Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Freedom’

How Freedom Helps us Cooperate to Achieve Superabundance

Posted by M. C. on September 5, 2022

In conclusion, superabundance depends on two main components: people and freedom. People who are free to think, speak, read, publish, and interact with others will generate ideas, and their market-tested ideas will lead to progress. The more people the planet has and the more freedom they enjoy, the greater the likelihood that new good ideas will be generated to tackle current and future problems.

by Gale Pooley and Marian L. Tupy

The following is a summary of Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Plant by Marian L. Tupy and Gale Pooley, reprinted with permission.

In the first part of this book, the human propensity toward the negative is contrasted with the generally improving state of the world. Instead of the apocalypse that humanity has been expecting since the dawn of time, the world has seen great progress. One of the persistent sources of concern about the present state of the world and the future of humanity is population growth. Some people fear this might lead to the exhaustion of resources, thus ending in a calamity for the planet and the species that inhabit it. But there are many reasons why that need not be the case.

In the second part of the book, the concern over population growth and resource abundance is put to an empirical test using the Tupy-Pooley Resource Abundance Framework (see below). The framework uses a new methodology to measure the change in abundance relative to the change in wages. It includes two levels of analysis: a personal level and a population level. To use a pizza analogy, personal resource abundance measures the size of a slice of pizza per person. Population resource abundance measures the size of the entire pizza pie.

Looking at hundreds of commodities, goods, and services spanning two centuries, the authors found that abundance almost invariably grew, often substantially. In general, personal resource abundance grows by more than 3 percent per year, thereby doubling every 20 years or so. The population resource abundance analysis showed that resources have been growing more abundant by more than 4 percent per year, thereby doubling every 16 years or so. Moreover, it showed that humanity is experiencing “superabundance,” a condition where abundance is increasing at a faster rate than the population is growing.

Put differently, the data suggest that a growing population tends to benefit, rather than impoverish, humanity. That vindicates University of Maryland economist Julian Simon’s observation that “Our supplies of natural resources are not finite in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become scarcer. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.”

In the third part of this book, some of the main reasons for the growth in abundance are examined. Unlike nonhuman animals, people flourish by developing sophisticated ways of cooperating and gaining knowledge. Not only do humans trade more intensively and extensively than other species; more importantly, they constantly innovate. It is innovation that distinguishes relatively slow Smithian growth (a process of adding more people, land, and capital to production processes) from the relatively fast Schumpeterian growth (a process of economic expansion powered by technological change).

The process of innovation, however, can be disruptive and thus threatening to the status quo.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Trapped by Imperialist Leviathans: The Case for Freedom in Central and Eastern Europe

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2022

This is how Poland operated at the end of the 1980s, and that is how Ukraine should act today. Even if, in the broader context, the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is in fact a clash between the American empire and “Russian mir,” we must nevertheless view it as an attempt to move Ukraine toward complete independence and freedom because they chose to be with the West.

Not so simple. If Ukraine goes West, the US will try it’s hardest to make Ukraine a puppet.

Karol Mazur

In the previous articles I touched upon the question about subject of global American hegemony and its consequences for freedom. Now let’s look at the problem from another perspective. In the 1980s, Poland viewed the United States as a country capable of defeating the “Evil Empire” (USSR) and thus sowing throughout the Soviet bloc ideas of freedom that were so close to societies tormented by the yoke of communism.

Today, Poland’s enthusiasm for the United States and its presence in Eastern Europe has not waned. The latest polls confirm that over 80 percent of Poles surveyed are in favor of a permanent presence of American troops in Poland. And Poland is ready to pay for that.

Ukraine, like Poland once has no alternative, believes today that the help of one imperialism will help it liberate itself from other imperialism and thus build the freedom and security it desires. Freedom from geopolitical dependencies and geographic determinism. In other words, freedom from the monstrous influences of empires.

But the times are changing, in the Western world too. Unfortunately, freedom values in the Western world are subject to change by their own institutions and social revolution. So we need to be honest, the threat to Central and Eastern Europe comes not only from imperialistic Russian aggression, but also from potentially something which we can call as an illiberal liberalism, which is the common norm in the progressive federalization of the EU.

When entering the Western world in its newest version, Ukraine must be ready to accept also the ideological agenda of certain values currently hidden not only in the today’s United States, but also in the European Union. Taking into account its relatively conservative society, the process of accepting social solutions currently flowing from the Western world, in the long term may be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Ukraine’s integration with the European Union may over time, resemble that experienced of countries such as Poland and Hungary, which oppose the centralist solutions of Brussels.

Progressive theories, redefinition of the concept of the family, political correctness and oppressive institutional postmodernism in other social relations probably mean that the pendulum of freedom, in which the countries of Central and Eastern Europe so strongly believed, again leans toward oppressive despotism. The European Union is dominated by completely left-wing elites currently waging a cultural war, and the values that are institutionally promoted are not fully accepted by countries such as Poland or Hungary. There is therefore a conflict within the EU itself. A conflict between the old union (Western countries) and the new union in the form of the former Soviet bloc countries that joined it recently.

These are the differences that the British writer and commentator Douglas Murray skillfully described and presented, he explained that if the EU wants to survive, it must respect the otherness of Central and Eastern Europe. This difference is due to the fact that Central and Eastern Europe was dependent on the “Soviet soldier’s rifle” for almost half a century, while Western countries enjoyed complete freedom.

These differences were also perfectly understood by President Donald J. Trump, who during his visit to Poland at Krasiński Square referred to the prayer acclamation that is close to Polish hearts: we want God! This speech touched Polish hearts and today it is impossible to demonstrate a similar approach in the position of Joe Biden’s administration. Another important thing is to say that the Ukrainian issue divided Poland’s strong alliance with Hungary.


Taking all the arguments into account, it must be said that the Ukrainians chose the West, which, as we have already mentioned, is not an ideal, but gives for them a better perspective for life than submission to the Eastern satraps. Maybe Ukraine takes just a pragmatic position in this case and fight for freedom, turning to the EU and the US as the only available alternative.

Ukraine looks to the rich West and would like to join this category. Paradoxically, the weak structures of political and economic statism give Ukraine a chance to triumph in a libertarian economic perspective while preserving their conservative values. In the face of difficult times, clashes of powers, the libertarian perspective in this region of the world should focus on getting the most out of it.

This is how Poland operated at the end of the 1980s, and that is how Ukraine should act today. Even if, in the broader context, the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is in fact a clash between the American empire and “Russian mir,” we must nevertheless view it as an attempt to move Ukraine toward complete independence and freedom because they chose to be with the West.


Karol Mazur

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Freedom Has Departed the Western World

Posted by M. C. on June 21, 2022

Dr. Gold, like so many other medical doctors, such as Dr. Pierre Kory  and Dr. Peter McCullough, are being punished for interfering with Big Pharma’s profits, which are shared with Fauci and other NIH officials who serve Big Pharma, not public health, as marketing specialists.

Paul Craig Roberts

Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that saved huge numbers of American lives by treating Covid patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, while Big Pharma and its captive hospitals and Biden regime killed huge numbers of Americans with non-treatment and with ventilators, remdesivir and mRNA “vaccines,” has been sentenced to prison for two months and fined $10,000.

The ostensible excuse is that she stepped inside the Capitol through the door opened by the police not to protest the stolen election or to insurrect, but to deliver a warning about coercive Covid mandates, which she did.

She was charged with entering a restricted building–note that the halls of democracy, the people’s house, is a restricted building–violent entry, and disorderly conduct, all false charges.

Dr. Gold expressed her regret for entering the Capitol, a requirement so that the Nazi justice system didn’t sentence her to 20 years or death for saving lives. Dr. Gold, like so many other medical doctors, such as Dr. Pierre Kory ( ) and Dr. Peter McCullough, are being punished for interfering with Big Pharma’s profits, which are shared with Fauci and other NIH officials who serve Big Pharma, not public health, as marketing specialists.

The power of an utterly corrupt Big Pharma over the American Board of Internal Medicine to take away medical licenses of doctors, who saved lives by not following Big Pharma’s Covid protocols, is extraordinary. It proves that independent medicine does not exist in the United States. Big Pharma has control over who practices medicine and how medicine is practiced.

The United States itself is so Nazified that there is no wonder the US supports the Ukrainian Nazis. In “the land of the free” parents cannot even complain to school boards about the indoctrination of their children under the guise of “education” without being beat up and arrested. If this isn’t Third Reich, what is?

What the Covid orchestration has told us is that there is not a single country in the Western World that believes in liberty and human rights. Every “Western democracy” is willing to deceive and coerce its citizens just as dictatorships do.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: The Libertarian Solution

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2022

But strictly speaking, the libertarian philosophy offers no solutions to specific problems. That’s not what it does. It is not itself a solution. Rather, it describes an institutional environment in which imaginative people are free and motivated to discover innovative solutions to individual and collective problems.

by Sheldon Richman 

“What’s the libertarian solution to social or economic problem X? How about problem Y or Z?”

No libertarian needs to wait long before hearing such questions. But strictly speaking, the libertarian philosophy offers no solutions to specific problems. That’s not what it does. It is not itself a solution. Rather, it describes an institutional environment in which imaginative people are free and motivated to discover innovative solutions to individual and collective problems.

That environment has moral, cultural, economic, and legal dimensions, all grounded in self-ownership, respect for others, property, competition, persuasion, and consent, as opposed to government authority, monopoly, decree, and coercion. The cultural dimension is especially important, though often unappreciated. Widespread resentment toward other people’s success, for example, is literally deadly, not only for those targeted but for society at large, especially those at the bottom.

Thus when a libertarian says freedom or the free market will solve a particular problem (if politicians stand aside), what sounds like an impossibly oversimplified response is actually highly complex. In contrast to the politicians’ boasts, note the humility here. Confidence in market problem-solving is confidence in free human imagination dispersed among countless individuals throughout society. Who can say who will come up with the solution? No one. That in part is why we need everyone to be free.

The unique grounding of the libertarian environment has far different built-in incentives for problem-solvers than any state-based alternative. State problem-solving is characterized by centralized bureaucracy, artificial knowledge constraints, nonconsensual financing (taxation) that precludes feedback, profligacy (producing the disruptive knowledge distortions of debt and inflation), and significant unaccountability. In contrast, social- or market-based problem-solving is characterized by multiple knowledge centers, competition, consensual financing, and the profit motive. In that environment proposed solutions are subjected to intellectual and product competition, which yields better knowledge than other arrangements. F. A. Hayek called competition a “discovery” process. I think of it as the universal solvent.

In the market, problems are potential profit opportunities for entrepreneurs, and as we know, the profit motive is potent. The entrepreneur’s job is to figure out where and how resources are used suboptimally relative to what people (not politicians) want most. Solving a problem often requires shifting scarce resources and labor from one purpose to another.

How can anyone know what’s the best way to go? Entrepreneurs find clues to that question in market prices, which is why the price system is so important and must not be tampered with by politicians and bureaucrats. If an entrepreneur is correct when thinks he can buy a quantity of resources and hire labor at one price per finished-product unit and make something people will want to buy at a sufficiently higher price, he will earn a profit. That’s a sign the enterprise solved a problem for its customers. Profit in the free market (absent government intervention) is a reward for success. It’s not a dirty word.

Indispensable to the entrepreneurial function is the consumers’ freedom to accept or reject offers as they see fit. Both responses communicate vital information to the problem-solvers. Coercion, the government’s way of doing things, sabotages the function.

The freedom-based process is vital in our world of scarcity, trade-offs, and imperfect knowledge. Improvement is always possible, and imperfect knowledge is not the only reason. Another is that people’s preferences change. What they wanted yesterday they may not want tomorrow, especially if something new comes along. A third reason is that the array of resources changes, with new materials, technologies, and organization methods proving superior to the old. Government restraints on this process do a disservice to people trying to improve their lives, especially those who have yet to “make it.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty: The End of National Sovereignty and Freedom

Posted by M. C. on June 3, 2022

The Pandemic Treaty will also give the WHO the authority to issue dictates within the private spheres of individuals and to exercise control over their social and public lives, the institutions of their society, and their governments, all in the name of public health. In doing so, it will suppress civil liberties, economic freedom, positive freedom (freedom to), and negative freedom (freedom from).

Birsen Filip

Even as much of the world continues to move past the covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is already looking ahead and preparing for the emergence of “other pandemics and other major health emergencies.” To ensure that the world is adequately prepared for future pandemics, “the World Health Assembly” held a special session, on December 1, 2021, entitled The World Together.

The World Health Assembly is “the decision-making body of WHO” and “is attended by delegations from all WHO Member States and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Board.” In this special session, which was actually only “the second-ever since WHO’s founding in 1948,” participants agreed to “draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This would come to be known as the Pandemic Treaty, which was the main focus of discussions at the Seventy-Fifth World Health Assembly, which was held in Geneva during May 22–28, 2022.

According to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the first director-general of the WHO and who is not actually a medical doctor, this treaty represents an “opportunity to strengthen the global health architecture to protect and promote the well-being of all people.” If passed, the Pandemic Treaty will allow the WHO to make radical changes to the healthcare systems of its member countries starting in 2024.

In particular, this agreement will grant the WHO the power to declare a pandemic, based on its own vaguely defined criteria, in any of its 194 member countries at any point in the future. It will also permit the WHO to unilaterally determine what measures will be imposed in response to these future declared pandemics, including lockdown policies, mandatory masking, social distancing, and coercing the population into undergoing medical treatments and vaccinations.

Contrary to popular opinion, the WHO is not an independent, unbiased, and ethical organization that aims to achieve the common good. In reality, its goals and agendas are set by its donors, including some of the world’s richest countries and most influential philanthropists. For decades, philanthropists and their foundations have [gained] increasing influence” when it comes to shaping the global health agenda by “placing people in international organisations, and gaining privileged access to scientific, business and political elites.”

For example, as Jens Martens and Karolin Seitz explain in Philanthropic Power and Development: Who Shapes the Agenda?,“ the Gates Foundation and earlier the Rockefeller Foundation, have been shaping global health policies not only through their direct grant-making but also through the provision of matching funds, the support of selected research programmes, the creation of global health partnerships with Foundation’s staff in their decision-making bodies, and by direct advocacy at the highest political level.” In fact, back in 2006, The Guardian reported that “the Gates foundation is now the second largest donor to the World Health Organisation after the US, as well as one of the world’s largest single investors in biotechnology for farming and pharmaceuticals.” Unfortunately, when philanthropists and their foundations advance their own interests, they do so at the expense of the common interests of society. There is no reason to believe that this dynamic will be any different in the case of the Pandemic Treaty.

The Pandemic Treaty has the potential to be extremely detrimental to the future of humanity, because it will allow the WHO’s most powerful contributors to shape universal pandemic measures instead of recognizing the importance of developing specific policies and approaches based on the social, economic, and physical realities and needs of each individual country.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

If Real Freedom Is Sought, the Government and Banking System Must Be Abolished?

Posted by M. C. on May 28, 2022

By Gary D. Barnett

“You are not Christians. You are not Jews. You are not Muslims. And you certainly aren’t atheists. You all have the same god, and its name is ‘government.’ You’re all members of the most evil, insane, destructive cult in history. If there ever was a devil, the state is it. And you worship it with all your heart and soul.”
~ Larken Rose, The Iron Web

A Philosophical Rant

The next time any of you walk or ‘crawl’ into a secret voting booth, behind dark curtains, alone and without being driven by force, consider that you are just voluntarily choosing a master selected for you, and in that process, you have become a slave to the state.

Government is criminal. Police and military are criminal enforcers of government. Modern central banking and money production are criminal. Surveillance is criminal. Censorship is criminal. The entire state apparatus is criminal, and should be permanently crippled. All government, and therefore all political states, always and only act with violent force. The essence of government is that it grows like a cancer, infecting everything it touches; it expands its powerful bureaucracies exponentially, and therefore is pure evil. There is no such thing as good government.

If any take offence to this position, if any side with those politicians they mistakenly refer to as ‘leaders,’ if any support the state in its efforts to steal, control, and murder, if any give their allegiance to politicians or the nation state, if any worship the state as God; then you will always be the problem, and never the solution. Freedom is the natural state of intelligent men, but freedom cannot, and never has existed when government is present. By ignoring government en masse, by never obeying orders handed down by the state, by never complying with any draconian measures demanded by government, by never allowing the theft of your property and earnings by the state; then and only then can you claim to be free.

Those who choose to rule over others, those who claim illegitimate power over society whether elected or not, those who believe they are more capable of dictating how others must live their lives instead of learning how to live their own, those who believe in taking from some by force in order to redistribute their property to others at their whim, and those who claim that they are ‘serving’ the public; they are the ones who should be ignored, shunned, ridiculed, and if necessary, tarred and feathered, and run out of town. They deserve nothing less.

Do not cast stones, simply lend a helping hand. Do not condemn others due to any belief that you are exceptional, better than others, or somehow more righteous than your fellow man. While this may seem to be true in certain circumstances, it is a mistake generally speaking to pass moral judgement on others when none have at this point reached perfection. The idea is to get along, with or without acceptance of the behavior of others, unless of course, aggression and harm are present. Division of the masses will always be sought by those seeking power, and every time we as a society fight or hate amongst ourselves, the state wins, and the rest of us lose. In this current hell on earth that has been created due to unwarranted fear, apathy, total indifference, and contempt for all those who disagree with one another, what is left is an all-powerful state working as one, and a gargantuan underclass at each other’s throats. Can you not see that this was the state’s plan all along?

The elimination of all government power, the privatizing of all money, the destruction of central banking, and self-responsibility, are necessary if we are to survive this ‘great reset’ plot conjured up by the few ‘elites’ who consider themselves to be better, more privileged, and superior to all others. This has nothing to do with equality, as equality does not, and should not exist. This does not have to be looked at as a detriment; it is simply the way of life. There will always be those who have more ability than others, those who will be more successful, those who are more talented, and those who have tremendous intelligence, but they can be of great importance as we all can benefit from the excellence of others, without feeling any jealously or resentment. Most all have something to offer, and so long as individuals in society concentrate on survival, working together, cooperating voluntarily to sustain a joyful life, and protecting our freedom, the strife caused by fear, hatred, and antagonistic rivalry, will subside in favor of harmony among men. Live your own life and leave others to live theirs. It is a better way.

Our enemy is not each other; our enemy is the state. It should then, stand to reason that the elimination of all state power will result in more peace, understanding, and tranquility among humanity. I am not speaking of Utopia, as the elimination of state power can only benefit all, and allow for a much better existence without all the division that has been purposely created and stoked by those who claim to be the ruling masters over us. The tearing down of governments and government power can only lead to a more compassionate, honest and less violent society.

“No one rules if no one obeys”
~ David Icke

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Are They Really Out to Get Me?

Posted by M. C. on May 17, 2022

by Jeff Thomas

Freedom is not merely a vague historical idea, or an excuse to celebrate with firecrackers once a year; it’s a lifetime pursuit and should be taken on as such. The pilot in question has made an initial stab at it. Hopefully he, along with you, the reader, will make it a central facet of his life’s work.

Libertarians and others who seek to be left alone to run their own lives habitually ask themselves the above question regarding their government.

So, what’s the answer? Are they out to get you? Well, unfortunately, the answer isn’t a simple “yes” or “no.” In fact, it’s “yes” and “no.”

The secret to understanding a government’s intentions is that there’s no unified overall objective, sentiment, or approach to dealing with the private sector. Quite the opposite. With any government, it couldn’t be more fragmented or dysfunctional.

At the very lowest level of any government is the civil service, which is, in any country, a catch-all for all those people who are so lacking in ability and imagination that they’d be unlikely to hold down a job in the private sector. Moreover, their level of motivation is likely to be so low that their dysfunction tends to coincide with extreme inefficiency.

To test this out, one only has to visit the local Department of Motor Vehicles, or a similar agency that does little except charge fees and waste time in order to provide you with a permit, which, were it not required, you could happily do without.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Transgender Debate Should Be about Women’s Freedom and Private Property Rights

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2022

Too many social issues advocate for government, instead of individual, action to advance their causes even when it might come back to bite them under future governments. To achieve their aims, gender-critical feminists should fight for less government power instead of relying on the government to protect them. The transgender debate should be left to society because when you ask the average person “should biological men be allowed in women’s toilets,” they would say no. Instead, if we leave it up to a politician who faces the pressure of various militant pressure groups like Stonewall or Mermaids, they might likely give a different answer.

Jess Gill

The hot topic in British politics is whether it is appropriate for transgender-identified males to go into women’s only spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, and prisons. With J.K. Rowling as their figurehead, there has been a rise of women voicing their concerns about their safety and comfort if biological males enter spaces intended for biological females.

Several gender-critical groups have used the Equality Act 2010 as a basis for excluding transgender-identified males from single-sex spaces. For example, The Women’s Rights Network welcomed the Equality and Human Right Commission’s guidance, which clarified that there “are circumstances where a lawfully established separate or single-sex service provider can exclude, modify or limit access to their service for trans people.”

However, the gender-critical argument based on human rights and progressive legislation is philosophically weak and will not last. Allowing the state to define what a “protected characteristic” is and who is allowed to discriminate will only protect women’s freedoms until the next general election. The leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer, has already given into the gender ideologues after refusing to answer questions such as “Can a woman have a penis?” or “Do only women have cervixes?” when confronted on the radio show LBC. The Labour Party seems to be dogmatic on the issue of transgender inclusion with the Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, receiving “obsessive harassment” after standing up for women’s spaces. In addition, influential LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) groups like Stonewall have been advocating for the Equality Act to make exemptions for transgender people in single-sex spaces. Extending the Equality Act to prohibit women’s only spaces to exclude biological men under the basis of “gender identity” will most likely be at the top of a Labour government’s legislative agenda. As the likelihood that the Conservatives will lose the next general election increases, the basis of women’s freedoms will probably go as well.

Instead of depending on the government’s subjectivity to protect women, gender-critical feminists should advocate for property rights as a bedrock of their campaign. Advocating for property rights means advocating for a person to be able to do as they wish with that property. Gender-critical feminists should use property rights as a basis for excluding biological men from women’s only spaces. Advocating for property rights would protect institutions that defend women’s spaces that would be punished by antidiscrimination laws. Giving businesses this autonomy would allow them to protect single-sex spaces by having the freedom to set the parameters of who’s allowed on their property.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Latest Media Assault on Freedom

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2022

When did Washington reporters became qualified to serve as Grand Inquisitors for Democracy, casting judgment on every politician and proposal? Most reporters have the same level of intellectual curiosity as the average lottery ticket buyer. Reporters react to the word “bipartisan” like cocaine addicts desperate for another political virtue signal.

by James Bovard

Prominent journalists are calling for the media to champion a “pro-democracy” bias in how they portray politicians and government agencies. But tub-thumping for democracy — or at least for politicians who claim to be pro-democracy — is a poor substitute for exposing the proliferation of government abuses. Freedom will be the victim if journalists grasp a new pretext to portray government as a trustworthy savior.The press should vigorously investigate and expose federal crimes regardless of who is president.
[Click to Tweet]

In January, Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon called for a “pro-democracy media,” vigorously describing “long-standing Republican tactics such as aggressive gerrymandering as … dangers to democracy.” Bacon frets because “gun-shy editors” fail to denounce Republican “radicalism” in banner headlines. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan declared, “That American democracy is teetering is unquestionable” due to pro-Trump Republicans, requiring a “new pro-democracy emphasis” to be “articulated clearly — and fearlessly — to readers and viewers.” Post columnist Brian Klaas admits that “the media adopting a pro-democracy bias … effectively means being pro-Democratic [Party],” but there is no alternative except to “unequivocally and unapologetically condemn” Republicans.

What could possibly go wrong from journalists pretending that only one political party threatens Americans’ rights and liberties? Demonizing one political party tacitly saints their opponents. But both Republicans and Democrats have a long record of unleashing federal agencies and ignoring the subsequent constitutional carnage.

Urging the media to become “pro-democracy” is reminiscent of a corporation that is almost bankrupt and gambles everything on a desperate “Hail Mary” pass. A June 2021 survey by the Reuters Institute reported that only 29 percent of Americans trusted the news media — the lowest rating of any of the 46 nations surveyed. A Gallup poll last year revealed that “86 percent of Americans believed the media was politically biased.” Practically the only folks who don’t recognize the bias are the people who share the media’s slant.

The media-Democrat alliance

How does “pro-democracy” reporting work in practice? Journalists provide readers with a catechism specifying correct beliefs rather than providing facts by which citizens can reach their own conclusions. But the Washington press corps was aptly described decades ago as “stenographers with amnesia.” The political “philosophy” of most reporters does not go beyond “Orange Man Bad.”

Many journalists love to slap a halo over politicians and then bask in the reflective glow. In 2020 and 2021, many of the top media outlets hailed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for being far more repressive with his COVID policies than President Donald Trump advocated. A laudatory New Yorker profile, entitled “Andrew Cuomo, King of New York,” explained that Cuomo and his aides saw the battle over COVID policy as “between people who believe government can be a force for good and those who think otherwise.” For many liberals and much of the nation’s media, placing people under house arrest, padlocking schools, bankrupting business, and causing two million people to lose their jobs vindicated government as “a force for good.”

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace declared that Cuomo is “everything Trump isn’t: honest, direct, brave.” Entertainment Weekly hailed Cuomo as “the hero that America never realized it needed until he was on our television screens every night.” As National Review noted, local reporters failed to ask questions on his nursing home edict (which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients) “for months, as the governor held his much-praised daily press briefings about the pandemic. There were literally hundreds of hours of Cuomo press conferences in the first half of 2020 where not a single question was asked about nursing homes.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Human or Sheep?

Posted by M. C. on April 29, 2022

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »