Category: general freedom

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture

Okay Not to Harm

freedom, slavery, equity, health, trans

A recent appeals court ruling means that (some) doctors and other medical practitioners won’t be forced to violate their ethical principles against doing harm.

The Fifth Circuit ruling affirms a lower-court decision “permanently enjoining [HHS] from requiring Franciscan Alliance to perform gender-reassignment surgeries or abortions in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

What is troubling about the decision is its apparent incompleteness.

In a truly free society, no private professionals or organizations would be coerced to offer their services to anybody. Everybody would be free to participate or to decline to participate in any transaction with a prospective customer related to any medical procedure. Just as any person is now (mostly) free to patronize or not patronize any provider of a good or service.

We don’t live in that free society. But at least we can hope that no person will be compelled to provide the types of services that violate the person’s moral conscience.

Like services they believe harm others.

That harm children . . . including the unborn.

So the court’s ruling is fine — as far as it goes. But it seems to protect only persons making religious objections, or only members of the Franciscan Alliance, not also non-religious medical practitioners who also morally object to providing abortions or sex-change operations.

Which means that there is more legal work to be done to protect the rights of all of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights First Amendment rights general freedom nannyism national politics & policies

Just a Board Whose Intentions Were Good?

Homeland Security, censorship, spying, social networks, free speech, disinformation

They say it was all a terrible misunderstanding.

The Department of Homeland Security has caved and is now closing its new Disinformation Governance Board. Critics had been disinformatively saying that the board would probably be used for censorious purposes.

Au contraire, says DHS — even though the board was originally headed by an exponent of countering wrongthink about such matters as the “alleged” Hunter Biden laptop. No. Per DHS, this board really, truly, deep down, supposedly had only benign intentions.

When announcing the shutdown, DHS also announced that it has a bridge to sell you.

(Gotcha! DHS didn’t announce anything about a bridge. That’s just a bit of disinformation that I perpetrated with the help of my woefully abused First Amendment–protected freedom of speech!)

In May, DHS Secretary Mayorkas insisted that the board was no threat to free speech. The point was to address threats “without infringing on free speech.” Rather, the board would be doing things like disputing the strangely persuasive misinformation that the U.S. now has an open southern border.

Even early on, though, the board had been planning to coordinate its anti-disinformative efforts with Big Tech social media firms, which have been censoring on behalf of government. And various government officials will still be working to delegate the nuts and bolts of violating the First Amendment to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, et al. No letup on that front in sight.

DHS may be ending its ill-named board. But beware: its spirit and agenda live on.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTE: This board was previously discussed in these pages on May 2, in “Homeland Censorship Board.”

PDF for printing

Illustration assist from DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture Voting

Thoughts on Nothingness

Liberty playing cards with Aristotle by DALL-E

“Democracy has nothing to do with liberty,” the Libertarian Party announced on Facebook, “just as so many of the world’s greatest minds have warned.”

Huh? Just exactly which “greatest minds” are we talking about?

Not Aristotle!

The party’s statement introduced a meme quoting Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the “Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher,” Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV and Distinguished Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It read: “Democracy allows for A and B to band together to rip off C. This is not justice, but a moral outrage.”

Dr. Hoppe has a point, of course. The ‘will of the people’ can be just plain wrong . . . even, at times, malevolent.  A democratic vote can lead to the tyranny of the majority and even to a tyranny of the minority, as those politicians promising to serve ‘We the People’ end up serving themselves and their cronies.

I’ve not read Professor Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, where he sort of argues for monarchy over democracy, but I offer two points: (1) no one in their right mind talks of democracy without including the protections of basic individual rights, which have become the hallmark of democratic countries across the globe, and (2) no one in the real world thinks democracy is God.

Still, we won’t trade it for monarchy. 

My issue with this social media post, however, is really with the Libertarian Party’s comment that “democracy” — including the democratic means the party has purportedly been employing across the country for decades — has provided no past benefit and offers no future hope for sustaining or expanding our freedom.

So, don’t vote Libertarian this November?

I’ll take that under advisement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

“Liberty Playing Cards with Aristotle” by DALL-E (note that the AI has chosen to show Lady Liberty as bruised and beaten. Her torch appears to be made of tissue.-)

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
folly general freedom media and media people national politics & policies

The Natural Immunity We Need

CDC guidelines

“This is two years too late,” said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, “but it’s a good step.”

Interviewed by The Epoch Times, Dr. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, is talking about new official COVID-19 guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control.

The CDC no longer recommends

  • the six-foot “social distancing” rule, which led to maximum comfort for paranoiacs, introverts, and Scandinavians in supermarkets and other public spaces;
  • that the unvaccinated quarantine after exposure;
  • testing for the asymptomatic; and
  • contact tracing outside of hospitals and places like nursing homes.

Bhattacharya’s interpretation of all this is that the “CDC is admitting it was wrong here, although they won’t put it in those words.”

Much of the new regimen is the result of understanding that natural immunity is a huge factor in the epidemiology of the disease. Bhattacharya’s complaint is that this has always been the case, and that the CDC and government lockdowners should have recognized this early on.

While the expert class has inflicted much damage, the CDC continues to whistle past the graveyard. “We’re in a stronger place today as a nation,” the author of the new guidelines insists, “with more tools — like vaccination, boosters, and treatments — to protect ourselves, and our communities, from severe illness from COVID-19.” 

But to get those mediocre-at-best vaccines past regulatory hurdles, government-directed medicine suppressed information about (and public discussion of) the most basic tools we have to treat new diseases. Governments at many levels, along with social media companies and CNN and many doctoring outfits, actively suppressed a number of treatments that could have saved lives, with HCQ and Ivermectin being only the most infamous.

The natural immunity we need to encourage most is skepticism toward government bureaucrats and Big Pharma flacks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom Second Amendment rights

Cannabis and Carry

guns, gun control, marijuana

The Biden Administration wants to make sure that marijuana users do not own guns. 

Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Nikki Fried, a Democrat, is not with the administration on this matter. Her department oversees concealed carry permits as well as some cannabis regulation, and she “argues that prohibiting all cannabis consumers from owning guns violates the Second Amendment” as well as violating “a congressional spending rider, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, that bars the Justice Department from interfering with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws,” explains Jacob Sullum for Reason magazine. Fried has sued the federal government to allow Florida to grant concealed carry permits to marijuana users — something the federal government disallows.

The Justice Department has now asked the courts to dismiss the case.

This is especially rich, since President Biden himself has been on the liberal side of marijuana regulation — though certainly not with guns, where he’s on the tyrants’ side.

Among many inconsistencies, current law does not prohibit people addicted to legal psychoactive drugs from owning guns, as Sullum notes, nor make a big deal about alcohol, the abuse of which has a well-understood linkage with violence, while marijuana does not.

One could go through all the inanities, here, but we should not assume government makes sense on these issues. The federal government should generally not be in the business of regulating either gun ownership or drug usage.

States that recognize “constitutional carry” show how Florida could advance beyond the current mess of too much government interference in this realm. 

It wouldn’t be an issue were Florida to get out of the concealed carry permit racket.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom international affairs

Fight or Flight?

Taiwan, China, war, freedom

Be strong or be gone. America must choose one of these two options in East Asia. 

China insists.

Let’s note at the outset that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did not “directly” threaten to shoot down House Speaker Pelosi’s plane on her possible upcoming visit to democratic and free Taiwan. That friendly suggestion was instead offered by a columnist for the “state-run” Global Times. 

On Twitter.

Which, incidentally, is banned in China.

That being said, the totalitarians are indeed “bad folks.” In addition to continually threatening the invasion of Taiwan, they’re known to rough up defenseless old folks. For instance, browbeating 79-year-old President Joe Biden last week in a multi-hour phone call, in which, according to a Chinese foreign ministry read-out, Xi Jinping warned our president about standing with Taiwan: “Those who play with fire will perish by it.”

While no one in his right mind wants war with the Dragon, to avoid war with fear and cowardice may ultimately require ceding the world’s greatest democratic success story, Taiwan (the Republic of China), to the genocidal (and misnamed) People’s Republic of China. 

Our cowardly leaders might opt to shut up and look the other way — especially if there is payola attached — but not the rest of us.

Should the United States tangle with a nuclear power over Taiwan?

Isn’t that like asking whether we should go to war over my mother or yours? Or your spouse . . . or your son or daughter?

Is one person — or a small nation of 24 million souls — worth such a risk?

When the Dragon demands a sacrifice, recognize it for what it is.

If one person, recognize it once.

If a nation, recognize it 24 million times.

Resist the Dragon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: As I point out in last weekend’s podcast, Taiwan can successfully repel a Chinese invasion, especially with U.S. and Japanese assistance. And here, Ian Easton, author of The Chinese Invasion Threat, speaks to the issue.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom international affairs

Does China Want War?

China, Taiwan, war, invasion

“WARNING,” it began, “THIS VIDEO MAY BE UPSETTING TO SOME VIEWERS.”

Just the all-caps was upsetting, I thought to myself.

Still, I was all ears and eyes for Johnny Harris’s “Here’s What Happens If China Invades Taiwan,” which garnered seven million views since February. 

Harris was “a little bit conflicted making this video,” because he “feels very against the machismo fascination with conflict,” telling viewers that “we’re talking about people’s lives” and “entire societies being ripped about by a power struggle.”

Declaring that “China doesn’t want war,” Harris hazards that Mainland China “will probably try much less violent ways to try to force Taiwan to the negotiating table before resorting to all-out invasion.” 

Masters of benevolence, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will . . . accept surrender!

Mr. Harris points out that the CCP has passed a law saying they “must” invade Taiwan if peaceful reunification is not possible. Explaining the dearth of support in Taiwan for joining their totalitarian neighbors, he notes “the interpretation of this law [is] more and more on the side of China should do this forcibly.”

Why, it’s “a legal imperative.”

And protecting “this far away island,” asserts Harris, “is something the American public broadly would not be into.” (Though, ahem, recent polling says otherwise.)

“I really hope that we are past needing to resort to this version of conflict to settle our disputes at this time in our history,” he concludes. “But I’m not totally convinced that we are yet.”

The CCP part of “we” is clearly not there. 

“We can talk about it,” explains Harris. “We can find creative ways to solve this.”

My take? Don’t expect too much creativity from the CCP. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom international affairs

Biden Time with Bully

Taiwan, China, Pelosi

What’s more provocative: visiting friends or threatening a military invasion?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rumored to be visiting Taiwan in August, to see our friends who have made the most miraculous political advances of the last half century, from a repressive authoritarian society through four decades of martial law to arguably the most democratic and free nation in all of Asia.

Not to mention blossoming into an economic powerhouse that produces “roughly 90% of the world’s most advanced chips.”  

“[T]he chip industry is dominated by manufacturers in the small island of Taiwan,” informs Fortune. “Policy makers in the U.S. have started to see that as a problem.”*

What’s problematic? Well, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), ruling over both the world’s most populous country and the world’s fastest growing armed forces, constantly threatens a military assault to conquer the “renegade Chinese province.”

They want us not to be friends with the Taiwanese. No talking. No holding hands.

Last week, Beijing warned the U.S. against allowing Pelosi’s visit. Chinese spokesman Ma Xiaoguang “said today that some people in the US government and Congress are constantly provoking and playing the ‘Taiwan card’ . . . and the mainland will ‘resolutely strike back,’” Taiwan’s government news service reported.

Asked about the possible trip, President Joe Biden offered: “Well, I think that the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now. But I don’t know what the status of it is.”

By any fair reading of all the gobbly-gook produced by our State Department over the decades, the U.S. is treaty-bound to defend Taiwan. 

Moreover, from U.S. statements and actions, all the world expects America to step up for democratic Taiwan against a violent takeover by totalitarian China.

Even China thinks so. 

And what does Pelosi think? “It is important for us to show support for Taiwan,” Pelosi told reporters.

She’s right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Also last week, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called a disruption of the supply of computer chips from Taiwan a “scary scenario” that would lead to a “deep and immediate recession.” Invasions can be quite disruptive. Where would the chips fall, then?

NOTE: More on Taiwan at ThisisCommonSense.org.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom

Starbucks Gets Out

Starbucks, coffee, violence, crime, safety

Though not a fan of Starbucks’s often obtrusive lefty politics, I sure like its beverages, such as the glorious Flat White. I’ll take a venti.

Thankfully, it appears that trendy politics has limits. Despite the company’s support for a Marxist organization that riots and rampages in the name of racial justice (I won’t name names, but the initials are BLM), CEO Howard Schultz is reluctant to tolerate crime that makes it unsafe to sell lattes.

In leaked video of an internal meeting, Schultz says he’s shocked “that one of the primary concerns that our retail partners [employees] have is their own personal safety.”

One way Starbucks will cope is by giving managers authority to do things like limit seating and close bathrooms. Employees will also be trained in conflict de-escalation and dealing with “active shooter scenarios.”

And Starbucks will close “not unprofitable” shops in areas where risks to employees and customers are most severe. This means closing 16 stores in which people feel unsafe because of crime and open drug use. The closures are taking place in such bastions of crime nurturing as Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Washington DC.

More shutdowns are to come, Schultz said, adding that “governments across the country and leaders, mayors and governors, city councils have abdicated their responsibility in fighting crime.”

Starbucks has — all companies have — every right to escape the resulting lawless conditions. 

Were they also to abstain from doing anything to promote such conditions, that would be whipped cream on top.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling First Amendment rights general freedom

Squelched in Quebec

Quebec, censorship, free speech, Covid

It’s a Université Laval thing; a Quebec thing: a Canada thing.

These are no places to be if you want to debate questions about pandemics and vaccines now “settled” by government-mandated consensus. Professors Patrick Provost and Nicolas Derome, who both teach at Laval, recently got the message in spades.

Provost, professor of microbiology and immunology, has been suspended for two months without pay for doubting the wisdom of giving COVID-19 vaccines to children. Kids face only a very low risk of serious consequences from the disease and a nonzero risk of being hurt by vaccination.

A newspaper that quoted his thoughts on the data and on free speech has cravenly deleted the offending article, stressing that “we can’t subscribe to” Provost’s views.

Laval also suspended Derome, professor of molecular biology, for expressing doubts about the value of vaccinating kids.

Canada’s authoritarians enjoy no monopoly on smothering academic and other speech. Many governments strive to more diligently repress their citizens. But Canadian officials fancy themselves pioneers in this area, and perhaps they are.

The hazards of squelching discourse about life-and-death matters should be obvious. It’s in our interest that scientists and everybody be able to freely investigate and discuss facts and interpretations without worrying whether an unauthorized assertion will cost the speaker two months of salary.

Or worse.

But some care nothing about logic and evidence — or, apparently, how useful these are to both individuals and to society at large.

It’s not an attitude consistent with . . . Common Sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts