What are you afraid of?

Fair elections are the foundation of U.S. democracy. Foreign influence in our elections won’t be tolerated, and the #FBI will continue to work with local government and private sector partners to disrupt and expose any attempts to erode confidence in the U.S. electoral system.

— FBI (@FBI) February 21, 2022

What are you afraid of?

.@JustinTrudeau's deputy tells Canadians the only way to get their bank accounts "unfrozen" is to stop protesting the government. pic.twitter.com/n3ieSOLG5c

— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) February 21, 2022

What are you afraid of?

Ottawa police vow to pursue and punish protesters in Canada with criminal and financial penalties even if they go home. So much for the right of peaceful protest. This is wrong.#TrudeauTyranny
pic.twitter.com/5ud9Xw0qqL

— Zeitgeist Global (@ZeitgeistGB) February 20, 2022

What are you afraid of?

National Guard to be deployed to DC ahead of trucker protest
What are you afraid of?

Blockades over, but Trudeau says emergency powers needed
What are you afraid of?

Republicans Enjoy Huge Lead Over Democrats in Midterms: Poll

Biden's Overreach

Biden, by decree, bypassing Congress, is mandating vaccinations or weekly testing for all companies with more than 100 employees and all federal employees. I think most people probably should get vaccinated. I do not think it should be forced on them, or given the "choice" to submit to weekly tests, the vaccine, or be fired.

I understand in the face of rising cases of Covid & increased pressure on hospitals, the need to do something is palpable. It's just that we're not that kind of country. You can't force everyone to get a shot--at least not anymore. And if you try, not only will you almost certainly fail in your goal, the damage it will cost just to try won't be negligible.

What happened to not legislating by executive order and "we're a democracy, we need consensus"?

But we're going to try any way. One more ratchet click toward authoritarianism:

The White House is compelling businesses with more than 100 employees to require their workers be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus or subjected to weekly testing. Companies that ignore the policy could face penalties of up to $14,000 for each violation, according to a senior administration official. Also, companies would be required to give workers paid time off to get the vaccine.

The employer mandates, which the White House estimates could reach as many as 80 million people, or two-thirds of U.S. workers, would be the most extensive government intervention into private companies and employer practices since the pandemic began.

Maybe people will #Resist. 

I am vaccinated. But my medical information is none of my employer's nor the federal government's business. I may get fired for behaving in accordance with that belief.

Don't forget Afghanistan. It's one shitshow after another.

I think we've had enough

I've never been 100% libertarian (whatever that is), but I have always been for free speech, free association, freedom of thought--basically the almost completely unrestricted right of a person to do and think as they see fit, so long as it doesn't physically harm or physically threaten another.

But I am sick of the rioting, the violence, the ugliness, the lies, the misinformation, the nastiness, and the persistence of those things. And I suspect, a vast number of Americans are as well.

At what point does the right to protest--which now seems to invariably include rioting, violence and destruction of property--stop outweighing property rights, order, and a basic sense of I'm-pretty-sure-I-won't-get-shot-or-beaten-because-I-may-be-perceived-as-belonging-to-the-outgroup today?

I don't know, but I think at some point it does, and we're close to it, if not way past it.

I support protests, but I am against rioting. To state the obvious, which is feels less obvious today: Protesting is a Right; Rioting is a Crime. 

When those two things become impossible to differentiate, we will lose the right to protest. Or we may gain a right to crime. Neither is appealing, and something needs to be done, soon.

The Bundy saga is different things to different people.

That's about as clear and definitive a statement on pro and anti-Bundy sentiments as can be.

To some, it's about government overreach. To others, it's a clear-cut case of a rancher not following the rules. And then there's a bunch of related (often alleged and rumored) nefarious stuff going on around it.

By now, most of you have heard of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's troubles with the BLM.

I'm not too worked up over it, and won't be writing much about it. I'm ambivalent, with misgivings should I support any one side. I'll just briefly summarize my feelings:

• Bundy stopped paying the fees for his cattle to graze on federal land.
• Bundy disputes that it's legitimately federal land, and/or that the feds do not have authority in the matter.

I'm sympathetic. But those two points--which are at the heart of the matter--to me, paint a picture of a pretty clear path from protester to martyr. With our legal system, continued disobedience pretty much ensures prison time. For some reason I don't see Bundy as wanting to be such a martyr.

I mean, we have a pretty well-established system in this country regarding state and federal land, who owns it, and how the people use it. But what if you feel the system is wrong? Do you go along to get along? Or do you go further and refuse/disobey everything you disagree with? Expecting to change the laws and coming away at least somewhat victorious seems overly optimistic. Getting lots of other people to think about it and and then try to change things seems a bit more realistic.

I guess I'm still mulling it over.

That said, I mostly agree with Warren Meyer at Coyoteblog--in a logical, very concrete, matter-of-fact way. For Bundy is not petitioning his government through the accepted and official means (or maybe he did and got nowhere), and resorted to breaking the rules. Why support a cause that has no legal leg to stand on?

I don't buy this Obama-age, Harry Reid involvement crap. I wouldn't put too much stock into that. As this remarkably refreshing article illustrates: there's not much there, there.

But just in general, the rebel in me wants Bundy to win. At least symbolically. To expose all the bullshit the BLM forces upon ranchers, to expose how tactless the federal government is, to expose how little of shit the government gives, to make us question why does the federal government have to own so much Western land? It doesn't have to. It can and should give it to the states, at least most of it.

Edited to add: Should this turn into a civil disobedience issue (which it probably is already... and less about fees, but more about the scope and purpose of government agencies): Bryan Caplan thinks martyrs should avoid martyrdom.

If the law is unjust, doesn't consenting to punishment simply compound the injustice?  The subtler challenge: "Evading" or "defying" just laws could easily lead to "anarchy" in a pejorative sense.  But why on earth is King so pessimistic about the social effects of "evasion" or "defiance" of unjust laws?  Indeed, if the laws are really so awful, you'd expect every violation to make the world a little bit better. . . .