Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘mandates’

Watch “Dem Panic: ‘Covid Vanishes From Campaign Trail'” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on November 2, 2021

A recent article in Politico spells trouble for Democrats, who sought to run on mandates, forced vax, and even shutdowns: the American voter is fed up with Covid and ready to move on. Will Republicans benefit from this shift? Also today: White House Spox Jen Psaki is a double vaxxer and a double masker…but she just announced that she’s got the virus. What gives? And…MEP becomes hero with Patrick Henry-like speech.

Be seeing you

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

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Founders knew individual liberty does not trump the greater good

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2021

The author left out TB and polio. What the author also left out was what your reaction might be if after receiving the polio vaccine you were told you could still get polio, you could still transmit polio and you would have to wear a mask for the foreseeable.

Maurizio Valsania Guest columnist

President Joe Biden has mandated vaccines for a large part of the American workforce, a requirement that has prompted protest from those opposed to the measure.

Meanwhile, a similar move in New York City to enforce vaccinations has resulted in more than a dozen businesses being fined for flouting the rules.

The basic idea behind the objections: Such mandates, which also extend to requirements to wear masks and quarantine if exposed to COVID-19, are a breach of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’

The objectors ask: Aren’t mandates un-American?

As a scholar who has spent decades trying to unravel the hurdles that mark the beginning of this nation, I offer some facts in response to that question – a few very American facts: Vaccination mandates have existed in the past, even though they have similarly sparked popular rage.

No vaccination foe, no latter-day fan of the Gadsden flag’s ‘DONT TREAD ON ME’ message, would ever gain the posthumous approval of the American founders.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the group cultivated different visions about America. But they agreed on one principle: They were unrelenting on the notion that circumstances often emerge that require public officials to pass acts that abridge individual freedoms.

Keen sense of civic duty Most of the founders, to begin with, were slave owners, not especially concerned about trampling over and abridging the rights of the persons they held in bondage. But even when they dealt with those they deemed to be their peers, American citizens, their attitude was rather authoritarian – at least by today’s standards.

In 1777, during the American Revolution, Washington had his officers and troops inoculated against smallpox. The procedure was risky. But for Washington, the pros outweighed the cons. It was an order, an actual mandate, not an option that individuals could discuss and eventually decide.

‘After every attempt to stop the progress of the small Pox,’ Washington explained to the New York Convention, ‘I found, that it gained such head among the Southern Troops, that there was no possible way of saving the lives of most of those who had not had it, but by introducing innoculation generally.’

During the summer of 1793 an epidemic of yellow fever struck Philadelphia, then the American capital. It shattered the city’s health and political infrastructure. Food supplies dwindled; business stopped. Government – federal, state and municipal – was suspended. Within just three months, 5,000 out of nearly 55,000 inhabitants died of the infection.

Public hysteria took off. Philadelphians at first pinned the outbreak on the arrival of refugees from the French colony of Saint-Domingue who were escaping that island’s slave revolution.

But there was also heroism. Black clergymen Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, for example, tirelessly transported the sick, administered remedies and buried the dead.

Urged on by Gov. Thomas Mifflin, the Pennsylvania state Legislature imposed sweeping quarantines. And almost everyone complied.

Henry Knox, then the U.S. secretary of war, didn’t object. Knox had fought during the Revolution. He had risked his life on many battles. He had developed a keen sense of what ‘civic duty’ means: ‘I have yet six days quarantine to perform,’ he wrote to President Washington, ‘which of the choice of evils is the least.’

‘Without a flinch’ The epidemic didn’t abate as quickly as expected. By September 1794 the yellow fever lingered in Baltimore, where it had spread from Philadelphia. In 1795 it reached New York City.

One John Coverdale, from Henderskelfe, Yorkshire, England, wrote President Washington a long letter. He advocated more drastic measures, including three weeks of quarantine and policemen strategically placed in every corner to hinder people from passing from zone to zone; and he wanted people ‘to carry with them certificates either of their coming from places not infected or of their passing the line by permission.’

In other words, a quarantine, lockdown and vaccine passports.

No politician we know of at the time considered such measures un-American. In May of 1796, Congress adopted, and President Washington signed, the first federal quarantine law. There wasn’t much controversy. In 1799, Congress passed a second and more restrictive quarantine law. President Adams signed it without a flinch.

‘Ambition’ versus public good So apparently it’s not certificates, quarantines and vaccine mandates that are un-American, as some maintain today.

The argument that individual rights trump the greater good is un-American, or at least out of step with American tradition. It’s an attitude that the founders would have put under the encompassing banner of ‘ambition.’

‘Ambition’ comes when individuals are blinded by their little – or large – egotisms and personal interests. They lose track of higher goals: the community, the republic, the nation. In the most severe cases, ambition turns anti-social.

Ambitious individuals, the founders were sure, are persons stripped of their membership in a community. They choose to relegate themselves to their solitary imagination. They have become slaves to their own opinions.

Alexander Hamilton was tired of being turned into the butt of endless accusations: ‘It shall never be said, with any color of truth, that my ambition or interest has stood in the way of the public good.’

When facing a quarantine, a mandate, or similar momentary abridgments of their liberties, many Americans today react the same way Hamilton did. Like Hamilton, they look beyond themselves, their opinions, their interests. They don’t lose sight of the public good.

Others remain ambitious.

Maurizio Valsania is a professor of American history at Università di Torino. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Here Come The Mandates: FDA Approves Covid Shot

Posted by M. C. on August 23, 2021

CDC flip/flops/flips on masks, the new religion.

Australia kills rescue dogs to keep people from leaving homes.

The Food and Drug Administration has just approved the Pfizer covid shot, paving the way for the roll-out of vaccine mandates across the public and private sector. Will there be push-back? Also today, the FBI shoots down Jan 6th “insurrection” myth and former head of CIA and NSA calls for unvaccinated Trump supporters to be sent to Afghanistan to be killed…

Be seeing you

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

Hacking at the Root – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2020

The very concept of having to obtain permission to exercise a right – and what right could be more foundational than the right to buy and sell without permission? – is anathema to morality as well as obviously unconstitutional in the sense that it is unimaginable that the men who wrote the thing and approved it ever conceived that free men would be required to beg leave of the government to buy and sell.

The notion is absurd.

By eric

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The chief enforcement mechanism being deployed to force Americans to join the Sickness Cult – to give the appearance of universal agreement with its tenets via the wearing of the Holy Rag over their faces – isn’t the government.

It is the “free” market.

In air quotes to emphasize that it is not free.

The market – businesses – have become adjuncts of the government by dint of having accepted that they must obtain permission from the government in order to be in business. This, in turn, gives government control over the business – which now extends to the demand that businesses enforce “mandates” that are not even laws such as the wearing of the Holy Rag within their establishments.

If they fail to enforce the “mandates” – irrespective of their dubious legality – they are threatened with extortionate fines and the rescinding of the government’s permission to be in business.

And so they enforce the “mandates.”

This follows naturally – inevitably – from the precedent set once-upon-a-time that it is the job of businesses to collect taxes on behalf of the government. Which they now do unconsciously, as a matter of routine.

How did it come to be that to be in business in this country means becoming an unpaid tax collector for the government as well as the enforcer of government “mandates” that aren’t even laws?

The very concept of having to obtain permission to exercise a right – and what right could be more foundational than the right to buy and sell without permission? – is anathema to morality as well as obviously unconstitutional in the sense that it is unimaginable that the men who wrote the thing and approved it ever conceived that free men would be required to beg leave of the government to buy and sell.

The notion is absurd.

As ridiculous as the notion that free men are obliged to obtain the permission of the government to posses arms, something every man possessed without permission – and without question – when the Constitution was ratified. Search the records in vain to find a copy of a permit to carry a gun from that era. Or any law requiring one. And yet, men carried guns. No one questioned their right to do so – just as no one, at that time, questioned the right of free men to freely exchange goods and services – to be in business – without permission from the government.

Because free men once understood that to beg permission from the government is to cede control to the government. Try to imagine Ben Franklin’s print shop printing freely if Ben knew that the government could “pull” his business license at its pleasure.

So how did it come to pass that businesses must obtain permission to freely exchange goods and services?

It happened because Americans accepted it. Along with the income tax, the education of their children in government schools – paid for by compulsory and never-ending taxes on real estate, thereby obviating the possibility of true home ownership – and other planks of the Communist Manifesto.

It is a hard truth to look in the face but America has been a communist country for at  least the past 107 years – the date the 16th Amendment was imposed on the American people empowering the government to not only “collect” – that is to say, to take – their earnings but also by dint of that to have control over their transactions, including the no-longer-free exchange of goods and services. Everything we transact must now be “reported” to the government – so that the government can exercise control over everything we transact, in addition to seizing a portion of the proceeds of our labor.

It was inevitable that government would expand the principle by taking it back one step farther and telling the American people – per Karl Marx – that they were obliged to get permission from the government to be allowed to earn the money the government would then take whatever portion of which it deemed its “fair” share.

So, here we are.

With government in control of everything and freedom in tatters.

Businesses exist only with permission and that permission can be yanked by the issuer of permission whenever it likes, which means that businesses are become mere puppets of the government.

They cringe, pathetically, in fear of it. They do its bidding – including the enforcement of “mandates” that aren’t even laws – for the sake of being allowed to earn money.

I empathize with small businesses and want to support them. But money isn’t everything and this business has got to be resisted. And I mean resisted at the basement, foundational level.

Business owners have got to reject the idea that they are obliged to obtain permission from the government to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. A despicable, servile thing our ancestors would never have tolerated.

People have been conditioned to accept these outrageous affronts to their liberty as normal but they are only normal in a system where people have lost and forgotten their basic rights – including the right to freely exchange goods and services.

It is time to remember those rights – and insist they be respected.

The very idea that one can be fined – caged! – for opening his door  to customers who are free to not walk through it but who choose to do so because they wish to engage in the free exchange of goods and services is an inversion of morality, an assault upon decency that the men who wrote the Constitution and the once-free people of this country would never have tolerated.

The question is, why do we?

Be seeing you

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

Joe Biden’s Mask Mandate Is Only The Beginning – Issues & Insights

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2020

I&I Editorial

At a briefing on Thursday, Joe Biden called for a nationwide mask-wearing mandate “for the next three months at a minimum.” Never mind that such a federal mandate is likely unconstitutional, this is just one of a multitude of areas where Biden, and his running mate Kamala Harris, want to impose the federal government on even the most mundane of actions by Americans.

It is surely worth noting, especially by those who claim to value liberty, that Biden and Harris eagerly desire to take much of it away, always in the name of some greater good. Indeed, over the course of their campaigns, the two have proposed either to outlaw or force so many things there’s not enough room to list them all here.

So, as a reader service, we’ve gathered up a sampling of things they say they want to either ban or mandate should they gain access to the White House.


Plastic straws: When Harris was asked at a town hall whether the federal government should ban plastic straws, her answer was, “I think we should, yes.” Biden didn’t go that far, but did say that “I don’t think we should be using plastic straws anymore.”

Plastic bags: Biden did, however, say he favored a ban on plastic grocery bags. “I agree with you, 100%,” Biden told a woman at a campaign stop. “We should not be allowing plastic. What we should do is phasing it out.”

Gas-powered cars: Biden pledges that he will impose fuel economy mandates that will “ensure” 100% electric cars. Harris, meanwhile, was a co-sponsor of The Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would outlaw the sale of new gas-powered cars starting in 2040.

The death penalty: Biden used to support the death penalty, but flipped so he could appeal to his party’s left wing. Now he says that “Because we can’t ensure that we get these cases right every time, we must eliminate the death penalty.” Many Democratic presidential candidates echoed the same message.

Private prisons: Biden promises to “end the federal government’s use of private prisons,” says his campaign website, “And he will make clear that the federal government should not use private facilities for any detention, including detention of undocumented immigrants.”

New oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore: In a March debate, Biden promised that if elected there would be “no more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, including offshore, no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.” Later his campaign said he meant only to ban new permits.

Fracking: Biden has tried to straddle the fracking issue, but Harris said during her primary campaign that she supports an outright prohibition. “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking.”

“Assault” Rifles. Both Biden and Harris promise to ban so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15, but Harris went much further. She promised that if elected she would impose a mandatory buyback program. “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do” support a forced buyback, Harris said. “We have to take those guns off the streets.” The Washington Examiner reported last August that Harris was even open to the idea of sending the police into homes to confiscate guns.

Right-to-work laws: In a sop to their union benefactors, both Biden and Harris promise to overturn the right-to-work laws in effect in 28 states. Harris said the president needs “to speak up about the need and the right workers have to be able to organize and fight for their rights … It has to be about banning right-to-work laws”.

Trump from Twitter: Harris pushed Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from Twitter. “Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site,” Harris said during one of the Democrats’ debates.

Social media hate speech: Harris also wants to ban “hate speech” on social media. ”We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy,” Harris said during her campaign.

Private health insurance: During the campaign, Harris said she favored a ban on private insurance, then retreated somewhat. The health plan she eventually released would have ended up putting private insurance out of business. Biden says he wants to “build on ObamaCare,” but his “public option” would also result in the eventual destruction of private insurance.


Masks: Biden hasn’t specified how he’d enforce a nationwide a requirement to wear masks, or explained how it could be constitutional. As James Phillips and John Yoo pointed out, “There is nothing that authorizes a President Trump now, or a President Biden tomorrow, to mandate face coverings nationwide via executive power. Congress has not enacted any such law for the president to enforce. Masks do not fall under the president’s power as commander in chief, nor do they plausibly come within any of his other executive authorities, such as granting pardons or nominating officers.”

Government-approved insurance: Biden promises that he will reimpose the hated ObamaCare individual mandate — along with the mandate tax — to buy government-approved insurance.

$15 minimum wage: Biden and Harris both endorse this, despite the adverse impact it will have on jobs.

Equal Pay: “Equal pay for equal work. It’s common sense. It’s also overdue. Let’s close the gap & let’s do it now,” Biden tweeted.

Six months paid parental leave: Harris proposed this during her campaign, saying that “Guaranteeing six months of paid leave will bring us closer to economic justice for workers and ensures newborn children or children who are sick can get the care they need from a parent without thrusting the family into upheaval,”

A third Federal Reserve mandate: Little noticed has been Biden’s promise to add a third mandate to the Federal Reserve’s charter, (which already has one mandate too many). In addition to containing inflation and maximizing employment, Biden would have the central bank  “aggressively target persistent racial gaps in job, wages, and wealth.” The Wall Street Journal called it “a promise to politicize the Federal Reserve in a whole new way.”

The bottom line is that if you cherish freedom, you will get a lot less of it in a Biden-Harris administration. However, if you like the federal government bossing you around in every corner of your lives, then they are the candidates for you.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Be seeing you

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

Want Less Police Brutality? Write Less Laws

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced?

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers.


One of the most perplexing displays of cognitive dissonance this year is the strong support for a large state can be found within the various protest movements that are targeting the issue of law enforcement misconduct. Logically, groups opposing police misconduct should also be strong supporters of the libertarian ideology. However, this does not appear to be the case. This movement, oddly enough, has quite a bit of overlap with support for gun control, the welfare state, and more regulation. The central organization, Black Lives Matter, is a fully Marxist entity.

Socialism, Marxism, communism, and other ideologies revolve around the strong or total domination of the state in everyday life. The state, as defined by Murray Rothbard in Anatomy of the State, is an “organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.” The way the state maintains authority within its jurisdiction is with the application of laws.

The Nature of a Law

A law is defined as “a rule of conduct or action prescribed…or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” It is a set of rules that either obligate or forbid action with a penalty for failure to comply. While it may sound good to have a set of rules that individuals must adhere to and penalties to incentivize compliance, the nature of those penalties is where we run into issues.

While laws may have formally designated penalties for noncompliance, those penalties can be best viewed as a minimum sentence. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with any given law is execution of the perpetrator. While this sounds like hyperbole, it’s important to understand why this is the case and how law enforcement must resort to this.

Take a case of counterfeit money. The sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting money are a sixteen-month minimum and in some states a fine with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years. However, what if the accused refuses to show up in court? The court could then find the perpetrator guilty in absentia and apply the sentence and fine. Should the person refuse to part with their resources or report to prison, the court would then order an enforcement agent to collect the accused. This is also what could happen should the accused refuse to show up for court itself. And should the accused resist this arrest? This is where grievous bodily harm up to and including death can occur.

If you think this is hyperbole, this is exactly the situation that led to the death of George Floyd; a twenty-dollar counterfeit bill and refusal to be taken into law enforcement custody.

The reason state agents resort to killing an accused for refusal to comply is that, despite the verbal claims to the contrary by the state itself, there is no other way to ensure compliance with laws. If the general public knows that the worst the state will ever do is send easily ignored bills in the mail for fines, then laws would never be followed and the state would collapse. Because the state is an institution of violence, all laws must be backed with violence. The state may be careful to conceal this reality, but the ultimate refusal of compliance is always a summary execution.

More Laws Means More Violence

Police brutality, in a sense, is just a matter of numbers. As the number of interactions with an enforcement agent increase, the number of instances of violent interactions will also increase. If the odds of death from a single interaction remain the same, or even decline, this can be overwhelmed if the legal system expects greater instances of interaction with the general public through the application of more laws.

This can be demonstrated by the increasing number of death by legal intervention within the baseline white ethnicity in the United States in the aftermath of the war on drugs, particularly after the 1984 Sentencing Reform ActPer a Harvard study, the rate of killings via legal intervention of whites in 1985, the year after the US government decided to get tough on crime, stood at 0.28 per 100,000. By 2005 this number had risen to 0.37 per 100,000, an increase of 32 percent.

The reason I used whites as the baseline is due to the high volatility in the black legal intervention deaths. The underlying increase in the white death rate could indicate that the improvement in the black victimization rate should be even steeper than is reported now, but the overall impact is difficult to identify with other factors overwhelming the effects.

Further evidence that more law means more violence can be found in strong statist regimes. Enforcement killings in regimes like Venezuela are significantly worse and large-scale executions have been used to ensure legal compliance in societies like Maoist China and the Soviet Union. A society that believes it can solve all of its problems with the imposition of law will inevitably find itself engaging in large-scale killings to enforce it. The more aggressive the attempt at transforming society through legal imposition, the more aggressive the killing will be.

Don’t Just Defund the Police, End State Law

This is where the cognitive dissonance with the defund police movements comes into play. The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced? If taxation were a voluntary affair, few individuals would turn a substantial portion of their annual earnings over to the state for redistribution. If gun control were a suggestion, few people would make any effort to submit to the FFL (Federal Firearms License) sales regulations.

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers. Outlets like Vox can advocate for the creation of mobile response units and community mediators all they want; these entities are, from the viewpoint of the state, toothless without any means to initiate violence to ensure compliance with rules. Community mediators will either find themselves armed or calling on some newly created entity that looks and acts a lot like current police but is called something different to deal with a belligerent individual who refuses to follow the mandate. As anyone with a glove box filled with unpaid parking tickets can tell you, it’s easy to ignore a piece of paper with a fine on it. The state is going to inevitably need an armed, violent agency to handle noncompliant individuals.

The only way to ensure an end to police brutality is not concocting new entities with different names or, worse, focusing on the ethnic element of it, as all that does is try and argue that police violence is fine so long as it’s dished out equally along ethnic lines. The only way is to abolish the state. Without a state, there is no state law. Without state law, there isn’t a need for enforcement by an entity that operates with the language of violence. Without violent enforcement, there isn’t anyone getting killed for noncompliance.

Private structures have little incentive to kill noncompliant actors, and they are able to create stronger enforcement structures than state actors can. Social ostracizing, ejection from business groups, or a ban from a shop would have an equally strong impact compared to the threat of violence. Further, private security agencies that quickly utilize violence would find themselves undesired by customers and lose favor, especially if these agencies create the impression that they are against a particular group of potential customers.

As nice as it would be to believe that police can exist solely as a protection service, this isn’t the case. There’s a reason they’re called law enforcement and not protective services. The U.S. Supreme Court has already definitively told us that our police agencies have no obligation to protect anyone. Their only priority is enforcing the laws, and as those laws expand, the chances we’ll find ourselves interacting unfavorably with an enforcer will increase.

Be seeing you

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