issue a apology.

      1. I'm surprised Ohio and Pennsylvania left the National School Boards Association over this.

        Even at the state level, these organizations are dominated by union interests in their states. They're bureaucrats.

        I try to imagine bureaucrats from Philadelphia deciding that it isn't enough to repudiate the letter the progressives wrote--we need to leave the organization.

        The war between progressives and moderate Democrats (relative to the progressives they're moderate anyway) isn't confined to the Senate. It looks like this is happening locally, as well. The progressives try to project themselves as being all pervasive, dominants, and having the Democratic party unified behind them. It's not so.

        The progressives are waaaaaaaaaaay overplaying their hand.

        And we need to get out the word about the original letter to Biden being orchestrated by the White House.

        "The retraction comes after tremendous blowback. First came parents at school board meetings with T-shirts saying “Parents are not domestic terrorists.” Then 21 state school board associations distanced themselves from the letter. The Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania state associations cut ties altogether.

        It turns out that when Chip Slaven, the NSBA interim executive director and CEO, and president Viola Garcia sent the letter, they did so without consulting their own board. But according to one of Mr. Slaven’s emails, they did work with White House staff.

        ----WSJ

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo-fbi-11635285900?

        If Biden White House staff helped write a public letter to Joe Biden--asking him to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards--then the world needs to know. This should be at the top of every news website. It's nasty. Whomever orchestrated this at the White House needs to be exposed, and if Biden doesn't want to discipline the culprit, then we need to know that, too.

        1. I'm coining the term "reichstaging" to describe this kind of thing.

          The conspiracy was always the the Nazis burned the Reichstag themselves, but it's never been proven that was so. They have just taken advantage of the fire when it happened without them--even as they thought to themselves, "Why didn't we think of that?"

          In this case, Biden is apparently writing letters to himself--asking him to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their school boards as fi they were insurrectionists. This should be up there with Valerie Plame pulling the rug out from under the yellowcake in Niger story or Snowden ratting out the Obama Administration over the NSA.

          In a libertarian world, this would be a huge story.

          1. Nazis had the brown shirts.
            Biden has brown shorts.

            1. Trump has red hats.

              1. And egg on his face.

                1. sarc has shit on his face.

                  1. That is his war paint.

                2. Here's where sarc ignores the argument and retreats to trolling.

          2. Ken, you instantly lose effectiveness playing the 'Nascent Nazi Card'.

            Progressivism as an ideology is morally bankrupt by itself. No need for any comparison.

            1. Ken's whole shtick is that progressives aren't human beings. They're evil creatures, devoid of humanity, with nothing but bad intentions. Once you dehumanize your enemy, they're much easier to kill. Just ask potential murderers like Nardz and Sevo.

              1. Speaking of... haven't seen Nardz in a while. Wonder if he finally snapped and made the news.

            2. Nazi comparisons are apt when they're apt.

              The holocaust was by far the most terrible thing they did, but it wasn't the only awful thing they did, and the fact is that what the progressives are doing today is a lot like what the Nazis were doing.

              If the progressives don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

              1. Shorter Ken: vaccine mandates are the same as death camps.

                1. Which is really stupid if you think about it. Demanding that people to do something for the safety of themselves and others is the same as literal murder. Sure. That isn't to excuse mandates. But to compare mandated vaccines to murder? How does anyone take this guy seriously?

                  1. I agree, your strawman was really stupid. I mean, you do know they did other totalitarian things besides death camps right?

                    Nobody is saying that they're equal to death camps or murder. But they are authoritarian and totalitarian as fuck. And you're an idiot if you think it won't eventually lead to them justifying camps.

                    1. I guess I'm an idiot then, because there aren't going to be camps. The anti-vax outrage is really outrageous.

                    2. Should have included "for this, or something else."

                    3. "I guess I'm an idiot then..."

                      You're a fucking steaming pile of lefty shit on top of being an ignoramus.

                    4. Nobody is saying that they're equal to death camps or murder.

                      So what part of the Nazis is being compared? Kraft durch Freude and Volkswagen? Fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn? The parts of Nazi uniforms coopted by the Village People?

                    5. "So what part of the Nazis is being compared?"

                      How many times have I mentioned the Reichstag fire?

                      Didn't I address the origins of the Nazis in my references to Hannah Ardent?

                      How can you have read this thread well enough to respond to something--and ignored the content of what you read? That's an amazing talent. I don't think I could accomplish that--without willfully trying to miss the point.

              2. I'm a centrist democrat, which means liberal on most things, but oppo to what Ken claims, you want your opponent calling you a Nazi. If they're that ridiculous, you've already won and if Alec Baldwin was shooting blanks like that, that cinematographer would still be alive.

                1. You're a lying piece of lefty shit, Joe. Fuck off and die.

                2. If your dad was shooting blanks the world would be a better place.

            3. Can you think of a better example of totalitarians justifying an assault on civil liberties and democracy--in the name of saving democracy?

              The progressives are siccing the FBI on parents for opposing their elected school boards--in the hope of creating a chilling effect no less--and they're doing it, supposedly, in defense of democracy!

              They're rationalizing the shooting of unarmed protesters in defense of democracy!

              I dare you to find something better than the Nazis to compare that to--when a one party state uses defense of democracy as a rationalization for chilling speech that opposes them and turns a state surveillance service meant to target terrorists against them, the Nazis are an apt comparison.

              1. Let me state up front that you're not wrong.

                Ken, you're not wrong.

                That said, XY has a reasonable point as well that a lot of people will tune out when they hear a Nazi comparison, mostly because Nazi comparisons have been so horribly overused over the last half century in general, and the last half decade in specific.

                Unfortunately, this is kinda like "decimate"; The people misusing it are so prevalent that they've destroyed the meaning. It sucks that they've won that, but they *have* won that. It's terrible that a Nazi comparison can't be used when it's actually appropriate. But you have to fight on the battlefield as it is, not as you wish it was.

                I don't have a better comparison. Maybe the Lusitania? The Maine? The Gulf of Tonkin?

                1. The Nazi's weren't just one event though. They worked up to the Holocaust.

                  The establishment left is now at the stage where they've had their Jan. 6 Reichstag fire which allowed them to seize unprecedented powers, and now they're at the point where the Nazi party started cementing in control. The path they're following now has been trekked dozens of times before and always successfully.

                  America as a democracy is already over. We only have a year left at best to still be free to say these things.

                  1. I mentioned Hannah Ardent the other day. One of her big insights was that the Nazi's efforts against the Jews were just a dry run for total control of the rest of society.

                    "Dr. Arendt brilliantly uses the French “rehearsal” to show how anti-Semitism becomes a platform uniting the “elite” and the “mob” in contempt for bourgeois society and its laws; and in seeing that this alliance lies at the heart of the totalitarian movements of the 20th century, she makes one of her most important contributions . . . . Dr. Arendt shows that anti-Semitism of this modern variety has a long leftist history (Marx’s hatred of “the Jew” is a case in point); such anti-Semitism is not, as so many still think, the attitude of conservatives wishing to preserve the status quo, but of men bent on its destruction."

                    ----Commentary, April 1951

                    https://www.commentary.org/articles/david-riesman/the-origins-of-totalitarianism-by-hannah-arendt/

                    "The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt"

                    I understand and appreciate that some people find comparisons to the National Socialism a turn off.

                    But that's what's happening!

                    "Progressivism": A platform uniting the “elite” and the “mob” in contempt for bourgeois society and its laws.

                    Isn't that what's happening? Aren't they a one party state in control of the government? Aren't they siccing the secret police on average people for not sharing their views? Aren't they obsessed with controlling what people can see and read and say to each other social media? If people's squeamishness about the term "Nazi" won't let them see what's going on, then let's challenge their squeamishness about the word.

                    There are differences, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid comparison within context.

                    If beautiful women are like flowers in that they're all beautiful in their own way, you can't shoot down the comparison by saying that women don't have stems or petals. The progressives are acting like Nazis--in some distinctive and important ways--and we need to point out that similar things have happened before. And there is one comparison, in particular, that is particularly apt.

                    1. The fact that "progressives" are not literally "Nazis" actually makes the problem worse, in that they've convinced themselves that they can go down the totalitarian road without any risk of Nazi-like consequences. They're very wrong about that.

                    2. That's a great insight. I'll have to read the article and mull that over.

                2. Fascism?

              2. Yes, the Soviet Union comes to mind, historically. More recently, China and North Korea fit the bill.

                1. The Soviet Union did not strike out against democracy and free speech--supposedly in the defense of democracy against the communists--like the Nazis did after the Reichstag fire.

                  When George W. Bush attacked our civil rights in the wake of 9/11, he was acting like a Nazi. He was not as total, as successful, or as extreme as the Nazis were, but he was acting like a Nazi.

                  What Biden is doing is worse--even if it isn't as bad as the Nazis. And siccing the FBI on parents for opposing progressive policies is exactly what the Nazis would do--smearing them all as insurrectionists and trying to chill their speech.

                2. I think that is a bit over the top. Progressives are basically democratic socialists. They don’t advocate state ownership of the means of production. They want to tax and regulate the hell out of it to pay for their pet projects. I mean Sweden has a top marginal tax rate of 77%.

                  Heck if anyone is advocating for an iron curtain around the US it is the MAGA crowd although the democrats are not really any better.

                  The rest of their agenda is just recycled PC. Save the whales, emphasis on racial correctness, all that jazz.

                  I find comparisons to be pointless. Everything is what it is or was. Especially to Nazis which just dilutes the unique evil horror that they were. As with Stalin and Mao.

                  1. In terms of democratic socialism, I see progressives as openly hostile to democracy. They are nothing short of contemptuous for the demos. Progressives are about denigrating the will of average people as sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist, and their whole program is about nothing else but using the coercive power of government to inflict forced sacrifice on the stupid and unwilling. George Orwell was a democratic socialist, and he would have hated progressives because of their contempt for the will of average people and their contempt for democracy.

                    1. Arendt would not recognize what passes for progressive or conservative today. Anti semitism is not a big force in the US today. It does not have the pull it once did.

                      What does animate the populist crowd is demonizing a cabal of the
                      “Elite”. This consists of a small group of people who actually control things, the media, intellectuals, left leaning urbanites, educators, and so on. They also target immigrants and internationalists. So democracy is a sham and the system is fake.

                      This is why some of them were so enraged that they stormed the Capital in an attempt to overturn an election and still believe it today. So who is anti democratic?

                      The progressives demonize the rich and successful corporations. They use those who are targeted by the other group as a base to generate support while they rob the bank. By singling out the wealthy and promising more to the common man they hope to gain more power. The Nordic countries soon learned that they needed capitalism to fuel their agenda. They are pluralists and have no need to overthrow the system. They just want to use it for their own ends. Sanders most admires places like Sweden and Norway.

                      The will of the average people. I don’t think you mean the majority by that. In the democratic system there are all kinds of people with opposing views. That is how it works. I also think that the progressive agenda will fail.

                      And btw the reason it took a while for the Nazis to launch WW2 was they had to recover their economy and build a massive military. The average German was just fine until be started turning their cities into rubble. The agenda was always there. Hitler put it in writing.

                      I don’t really have a dog in this. My team is always going to lose.

                    2. Listen Ken, we do not disagree on the perniciousness of progressives or the ultimate dangers of progressivism. We completely agree about their nature. My point: The Nazi comparison is overused. And I maintain in this instance, the comparison is inapt.

                    3. "...This is why some of them were so enraged that they stormed the Capital in an attempt to overturn an election..."

                      Cite missing and it always will be.

                    4. "Arendt would not recognize what passes for progressive or conservative today. Anti semitism is not a big force in the US today."

                      You seem to be willfully ignoring the point--along with Ardent's observation that antisemitism was a dry run for total control of the rest of society. No one here said antisemitism was the issue. You're just deflecting with irrelevancies.

                  2. If the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's that they weren't uniquely horrible.

                    1. If a movement did everything exactly like the Nazis--with the only difference being that they were antisemetic--would it be okay to compare them to the Nazis?

                      What if they wore Nazi uniforms, held mass demonstrations where everyone seig heiled, duck stepped everywhere, reichstagged left and right--surely at some point it's okay to compare them to the Nazis--even if they aren't antisemetic.

                      Again, if progressives don't like being compared to the Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

                      P.S. Not that progressives are especially enamored with Israel.

                  3. Ken her point was not that it was a dry run. Far from it and she and her family lived it and died in it.

                    It was that she spent the rest of her life trying to get to what happened and how. I read some of her work. Read “Eichmann in Jerusalem”. She was brilliant and courageous, she cut to the core, yet for me and many others it will never be an answer.

              3. And multiple writers at the Atlantic are suggesting that free and open discussion on social media is a threat to democracy. "No one needs to talk to more than 150 people", to paraphrase one of them.

            4. Agreed, progressives are generally totalitarian in mindset -this does not necessitate a comparison to Nazism. Progressives are a horrific group that stands on it its own, by their actions, goals and statements.

              1. One of the distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that where authoritarians are generally happy to control what we do, totalitarians insist on controlling what we think and how we feel. And this argument over school boards, especially CRT, is specifically about progressives using the FBI to stop parents from interfering with state indoctrination of their children.

                "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."

                ----Terry McAuliffe

                It's about thought control by the state.

                This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. Parents were interfering with the state's ability to indoctrinate their children, and the Biden administration wrote a letter to itself to justify siccing the FBI on parents to make them stop interfering.

            5. Are they really that different?
              The progressive president at the time decided it was a-ok to lock American citizens in internment camps after all.

              1. It's perfectly appropriate to point out that one wasn't as extreme as the other. And surely it's wrong to pretend that there isn't any comparison to the U.S. government rounding up people of German and Japanese ancestry and holding them in camps against their will.

            6. Except rhe fact that nazis sprung from the marriage of progressivism and socialism.
              But they definitely arent nationalists, so there is that.

        2. If all your information comes from Twitter, you think everyone agrees with you, or at least everyone in the same political party, and any Dem Senator should represent the Twitter caucus and its goals over the yokels in their state. Why should 2 Senators be able to stop a majority of 46 Senators and 2 socialists from enacting the Build Back Biden agenda they sent Joe to Washington to implement?

        3. If you apply game theory the states' repudiation strategy is obvious. If they stick it out a great many people will understand them better impeding their future control efforts. On the other hand there's effectively no loss to them by repudiating the statement because the letter already accomplished everything it could. There's no reason benefit worth paying that price.

        4. Missouri didn't surprise you?

          Our local school boards are certainly filled with woke idiots. I don't know about the state board, though.

          1. Missouri voted for Trump, though.

            Pennsylvania went for Biden--at least that's the official count!

            These are state school boards. Your local school board may be peopled by good people who are calling it the way they see it--and honestly disagree. When you get to the state level--the board that represents all the school boards in the state--I think you're probably looking at public education bureaucrats. They're the stuff the Democratic party is made of, and the state with a city like New York City in it (Philadelphia) voted to leave the national school board association?!

            They must have been seriously pissed off.

  38. "So-called "sin taxes" like those levied on alcohol and tobacco are overwhelmingly paid by older, less educated, poorer households"

    No wonder they are so popular with legislators.

  39. And here I thought the minor threat song guilty of being white was not prophetic

  40. >>Nine months before Rosa Parks' more famous

    totally staged event. also, long live Mort Sahl.

    1. Instead of standing up for what was right, the then press just sat on that story.

      1. get on the trolley, Montgomery! free Claudette Colvin!

  41. White male marketing VP at North Carolina hospital wins $10million 'reverse discrimination' payout after he was replaced by two women - one of whom is black - as part of diversity and inclusion program

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10136219/White-marketing-VP-North-Carolina-hospital-wins-10million-reverse-discrimination-payout.html

    1. This is getting pretty funny now. Hopefully this is a sign that discrimination laws are about to go supernova. I would love to see that happen. By the time you are awarding some white dude $10M for being discriminated against, we have to be in late stage anti-discrimination.

      Also, there surely has to be some joke about two women being hired to replace one man, but I am too dignified to make such a joke.

    2. The Daily Mail misspelled "discrimination."

  42. Molly Ringwald stuns in pink satin dress as she joins 'woke' daughter Adele, 12, at glitzy gala... after revealing her child questions roles she's played in 'homophobic' films

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10135645/Molly-Ringwald-stuns-pale-pink-satin-dress-American-Ballet-Theatres-Fall-Gala.html

    She sure aged like vinegar.

    1. Breakfast Club pic in my h.s. locker. yum.

  43. Caitlyn Jenner says Dave Chappelle is '100% right' to face down angry transgender mob over his new Netflix special and says backlash against him is 'woke cancel culture run amok, trying to silence free speech'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10136147/Caitlyn-Jenner-says-Dave-Chappelle-100-right-face-angry-transgender-mob.html

    Don't know about anyone else, but I fell asleep halfway through that comedy act. Boooooring. Don't know what all the hype is about.

    1. My wife and I loved it.

      All of his specials have been pretty funny. Dave is one of those comedians that can make me laugh even when it's a joke that gores my ox.

      1. Count me among those who liked it as a "fuck you" to the Woke Mafia, but doesn't think it's among his top tier stuff. His earlier ones were a lot funnier, IMO; "The Closer" is really just a "Wannabe Hoes Mad"-type of screed that's pushing a South Park version of tolerance that's WAY out of line with the current left-liberal conventional wisdom.

        1. “His earlier ones were a lot funnier, IMO”

          Fair enough on that point. I could see it argued it’s not the top of his game, not like some of the stuff he did on his show.

          1. So much of the stuff on his show was the most brilliant fucking comedy on television in the last 30 or 40 years. In some ways, it was good that it only lasted a couple years before he yeeted out of there, as it might have gone stale otherwise.

  44. UN is using a CGI-dinosaur voiced by Jack Black to warn world leaders Earth is headed for a 'climate disaster'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10135227/Save-species-UN-uses-dinosaur-fossil-fuel-message.html

    Ohhhhhh kaaaaaay.....

  45. If the Braves win the World Series after the commissioner moved the All-Star gave out of Georgia to make a partisan point, it'll be hilarious.

    The Braves' ownership, the Braves' players, the Braves' management, the Braves' fans, the Braves' vendors, none of them were responsible for making the law the commissioner was protesting.

    But the point of progressivism isn't justice or liberty or about making sense, really. They just wanted Atlanta to lose out on the All-Star game because forcing someone else to make a public sacrifice makes progressives feel good.

    1. P.S. Let's go Brandon!

      1. Vote Republican! They're "mere" authoritarians!

        1. fuck off and die, lying pile of shit.

          1. Actually, that is pretty funny... And kinda on point.

            We have always analogized our politics as Turd Sandwich VS Giant Douche.

            But now we have Giant Douchy Turd Sandwich VS Satan on Steroids.

            Rarely is the lesser of two evils so horrible.... And rarely is the correct choice more obvious.

            1. Both teams see the other team as Satan on Steroids.

              The joke is that they're both right!

              1. Only a monstrous idiot could look at the Democrat's assault on human rights and freedom in the last nine months, and still pretend "both sides".

                1. "Only a monstrous idiot..."

                  Mike, sarc, jeff, Brandyshit hardest hit.

              2. I really don't see how you could have lived through the last 20 years and think that.

                One is demonstrably worse on liberty in every conceivable notion. Even when they come around to the right position they fuck it up towards less overall liberty.

                1. Even when they come around to the right position they fuck it up towards less overall liberty.

                  The left's problem is that even in the tiny few instances where they accurately identify a problem their ideology prevents them from developing an effective response.

                  Consider law enforcement reform. We've been on it for 5 decades. Meanwhile the left wouldn't touch it for decades to protect unions and government employment. When they finally focus on it the best they come up with is "defunding police" by which they mean replacing a substantial portion of cops with left wing political activists. Funding their supporters with public funds is always their goal, but its only impact on law enforcement is to ensure there aren't enough cops to handle crime.

                  Meanwhile the number one impediment to effective reform is unions. Union arbitration protects bad cops making effective management impossible, and the knowledge of how this works convinces cops they can act however they want without fear of repercussion. Dems will never consider eliminating unions because they are too useful as a funding channel and political organization tool. The left is fundamentally useless as a governing body which is why it focuses solely on scapegoating to distract the voters.

                  1. Well said!

              3. Once I would have agreed wholeheartedly. Right now, I hate to say it, but the choice is obvious (should you decide a choice must be made). Only one side wants to do anything about the public health tyranny of the past year or two. Only one side doesn't want to destroy gun and self defense rights. Only one side has the least concern about free speech.
                I doubt they can save us, but at least it puts the brakes on a little bit on some of these things and hopefully give the progressives some time to eat themselves.

                1. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and I'm done voting against the worst evil. Give me something or someone to vote for and I might re-register.

                  1. The lesser of two steaming piles of lefty shit is still a steaming pile of lefty shit.
                    Congratulations!

                  2. Yeah, I can understand (and I haven't voted for a while either). But there still is a worse evil and I'm not going to criticize people for making that calculation.

                    1. I'm not a big fan of pragmatism.

                    2. I understand pragmatism, but to me it seems like it requires a moral sacrifice I'm not willing to make.

                    3. As I get older I seem to get more pragmatic. I was happy to be the cynical observer for a long time. But even though I don't have kids, I find myself giving a fuck about the future of humanity.
                      So my dilemma now is whether to continue to give a fuck, or if it's not worth the pain and stress should I find better, more pleasant things to occupy my mind while everything goes to hell.

                    4. "I understand pragmatism, but to me it seems like it requires a moral sacrifice I'm not willing to make."

                      Actually, it requires some intelligence which you don't possess.

                    5. You must sort of look down on pragmatic people for being "less moral" then.

                      The reason the pragmatist does what they do is that they think it is required to yield the best outcome. Pragmatism can stem from a wish to make the best decision. It doesn't require a moral sacrifice. Au contraire. To me, it requires getting over myself.

                  3. As I've stated before, I voted for JoJo and Gary twice before that. But that doesn't mean that one of the parties is imminently more evil.

                    And no, it's not the Republicans.

                2. One side wants to spend twice as much as the other too.
                  It used to be fair to say "both sides bad" when Bush was pushing a 6% spending hike and Gore was pushing an 8% spending hike. Trump was bad when he increased spending from 4 trillion to 6 trillion (mostly due to bailouts and stimulus to counter the lockdowns). Then Biden made 6 trillion the new baseline (a 50% hike from the old baseline), and tried to pass another 6 trillion in spending (some of it over 10 years maybe, but still another 15% over the old baseline). It's not even close.

                  1. Think it would have been different with a different guy in the White House? It would still be arguing over how much the stimulus should be, not whether or not there should be a stimulus. Which businesses should be protected, not whether or not to engage in protectionism. What should be subsidized.... You get the point. I hope.

                    1. Yeah, we get the point that you lie to support your infantile desire for a daddy-figure.

    2. It would be poetic justice if Atlanta wins, and 'disinvites' the commissioner from even appearing.

      1. The MLB commissioner disinvited himself when HOF Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in Atlanta.

        1. I was a kiddo when he tied it in Cincinnati. Was there and will never forget it.

          I can still picture that ball heading over left field. You just knew it was going to get there.

          Nobody here cares but there is a video embedded in this showing that hit on that day. Everyone in that stadium cheered him.

          https://www.fox19.com/2021/01/22/hank-aarons-iconic-moments-cincinnati/

      2. Anything is better than the cheating Houston Astros winning.

    3. But I don't recall any criticism of the MLB Commissioner's lies about the GA voting law and GA's legislature being "racist" from any players, coaches or owners of any MLB team.

      That's why (after watching 150+ MLB games annually for the past 50 years, mostly my local Pirates), I haven't attended or watched even one inning of MLB this year.

      Every time I click on a MLB game on the TV, all I remember is the left wing lies by the MLB Commissioner (and Biden and other Democrats) falsely claiming the GA GOP and its new voting law were racist.

    4. The Braves' ownership, the Braves' players, the Braves' management, the Braves' fans, the Braves' vendors, none of them were responsible for making the law the commissioner was protesting.

      None of that group except for the Braves ownership via their stadium gets any benefit from the All-Star game being held in Atlanta. The new stadium (2017) was financed with muni bonds (so a federal subsidy too) by Georgia and Cobb County taxpayers and some of the usual fraudulent accounting by and subsidies for the MLB owner. IOW - the same GA legislature that passed the stadium financing also passed the voter Jim Crow act. And an All-Star game is a very large subsidy given by the national media contracts (in this case Fox and ESPN) to the stadium owner (in this case, the state of Georgia, Cobb County, and Liberty Media)

      1. "And an All-Star game is a very large subsidy given by the national media contracts (in this case Fox and ESPN) to the stadium owner (in this case, the state of Georgia, Cobb County, and Liberty Media)"

        This steaming pile of lefty shit can't spell "advertising revenue"

      2. And BTW - the media contract links:

        Fox and ESPN are now owned by Disney. But in order for that merger to take place, the regional Fox sports networks (originally set up as a joint venture between Fox and Liberty Media) had to be spun off. Over time, those joint venture networks had been converted into:
        a)equity ownership of Fox and by the time of that merger (in 2019) Liberty Media was the second largest shareowner of Fox.
        b)a spinoff of four of those networks (Northwest, Rockie Mtns, Utha, and Pittsburgh) to what is now Liberty Media

        So this bit of media incest dealing is also very much part of the internal decision making by MLB.

        1. Surprise! Advertisers' desires are important to broadcasters! JFree amazed!

      3. I'm shocked the Atlanta Braves are going to be allowed to use their name and to play World Series games in Georgia. The name is very disrespectful to many white folks, and we all know that under the new KKKGOP voting laws, minorities no longer have the right to vote in Georgia. And, with all the coaches each team has, why isn't there a Diversity Coach? Come on, MLB, get with progressive times.

    5. And they moved it to Colorado, which has similar laws but different demographics.

      1. The lefty shit JFree is not at all interested in those libertarian constructs "facts".

    6. Whatevs. When I'm watching the World Series, I care about the actual, you know, baseball.

      If you are more into the Red vs. Blue Team aspect of sports, that is really, really, really sad.

      1. Yup. I am a Braves fan. Let’s see if they can do it again tonight.

        The joy of catching a baseball does not require a degree in physics and certainly has nothing to do with politics. Or hitting a three pointer in the driveway hoop. The happiness of taking a kiddo to the ballgame, any of them, and spending that time is without price.

        So yes it is pathetic. It is just a game. Throwing, catching, running and hitting.

        1. Amen.

  46. Nine months before Rosa Parks' more famous protest, Claudette Colvin refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She's still on probation for that "crime," though that might change this week.

    So Barber Shop was right after all?
    https://youtu.be/BcBw9XLI7GE

  47. "Cigarette sales in the U.S. rose in 2020 after years of steady decline. It's almost like the government's war on vaping was a bad idea."

    It's good that more people are smoking. People putting whatever they want in their bodies is a top goal of libertarianism.

    1. That's an odd take. But sure, why not?

  48. 'The two most taxed clusters comprise 8% of households, pay 68% of sin taxes, are older, less educated, and lower income,' which, as the left-leaning types sometimes point out, are generally non-white folks. As is always the case, liberal/progressive policies and laws have a disparate negative impact on the disadvantaged and minorities -the people that liberals/progressives claim to support.

    1. It's almost like progressives/liberals see them as lessers that need to be kept in place.

  49. Seems like AG Garland is going to great lengths to campaign for Glenn Youngkin to be elected VA Governor, as Garland just defended his memo ordering FBI to investigate/prosecute parents who oppose outrageous school board policies (even after the NSBA apologized for the false claims in its letter).
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/10/27/garland-doubles-down-on-targeting-parents-n2598113

    Since Louden County's school board has received most of negative (and well deserved) criticism for its woke policies (and lies about the rape), Garland's ongoing defense of his actions could destroy Terry McAuliffe's political career, and give the GOP a huge boost going into 2022.

  50. "The superintendent of Hazard Independent Schools said an investigation is underway after photos surfaced showing students giving lap dances to staff and wearing scant clothing Tuesday as part of Hazard High School's homecoming week festivities in Eastern Kentucky."

    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/2021/10/27/kentucky-high-schools-man-pageant-lap-dances-being-investigated/8566052002/

    Some more phony, trumped-up culture wars fake outrage for the right-wing to peddle to those terrorist parents. I'm not sure how this isn't criminal sexual abuse of a minor. Or why the school district is investigating and not the police.

    Also, from the story:

    "Mobelini was previously the subject of an investigation in 2008, when photos posted to Facebook showed him driving while his daughter and four of her teenage friends drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes in the vehicle."

    This is who the progressives think should have sole control over your kids' education.

  51. I have never gotten the logic of blinding the authorities so, while they still proceed in using such authority, they are only prevented from using them rationally. If the assumption is that those who we have given power will inevitably tend to use it in venal and dishonest ways, I would think the idea would be to limit their power first, not just mess up the sights on their weapons. Of course, one might believe that they can pursue any profitable enterprise they can get away with. In such a case, it makes perfect sense. Of course, that would tend to make one morally bankrupt.

  52. The left wanted to claim him, especially early in his career, but they couldn't quite do so. Among other things, he could be crudely sexist...

    Because no one on the left could ever be sexist! Fucking NYT.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.