MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Progressives’

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Rejecting meritocracy clashes with nation’s basic premises

Posted by M. C. on August 8, 2021

It is a virtue of meritocracy that it produces inequality. ‘You need,’ Wooldridge writes, ‘above-average rewards to induce people to engage in … self-sacrifice and risk-taking. Reduce the rewards that accrue to outstanding talent and you reduce the amount of talent available to society as a whole.’

Follow the link below to view the article. Rejecting meritocracy clashes with nation’s basic premises https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1c96bd1de_1345e9c

Rejecting meritocracy clashes with nation’s basic premises

‘Even young Mozart had to practise.’ – Adrian Wooldridge WASHINGTON – This cultural moment is defined by the peculiar idea that America has such a surplus of excellence, it can dispense with something that should be rejected as inequitable – rigorous competition to identify merit. Progressives are recoiling from the idea that propelled humanity’s ascent to modernity: the principle that people are individuals first and primarily, so individual rights should supplant rights attached to group membership.

Progressives’ unease with society measuring merit when allocating opportunity and rewards is discordant with the nation’s premises. And rejecting meritocracy at a time when China – the United States’ strongest geopolitical rival ever – is intensifying its embrace of it is ‘an act of civilisational suicide,’ Adrian Wooldridge warns.

In his book ‘The Aristocracy of Talent,’ the Economist’s political editor and Bagehot columnist argues that in pre-modern societies ‘the most important economic resource was not the brain inside your head but the land under your feet.’ Today, some anti-modern progressives are wary of intelligence because it is an engine of inequality.

So they attack selective public schools that base admissions on standardized tests. All uses of such tests, and Advanced Placement high school classes, and other sorting procedures are stigmatized because they produce disparate outcomes, which supposedly reveal ‘systemic racism.’ That dangerous dogma collides with this fact: Substantial cognitive stratification is inevitable in modern, information-intensive societies. As Wooldridge says, there cannot be sustained economic growth without meritocracy.

Pascal said, ‘We do not choose as captain of a ship the most highly born of those aboard.’ Thomas Paine said hereditary legislators would be as absurd as a ‘hereditary mathematician.’ And Wooldridge says, ‘Most of us would hesitate before flying with a pilot who had been chosen by lottery.’

He says Martin Luther’s greatest contribution to modernity was not Protestantism but competition: Schism meant that faith factions had ‘to improve their performance or lose their market share.’ Meritocracy, feudalism’s antithesis, was wielded by the French Revolution as a hammer to smash feudalism’s remnants: The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen declared all citizens ‘equally admissible’ to all public ‘offices and employments … with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.’ As Wooldridge says, Enlightenment thinkers, aiming to match ‘talent to opportunity and knowledge to power,’ stressed the difference between natural aristocracies of talents and artificial aristocracies of breeding and inheritance.

Some progressives, who are more interested in minimizing inequality than maximizing opportunity, insist that not even industriousness makes an individual deserving is because it is an inherited trait. However, less loopy progressives rightly warn that there can be inherited hierarchies in meritocratic societies. America does fall short of Thomas Jefferson’s hope for ‘culling’ talent ‘from every condition of our people.’ SAT prep classes are not models of social diversity; parents are conscientious (this is not a vice) about transmitting family advantages to their children.

The answer, however, is to improve the culling, not to jettison the aspiration on the ground that all metrics of merit must be unfair. A first step would be to rescue children from uneducated educators of the sort who natter about ‘racist’ arithmetic and the ‘myth’ that some students are more arithmetically gifted than others.

Wooldridge reminds us that the ancient Greeks contrasted government by the best (aristocracy) with government by the richest and best-connected (oligarchy). Although the idea of aristocracy grates on democratic sensibilities, in the modern age a true aristocracy, meaning the ascendency of the talented, should be an aspiration. It need not mean an entrenched class insulated from the churning of competition. Indeed, it cannot mean that: In a society of careers truly open to talents, a real aristocracy will be constantly weeded and refreshed by upward – and downward – mobility driven by competition.

America, as Wooldridge writes, was ‘born meritocratic.’ Meritocracy is as American as immigration, which predisposes Americans to believe in ‘self-made men’ (a phrase used by Henry Clay in 1832). Meritocracy is as American as the frontier, where life ‘on the edge of the civilized world encouraged self-reliance.’

It is a virtue of meritocracy that it produces inequality. ‘You need,’ Wooldridge writes, ‘above-average rewards to induce people to engage in … self-sacrifice and risk-taking. Reduce the rewards that accrue to outstanding talent and you reduce the amount of talent available to society as a whole.’

Meritocracy, Wooldridge says, ‘is the closest thing we have today to a universal ideology.’ It, like many other good things, must, however, be saved from today’s profoundly retrogressive progressivism.

Contact George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Venice Beach: the Purgatory Progressives Built | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on July 6, 2021

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/venice-beach-the-purgatory-progressives-built/

Policy

A trip down the California boardwalk to see what the activists have done to the residents, housed and “unhoused.” (Luis A Chavez/Shutterstock)

July 5, 2021|

12:01 am Kurt Hofer

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In iconic Venice Beach, California, it is also paved with feces, structure fires, knives, needles, tarps, and tents. My guide through this dystopian underworld, my Virgil, is named Soledad Ursua. Ursua is a native Angeleno who spent much of her professional life in New York. When she returned five years ago, she wanted to live in a walkable neighborhood similar to her adopted home of New York. Venice, with its mixture of historic bungalows, pedestrian-friendly walkways between them, and its proximity to the beach and restaurants, seemed like a perfect fit. It wasn’t. 

On the start of my walking tour, with an ironic smile (there were many more of those to come) Ursua points me to a sign posted by the City of Los Angeles that says “Special Enforcement and Cleaning Zone.” The sign explains that sidewalks will be cleaned and cleared of encampments, waste will be removed, and unclaimed possessions taken to a storage facility. The irony, of course, is that directly behind the sign sits an unbroken, block-long train of homeless encampments. (Since the start of COVID-19 measures, the city of Los Angeles suspended anti-encampment ordinances; but now that the pandemic has abated, the encampments remain.) Some sanitation workers try, in a struggle of Sisyphean proportions, to sweep and clean the streets. Mobile shower and hand washing stations sit parallel to the encampments. Loaves of bread and other perishable food sit on unattended tables. 

“The activists think they’re helping when they drop off food like that. But then the rats come. They spread disease. This whole area is at serious risk for bubonic plague and typhus,” Ursua explains. She is a self-described libertarian who began to advocate on behalf of Venice residents in the Venice Neighborhood Council, an elected body which consults with City Councilman Mike Bonin, who represents Venice. The council also tries to engage with Mayor Garcetti, who many Venice residents tell me “already has one foot out the door” in anticipation of an appointment as ambassador to India. Bonin and Garcetti are both smart enough to stay away from Venice—no posing on the boardwalk with “mission accomplished signs” for them.

Another resident, who commiserates with Ursua and identifies himself as a lifelong Democrat, tells me that Bonin hasn’t been to Venice in years, even though he lives in nearby Mar Vista with his husband. It’s a shame, because Bonin apparently, like me until today, only sees Venice on YouTube or the local news. Ursua’s tour takes me past not just encampments, but the burned out house of one of her neighbors. The fire was likely caused by the “unhoused” to use the preferred term. Another fire on the boardwalk recently destroyed a $26 million beachfront commercial property. All the parks, playgrounds and even the bike path along the beach have been ceded as public spaces; they are now the private domain of the encampment dwellers. “I don’t jog. I don’t walk my dog. I had to join a gym to exercise because I don’t feel safe. When dusk hits I get that pit in my stomach that I need to get home,” Ursua explains to me.

On the boardwalk I see a man sitting on a bench spreading canned tuna across bread with a hunting knife. “I’m glad you saw that,” Ursua tells me. “Would you take your kids here?” This is such a common refrain that I almost think it should be on a bumper sticker. We walk to where the boardwalk meets the boundary between Santa Monica and Venice, which is part of the City of Los Angeles. “It’s like a Tale of Two Cities,” Soledad explains. In neighboring Santa Monica there are no tents on the beach and the boardwalk comes back to life with people. Liberal Santa Monica, not exactly a bastion of rightwing law and order, is where the No Man’s Land ends. Unlike Los Angeles, Santa Monica enforces the laws requiring overnight encampments to be disassembled during the day.

Ursua walks me back down the boardwalk while a woman inside a tent shouts expletives to herself. Along the way she points out a senior center. In the good old days, five years ago, you would see seniors outside the building enjoying the weather. No more.

See the rest here

Kurt Hofer is a native Californian with a Ph.D. in Spanish Literature. He teaches high school history in a Los Angeles area independent school.

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Police Problems? Embrace Liberty!

Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2021

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/april/26/police-problems-embrace-liberty/?mc_cid=74f313367e

Written by Ron Paul

undefined

Many Americans saw former policeman Derek Chauvin’s conviction on all counts last week as affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Many others were concerned that the jury was scared that anything less than a full conviction would result in riots, and even violence against themselves and their families.

Was the jury’s verdict influenced by politicians and media figures who were calling for the jury to deliver the “right” verdict? Attempts to intimidate juries are just as offensive to the rule of law as suggestions that George Floyd’s criminal record somehow meant his rights were not important.

The video of then-policeman Chauvin restraining Floyd led people across the political and ideological spectrums to consider police reform. Sadly, there have also been riots across the country orchestrated by left-wing activists and organizations seeking to exploit concern about police misconduct to advance their agendas.

It is ironic to see self-described Marxists, progressives, and other leftists protesting violence by government agents. After all, their ideology rests on the use of force to compel people to obey politicians and bureaucrats.

It is also ironic to see those who claim to want to protect and improve “black lives” support big government.

Black people, along with other Americans, have had their family structure weakened by welfare policies encouraging single parenthood. This results in children being raised without fathers as a regular presence in their lives, increasing the likelihood the children will grow up to become adults with emotional and other problems.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are restrained in improving their situation because of minimum wage laws, occupational licensing regulations, and other government interference in the marketplace. They are also victims of the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Many progressives who claim to believe that “black lives matter” do not care that there is a relatively high abortion rate of black babies. These so-called pro-choice progressives are the heirs of the racists who founded the movement to legalize and normalize abortion.

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

A libertarian society would leave the provision of aid to the needy to local communities, private charities, and religious organizations. Unlike the federal welfare state, private charities can provide effective and compassionate aid without damaging family structure or making dependency a way of life. In a libertarian society, individuals could pursue economic opportunity free of the burdens of government regulations and taxes, as well as free of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

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

This Is What the Progressives Want To Do to Us | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2021

The specific aspect of Bentham’s thinking (wide-ranging thinking, I should add) that appeals to the progressive mindset is his belief that there is no natural law, natural rights, natural liberty, and natural and naturally harmonic outcomes, especially in the marketplace.

Thus, it is not hard to see how, to paraphrase F.A. Hayek, “the worst get on top” in places like Minneapolis and Portland and, increasingly, Washington, DC. The sheer ferocity of the political radicals toward an alleged infraction of their view of “justice” is out of proportion to the actual alleged offense. In this atmosphere, most people just want out, leaving the radicals even more firmly entrenched to impose even more damage to others.

https://mises.org/wire/what-progressives-want-do-us

William L. Anderson

For all of the campaign and inauguration talk about “unity” and moderation, President Joe Biden is governing like a progressive on all fronts, from cultural issues to the armed forces to the economy. Biden’s unprecedented thirty-two executive orders his first week in office provide evidence he and his party intend to expand executive governance well beyond anything this country has seen in its long history. Furthermore, all his political appointments are people who fall well to the left of any kind of recognizable political center and who share the president’s progressive ideology.

So, what do progressives believe, anyway? What do we mean by the term “progressive,” and why is it in the ascendency today? Furthermore, even though its destructive results are well known when we look at its history, progressivism seems to have taken over almost all of our political and social institutions, shutting down all dissent in the process.

In 2014 libertarian attorney and scholar James Ostrowski published a book entitled Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America, which is a worthwhile read if you wish to better understand this nebulous ideology. I heartily endorse the book (having read it myself), but will let Ostrowski speak for himself, and in this piece I will attempt to carve out a small niche of my own in writing about progressivism.

While the term “progressivism” sounds like something to describe modern, secular intellectual and political movements, it actually has its roots more than two hundred years ago in the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. Anyone who has taken a course in history of economic thought is well familiar with Bentham, who influenced the English economists from Thomas Malthus to John Stuart Mill and even beyond that.

The specific aspect of Bentham’s thinking (wide-ranging thinking, I should add) that appeals to the progressive mindset is his belief that there is no natural law, natural rights, natural liberty, and natural and naturally harmonic outcomes, especially in the marketplace. This placed him in opposition to Adam Smith and also to Frédéric Bastiat, whose Economic Harmonies stood in contrast to Bentham’s world view that free market exchanges, unless they were guided by wise people in high places, would have socially harmful results over time.

Bentham’s view was that in order to provide what he called “the greatest good for the greatest number,” governing elites were to ensure that they could guide large numbers of people to act in what progressives today would call “the public interest” by setting structures of incentives—positive and negative—depending upon the situation. We can see this as a precursor of what would culminate in the Communist “experiments” that turned vast stretches of Asia and Europe into mass death zones and in the works of American psychologist B.F. Skinner, who saw people as little more than rats in a box to be properly trained by their intellectual betters.

Understand that this is not an attack on incentives; all of us rely on incentives one way or another, be it the entrepreneur’s pursuit of profit or the rewards (and punishments) we give our children to help them find direction in life. One of the most interesting applications of incentives can be seen in how British economist and social reformer Edwin Chadwick saved countless lives by changing the pay structure of delivering British prisoners to the penal colony in Australia.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, ship captains delivering prisoners from England to Australia were paid up front for each prisoner who boarded their vessels. Having already been compensated, captains had no incentives to care for their captive crew, and about half of the prisoners died during the trips. In 1862, Chadwick convinced policymakers to change the compensation to include only those prisoners who survived the long passage. Not surprisingly, the survival rate rose to 98 percent.

While Bentham’s utilitarianism was a precursor to modern progressivism, one safely can say that progressives today are less interested in laying out structures of incentives to guide human behavior than they are in simply being obeyed. To better understand that point, we need go no further than Biden’s recent cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline in the upper Midwest and his administration’s determination to cripple one of this nation’s most productive industries.

Perhaps there is no greater article of faith among American progressives than that the oil and gas industries are creating a “climate crisis” that supposedly will engulf the planet and make life unlivable. Not surprisingly, the Keystone project has been in the cross hairs of American environmentalists for a long time, since much of the oil to be transported comes from Canadian tar sands. Declares the New Yorker in support of the cancellation:

In the spring of 2011, the NASA climate scientist James Hansen helped orient the pipeline as a climate-related fight, pointing to the massive amounts of carbon contained in the Canadian tar-sand deposits and making the case that, if they were fully exploited, it would be “game over” for the climate.

Hansen’s predictions over the past three decades are reminiscent of those of economists who have predicted ten of the last two recessions, but it is the rare journalist who actually goes beyond being a mouthpiece for the climate change cult, so we are supposed to believe that if the Keystone project were to continue and the Canadian tar sands were further exploited, the result would be rising temperatures that would make the planet unlivable. (Whether or not the tar sands are economically viable, given current energy prices, is another matter, but Biden didn’t nix the pipeline because he believed the project to be uneconomical, but rather because the environmentalist constituency that dominates his government hates any fuels that originate in the ground.)

During his campaign, Biden made his displeasure about oil and natural gas known and vowed to “phase out” the industry (read that, cripple one of the most productive industries in our economy and certainly one of the most indispensable industries at that) and replace fuels with electricity that comes primarily through wind power and solar panels. Again, we see the progressive mindset at work.

First, and most important, even if Biden were successful in completely ending all “fossil” fuel use by 2035—a date that seems to be in vogue with progressive politicians and “woke” corporations like General Motors—it is doubtful that such a move would have any significant (or even insignificant) effect upon the world’s climate.

See the rest here

Author:

Contact William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

Be seeing you

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

Biden issues executive order to abolish women’s sports – Welcome to Daily Liberty News

Posted by M. C. on January 29, 2021

This isn’t unusual. The Matildas, the Australian women’s national team, lost 7-0 to the Newcastle FC youth team. Yep, the boys again.

https://dailylibertynews.com/biden-issues-executive-order-to-abolish-womens-sports/

By Tim Worstall, special to Daily Liberty News

Biden issues executive order to abolish women’s sports

By Tim Worstall, special to Daily Liberty News

Well, that was quick, Sleepy Joe’s first major error came the afternoon of the inauguration.

Of course, the leftists are claiming it as a victory for justice, righteousness and good but it’s still a mistake.

Joe’s made it illegal to discriminate against trans folks in sports. Or, the other way of saying the same thing, he’s abolished women’s sports.

Before you change something you’ve got to know why it was like that in the first place.

There’s an old logical idea called Chesterton’s Fence. You might see a fence out there in the wilds and think, hmm, no reason for this. We’ll tear it down.

But to know that there is no reason you’ve got to work out why was the fence put there in the first place?

Hey, maybe those Canadians do invade once a century? Or the cicadas rise up once every 17 years. Only if you can know the reason for the building of the thing can you conclude that it no longer works.

So, why do we have rules about women’s sport? Because without them there would be no women’s sports.

Flo-Jo, Florence Joyner Griffiths, still holds the 100 meters world record for women. A time of 10.49 in 1988. Sure, she died 10 years later some say as a result of all the steroids she’d taken to make that time.

Quaron Adams just did the 100 metres in 10.49 in a track meet. For high schools. He’s a freshman.

The all time drug fuelled world record for women is what 14 year old boys do in state track meets.

The US National Women’s Soccer Team is world conquering. Four World Cups and four Olympic gold medals. They lost to the FC Dallas under 15s boys team. 5-2 was the score which in soccer is a wide margin, that’s a beating.

Can't see this image? Click on 'load images' or 'always allow images for this sender'

The US team receiving their champion medals in 2019. Image credit: Howcheng.

This isn’t unusual. The Matildas, the Australian women’s national team, lost 7-0 to the Newcastle FC youth team. Yep, the boys again.

This is why we have that division of sports into male and female versions. It’s not what is in the head, nor the social construct of gender. Just going through male puberty produces greater speed and more muscle mass.

OK, sure, we’ve all met noodle-armed soy-boys who struggle to raise a fuzzy beard because they’ve ordered too many soy lattes at Starbucks. But on average and across those who play sports — men will beat women and the elite men will always beat the elite women.

So, we cut the game in half – women play women, men do men. Because that’s the only way we’re going to see women on that winner’s podium.

What now happens when we insist the trans can play sports with their opposite gender (let’s be honest here)?

If it’s trans men playing football they’re gonna get smeared. But that’s their lookout, the problem is only to themselves. But once trans women play biological women we have that problem.

The problem of why we have women’s sports in the first place. Those genetics, that testosterone, don’t play nice.

Economists like to talk about different types of discrimination. Taste where it’s “I ain’t hiring no women!” and rational discrimination “I’ll look among the men for that 300 pound linebacker I need”.

Or as PJ O’Rourke put it, men and women differ in interesting ways which are important when making babies and not when trading bonds or making dinner.

The trick is to work out which is the making babies rational discrimination — and not the doing dinner one.

After all, why or how trans doesn’t matter.

Well, OK, it matters to those folks but not as a moral issue. Their lives, they get to live them. All anyone can ask of liberty is that we all get to do just that.

The limit on this freedom is when what I do stops someone else from having that same liberty.

At that point there sure do have to be limits on what I can do.

That is, at times, we must discriminate.

Sometimes about race, we go looking for sickle cell anaemia among people with West African ancestors, Tay Sachs among European Jews and cystic fibrosis among Western Europeans.

That’s just where those things are likely to happen so that’s where we look.

Sometimes about gender, we test biological women for cervical cancer and men for prostate.

We don’t test or discriminate on either of those grounds about bond trading or dinner making and we shouldn’t.

The same is true of trans.

Near all of the time we should not select or differentiate on this basis of gender but sometimes not only should we, we must. Because parts of the world just won’t work if we don’t, that’s why.

As Flo-Jo and Quaron prove we’ve got to discriminate between – not against, but between – those who have been through male puberty and those who have not in sports.

Otherwise we’re just not going to have women’s sports.

So, what is it that Sleepy Joe did on returning from swearing on that big, thick, Bible? Made his first major error. Because he did this the wrong way around.

The Executive Order is to make it illegal to discriminate between trans and biological gender in school and college sports. But it leaves open all those other areas of life where we shouldn’t discriminate.

Yep, the progressives’ big move on the vital issue of the day gets it the wrong way around.

They make it illegal to discriminate where we must and fail to stop it where we shouldn’t.

Sorta shows us what’s wrong with progressive politics, doesn’t it? That every mainstream journalist in the country is applauding it shows us what’s wrong there.

When the liberals do decide to do something they do exactly the wrong thing. We have to discriminate in women’s sports so that there is actually a thing called women’s sports.

Federal law now makes what we must do illegal.

It’s not gonna be a fun four year ride, is it?

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The ‘War On Terror’ Comes Home

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2021

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/january/11/the-war-on-terror-comes-home/?mc_cid=da4f0fca1c

Written by Ron Paul

Last week’s massive social media purges – starting with President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. Nowhere in President Trump’s two “offending” Tweets, for example, was a call for violence expressed explicitly or implicitly. It was a classic example of sentence first, verdict later.

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.

So what is to be done? Even pro-free speech alternative social media outlets are under attack from the Big Tech/government Leviathan. There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas. Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea. We must move forward with creativity and confidence!


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Be seeing you

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

The Libertarian Party Will Never Have Political Power | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2020

The purpose of politics is to seize power and centralize it to your party. The Left knows how to do this even when they aren’t in power and the Right fails even when they hold all the cards. As Curtis Yarvin puts it

https://libertarianinstitute.org/libertarianism/the-libertarian-party-will-never-have-political-power/

by Peter R. Quinones

Just give it up already. Those who are holding onto the dream that the LP will be able to wield any significant political, or cultural power have not thought this through. An ideology of non-aggression and voluntary interactions has no place in the political sphere unless they are willing to become like the other two parties. Their message is that we are not like them. It is one of incompatibility when it comes to Machiavellian power structures.

The purpose of politics is to seize power and centralize it to your party. The Left knows how to do this even when they aren’t in power and the Right fails even when they hold all the cards. As Curtis Yarvin puts it,

“Progressives see power as an end; conservatives see power as a means to an end. As soon as conservatives get even a sliver of power, they start trying to use this power to create good outcomes. This is irrational.

The rational way to use power is the progressive way: to make more power. Your power grows exponentially. Eventually you have all the power, and can get all the outcomes you want.

There is not one progressive idea which does not yield a power dividend. I cannot think of a conservative idea that does. If one did, the progressives would steal it. Then the conservatives would persuade themselves to oppose it, and all would be well.”

Anyone paying attention knows this. In our lifetimes the Left has grown their power – especially over the culture – to an insurmountable level. The Right has become what the Left was 25 years ago, and they always play catch-up. I hear echoes of Michael Malice saying, “Conservatism is Progressive driving the speed limit.”

What does this all mean for the Libertarian Party? It should be obvious. What is described above IS politics. It is the dirtiest, slimiest, most reprehensible way of gaining power over mankind. To argue against that is to be naive beyond measure. An ideology promoting the Non-Aggression Principle entering into the American political realm is like a kindergartener entering a UFC match. The outcome is inevitable.

And don’t think I’m just talking about the 202-area code. No, local politics is just as bad. If you’re walking in there as “the good guy” the inevitable “bad guy” will rear their head and take you out. And if you’re a Libertarian and you are “consistent” in your ideology, you won’t fight dirty because once you do you are out of the realm of libertarianism. You’ve just became “The Swamp” (even the local Swamp).

Once you understand this you realize that the old argument about whether the purpose of the Libertarian Party is one of “education” or “getting people elected” to institute political change is easily answered. You are a party of education. And one that will always be a joke in the eyes of those who understand the Machiavellian nature of politics. But is education even possible if you won’t do what it takes politically to even get on a debate stage ignoring the inability to centralize all power to you if you do get elected?

Maybe there are better ways to spend your time rather than tilting at windmills.

About Peter R. Quinones

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017. It reached #4 in the Libertarian Section on Amazon. He has spoken at Liberty Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire and is one of the Executive Producers on the documentary, “The Monopoly on Violence.” Contact him at pete@libertarianinstitute.org

Be seeing you

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

Progressives Declare War on Asians, Meritocracy and STEM – Asian Dawn

Posted by M. C. on November 24, 2020

One bitter first-generation Asian-American parent vindictively stated, “On a brighter note, I know China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore will completely destroy American companies when my children are my age because of these stupid policies. That gives me comfort. These idiotic Democrats will guarantee Asians will win—just not Asian-Americans….maybe we should go work for Asian-owned companies instead of giving our minds to Apple or Intel.”

https://www.asian-dawn.com/2020/11/19/progressives-declare-war-on-asians-meritocracy-and-stem/

November 18, 2020

Progressives all across America have declared war on Asians, meritocracy, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). Recently, the San Francisco Unified School District voted to replace their merit admissions process at Lowell High School, one of the best high schools in America and also happens to be 61% Asian, with a lottery-based system.

When Asian-American parents opposed the school district’s plans to enact its new “lottery” system in late October, the school district blasted the parents by stating they were “racist” and responsible for the “toxic culture” at the school. Parents were accused of furthering the “Asian supremacy” agenda by making their children work so hard; their children’s achievements were demoralizing African-American and Latino students.

One African-American parent stated it’s because of Asians hogging up all the spaces “Black people can’t catch up technologically because the ‘stupid Asians’ are keeping black people down out of fear they’d be overtaken.”

Lowell High School demographics. Image via US News

When one angry Asian-American parent responded “Trust me, you’ll never catch up. If you need to lower-standards to get in, you’ll never beat us,” a near physical fight broke loose.

Another Asian parent screamed, “First you blame white people, now you blame us!? Grow up! Study harder or go home!”

On Halloween weekend, about 100 families, students, alumni, and community members from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology stood on the grassy lawn in front of the school and held a symbolic memorial service for America’s No. 1 high school, according to Crushing the Myth.

“Remember the glory of TJ (Thomas Jefferson),” said Yuyan Zhou, a Chinese-American alumni mother, as her friends stood around her with awards and trophies that symbolized the school’s shining achievements.

Thomas Jefferson High School will no longer be the No. 1 school in America after abolishing their merit-based admissions to make way for more less-qualified and less-deserving African-American and Latino students who could not pass TJ’s entrance exam.

The Chinese American Parents Association of Fairfax County sent a three-page letter to the Fairfax County Board of Education, opposing the lack of “respect” that Asian-Americans have been facing in the debate over TJ admissions, according to Crushing the Myth.

Thomas Jefferson High School demographics. Image via Fairfax County Public Schools

Thomas Jefferson spent over 35 years building its reputation as a premier high school. But it only took 12 Democratic members of the Fairfax County School Board only 12 minutes and 11 seconds on Tuesday night, October 6, during an online meeting to kill the school, eliminating its race-blind, merit-based admissions test.See also

Around the same time parents at TJ found out race-blind tests were eliminated, members of the Boston Public School system in Massachusetts announced they were going to eliminate academic exams to the school district’s top three schools, including O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science. https://www.youtube.com/embed/eFHO_S3ITVM?feature=oembed

Boston school officials argued that STEM school’s racial demographics are “too white and too Asian and they’re both meeting or exceeding expectations at higher rates” than Black and Hispanic students and that’s not fair. The Boston Public School system calls their new plan “racial equity planning tool.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City is also planning to eliminate race-blind admissions for Stuyvesant High School and the Bronx High School of Science, citing “white supremacy” as the main factor for his quest—never mind the fact those high schools are more than 60 percent Asian.

Brave Asian Americans @placenyc_org rallied Fri to defend merit test to @StuyNY + top NYC high schools.

A girl from Bangladesh, 11, starts to speak.

A woman with Black Lives Matter tee steps in the way.

NOBODY gets between a child + education with mama + papa bears around. pic.twitter.com/FpcRIh8xWw— Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) October 24, 2020

One bitter first-generation Asian-American parent vindictively stated, “On a brighter note, I know China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore will completely destroy American companies when my children are my age because of these stupid policies. That gives me comfort. These idiotic Democrats will guarantee Asians will win—just not Asian-Americans….maybe we should go work for Asian-owned companies instead of giving our minds to Apple or Intel.”

be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Powerful Presidents Are Incompatible with Liberty

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2020

The Founders did not intend for the president to set the “national agenda, “ and they would be horrified to see modern presidents assume the authority to order American citizens indefinitely detained and even killed without due process.

The idea that the president should exercise almost unlimited powers is a legacy of the progressive movement. Progressives, who are responsible for the rise of the American welfare-warfare state, have an affinity for a strong Presidency that is not surprising. A government that aspires to run our lives, run the economy, and run the world requires a strong executive branch unfettered by the Constitution’s chains. The Cold War also provided a boost to presidential power, as it justified presidents assuming more unchecked authority in the name of “national security.”

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/november/09/powerful-presidents-are-incompatible-with-liberty/

Written by Ron Paul

The mainstream media has declared former Vice President Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 presidential election. However, this does not mean the 2020 Presidential campaign has come to an end. President Donald Trump is continuing his legal challenges to the vote counts in some key states.

The emotional investment of many Americans into the race between Trump and Biden would have shocked the drafters of the Constitution. The Constitution’s authors intended the presidency to be an office of strictly limited powers that would not impact most Americans. The Constitution authorizes the president to administer laws passed by Congress, not create laws via executive orders. The president serves as Commander-in-Chief of the military following a Congressional declaration of war, with no authority to unilaterally send troops into foreign conflict.

The Founders did not intend for the president to set the “national agenda, “ and they would be horrified to see modern presidents assume the authority to order American citizens indefinitely detained and even killed without due process.

The idea that the president should exercise almost unlimited powers is a legacy of the progressive movement. Progressives, who are responsible for the rise of the American welfare-warfare state, have an affinity for a strong Presidency that is not surprising. A government that aspires to run our lives, run the economy, and run the world requires a strong executive branch unfettered by the Constitution’s chains. The Cold War also provided a boost to presidential power, as it justified presidents assuming more unchecked authority in the name of “national security.”

The concentration of power in the executive branch does not mean presidents are all-powerful. For example, even though presidents are judged by the state of the economy, the unelected, unaccountable Federal Reserve Board typically has greater influence over the economy then the president. Presidents often must tailor their economic policies to deal with the consequences of the Fed’s actions. This is why presidents spend so much time and energy trying to influence the “non-political” Fed. Fed Chairs usually, but not always, reciprocate by attempting to tailor polices to be “useful” to the incumbent president.

It has become cliché to say that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” This means no one—not even Members of Congress, should ever oppose or second-guess a president’s foreign policy decisions. However, this rule does not apply to those comprising what has become popularly known as the “deep state”: the military-industrial complex, the national security bureaucracy—including the CIA— congressional staffers, and members of the media. This deep state serves a permanent government and has an agenda it pursues regardless of the wishes of the president or the American people.

The deep state has derailed President Trump’s (modest) efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to pursue a less interventionist foreign policy and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Members of the deep state were instrumental in the Russiagate hoax and the impeachment of President Trump. Many supported impeachment because President Trump’s actions contradicted the DC “consensus” on US -Ukraine relations and the need for a new Cold War with Russia. President Trump is not the first president to be undermined by the deep state and he will certainly not be the last.

The 2020 election has awoken many Americans to the corruption of the modern welfare-warfare state. These Americans are ripe for the message of liberty. They can help with the vital task of demystifying the US Presidency, destroying the deep state, restoring our constitutional republic, and regaining our lost liberties.


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Powerful Presidents Are Incompatible with Liberty

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2020

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/november/09/powerful-presidents-are-incompatible-with-liberty/?mc_cid=54c83944f7&mc_eid=4e0de347c8

Written by Ron Paul

The mainstream media has declared former Vice President Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 presidential election. However, this does not mean the 2020 Presidential campaign has come to an end. President Donald Trump is continuing his legal challenges to the vote counts in some key states.

The emotional investment of many Americans into the race between Trump and Biden would have shocked the drafters of the Constitution. The Constitution’s authors intended the presidency to be an office of strictly limited powers that would not impact most Americans. The Constitution authorizes the president to administer laws passed by Congress, not create laws via executive orders. The president serves as Commander-in-Chief of the military following a Congressional declaration of war, with no authority to unilaterally send troops into foreign conflict.

The Founders did not intend for the president to set the “national agenda, “ and they would be horrified to see modern presidents assume the authority to order American citizens indefinitely detained and even killed without due process.

The idea that the president should exercise almost unlimited powers is a legacy of the progressive movement. Progressives, who are responsible for the rise of the American welfare-warfare state, have an affinity for a strong Presidency that is not surprising. A government that aspires to run our lives, run the economy, and run the world requires a strong executive branch unfettered by the Constitution’s chains. The Cold War also provided a boost to presidential power, as it justified presidents assuming more unchecked authority in the name of “national security.”

The concentration of power in the executive branch does not mean presidents are all-powerful. For example, even though presidents are judged by the state of the economy, the unelected, unaccountable Federal Reserve Board typically has greater influence over the economy then the president. Presidents often must tailor their economic policies to deal with the consequences of the Fed’s actions. This is why presidents spend so much time and energy trying to influence the “non-political” Fed. Fed Chairs usually, but not always, reciprocate by attempting to tailor polices to be “useful” to the incumbent president.

It has become cliché to say that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” This means no one—not even Members of Congress, should ever oppose or second-guess a president’s foreign policy decisions. However, this rule does not apply to those comprising what has become popularly known as the “deep state”: the military-industrial complex, the national security bureaucracy—including the CIA— congressional staffers, and members of the media. This deep state serves a permanent government and has an agenda it pursues regardless of the wishes of the president or the American people.

The deep state has derailed President Trump’s (modest) efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to pursue a less interventionist foreign policy and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Members of the deep state were instrumental in the Russiagate hoax and the impeachment of President Trump. Many supported impeachment because President Trump’s actions contradicted the DC “consensus” on US -Ukraine relations and the need for a new Cold War with Russia. President Trump is not the first president to be undermined by the deep state and he will certainly not be the last.

The 2020 election has awoken many Americans to the corruption of the modern welfare-warfare state. These Americans are ripe for the message of liberty. They can help with the vital task of demystifying the US Presidency, destroying the deep state, restoring our constitutional republic, and regaining our lost liberties.


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

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