Monthly Archives: February 2022

It was an extraordinary way to end nearly two years of restrictions and lockdowns. With no explanatory briefings from either the chief medical officer or chief scientific adviser, no input from Sage and no consultation with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the prime minister told a surprised House of Commons he would unilaterally lift all Covid restrictions a month ahead of time on 24 February.

How public health could be sustained thereafter was plainly an afterthought, of little consequence to be unveiled after the recess in a document pointedly called Living with Covid. Nobody expects other than the scantest of strategies, with even the Office for National Statisticss (ONS) highly regarded surveillance survey, which allows the UK to pick up the emergence of high-risk variants, likely to be scaled back or even scrapped after April.

Any continuing requirement to self-isolate? Wear masks? Any social distancing? Working from home? Covid passports? All over. Even, it seems under Treasury pressure, free PCR testing is to be stopped for all but the most at risk. With a confidence born of Omicron proving to be much less dangerous than feared in December (helped perhaps by Britons behaving in a guarded way), the gamble not to lock down has been validated; Britain is to be the first in the world to be free of restrictions. But this was not a decision driven by public health considerations; it was rather buying the prime minister crucial political support.

Allow me to let you in on a dream I have. Im living in a country in which, after months of sacrifice, hardship and dislocation, the leaders are pulling the country together to create a new normal. Flanked by experts and supported by the encouraging data that hospital admissions are falling, with death rates falling even further for the vaccinated, we are told that, after consultation with the three nations and the leaders of the opposition parties, the entire country is going to enjoy an immediate, phased, watchful relaxation of restrictions as fast as possible. Of course, surveillance through surveys would continue as we guard against new dangerous variants and, to make it worthwhile, testing would not be scrapped but become more sparing so that those with symptoms could know whether they had Covid. The expectation would remain that people with Covid would legitimately stay at home rather than infect others, while nightclubs and sporting venues could and should ask for proof of vaccination. Masks would continue to be worn on public transport.

In this imagined country, we had come through the pandemic together and, while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough. Recognising that Covid is global, we would be actively mobilising our now surplus public health capacity to help others.

This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. Its how I expect to continue.

Instead, Living with Covid will be an enforced imposition of a particular conception of liberty by the dominant faction of a discredited party a fundamental misreading of public opinion and the dynamics of pandemic management.

I am like the vast majority. The modellers who warned about the potential explosive impact of Omicron were not exponents of big state socialism. Rather, they were surprised and their models caught out by the degree to which the majority of us constrained our own liberty, were watchful about contact and social interaction, partly as a result of the models alarming projected scenarios, and lived by the rules.

It was our new behaviour, as much as state rules, which drove the better-than-expected outcome. We were, in philosopher Isaiah Berlins famous formulation, practitioners of positive liberty taking control of our individual destinies through acting together. By contrast, Tory libertarians are really Big Brother imposers of Berlins negative liberty, defining liberty not in terms of individuals trying to control their life in concert with others but wholly in terms of removing what they describe as coercive state restrictions and obstacles.

Concerns about coercion might make arguable sense in some second-order walks of economic and social life objecting, say, to councils over-zealous imposition of swingeing parking fines but in public health issues negative liberty is bonkers. Big Brother removal of safeguards to my good health in the name of individual liberty so that I am free to be made seriously ill by others is as dangerous as any socialist Big Brother.

As I have argued in an earlier column, the good society fuses the claims of the we with the needs of the I. Be sure Living with Covid, informed by the bossy negative libertarians of the Tory Covid Recovery Group, will neglect the we almost entirely.

Nor is any of this made easier by chancellor Rishi Sunaks obsession with Treasury orthodoxy. The purpose of the state is the creation of public goods for which we readily pay of which the Office for National Statistics surveys of the incidence of Covid and testing are prime examples. This short-sighted, mad-dash exit from the pandemic mirrors its beginning a painful refusal to accept that human beings benefit from the group acting together, especially in matters of public health. Libertarianism is the new political virus. Immunisation from its baleful effects cannot come too soon.

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

Read more here:

Like most, I relish life opening up. But this libertarian dash for the Covid exit is reckless - The Guardian

From the right: Team Hillarys Criminal Hacking

Special counsel John Durham just confirmed that Hillary Clintons associates illegally spied on Donald Trump to delegitimize his victory and presidency, fumes the Washington Examiners Kaylee McGhee White. Her campaign deliberately funded lawyer Michael Sussman and others to monitor Trump and his allies, even after he took office. Durhams court filing proves the campaign to undermine Trump went far beyond what many suspected: It didnt just spy on Trumps campaign but on the White House, hacking into the governments confidential servers and using pilfered info to manufacture the Russia-collusion narrative which our intelligence community then ran with. Years later, few of the people responsible have faced any consequences. Hopefully, that changes soon.

From the left: How Dems Can Win

Facing what liberals see as the Republican threat to Americas constitutional experiment, Stanley B. Greenberg asks at The American Prospect, What is our plan to save it? He says: Focus on working-class voters white, Black, Hispanic, Asian. Decades ago, he labeled defecting, unionized, ethnic Catholic suburban voters as Reagan Democrats because they felt betrayed by their traditional party. He sees the same pattern today as Dems are also losing support from working-class Blacks and Hispanics. Simply put, in the Obama years Democratic leaders stopped seeing the working class and feeling its despair and anger. Yet if Republicans continue winning working-class votes at the rate they did in Virginia [last November], Democrats have little chance.

Libertarian: Canadas Truckers Inspire the Globe

Canadas Freedom Convoy embodies fatigue with pandemic authoritarianism, cheers Reasons J.D. Tuccille. COVID-19 policies eroded liberty and many people want it back. Indeed, the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising crossed the US-Canadian border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same. More importantly, the movement cautions the political class everywhere against pushing people too far, as the Canadian truckers have inspired protests as far afield as Europe and New Zealand. People in country after country want the return of liberal norms and respect for their personal choices. Now, improbably, those protests may be coming together under a maple leaf and a #HonkHonk hashtag.

Conservative: After a No-Mask Super Bowl . . .

The Super Bowl was our unofficial return to normality, cheers National Reviews Michael Brendan Dougherty: SoFi stadium gathered over 70,000 fans for the big game, and they went almost entirely maskless. The idea that football could end a pandemic may seem absurd but cultures never make sense as pure calculations and culture decides whether we are in a state of emergency or not. The 70,000 people maskless in California will further enflame and enrage anti-maskers and add more weight to arguments that children in New York or Illinois are already at less risk . . . than any of the 70,000 adults at the Super Bowl despite being singled out for indoor mask and distancing mandates: These absurdities . . . will not stand more than a few weeks.

Republican: Black Voters Are Fleeing Biden

Black voters are fleeing President Biden in droves. And its hard to see a scenario under which they come back anytime soon, argues The Hills Joe Concha. Notably, less than 7-in-10 Black voters (69 percent) support the 46th president now, though more than 9-in-10 Black voters (92 percent) voted for him in 2020 an almost 25-point drop in a relatively short period of time. Inflation is a big reason, plus the 6.9% black unemployment rate double the white one. And crime continues to hit urban areas the hardest, with 16 cities setting homicide records in 2021. It all adds up to blacks increasingly feeling buyers remorse on Biden.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

See more here:

Team Hillary's criminal hacking and other commentary - New York Post

When the CATO Institute put out their 2021 rankings for Economic and Social Freedom in the 50 States, there was one winner in both categories overallNew Hampshire.

The self-proclaimed Free State took both categories after being overtaken by Florida in 2020. But how did it get there? What led New Hampshire, a state surrounded by Blue States and metropolitan progressives, to become the most free according to a libertarian institute. The answer is very simple: the Free State Project.

Put simply, the Free State Project is a migration movement founded in 2001 by Jason Sorens with the goal of moving 20,000 libertarians into the state of New Hampshire to change the political climate. To date, the project has brought in more than 2,000 self-identified libertarians, and it has already led to great successes in the state. Although comprising only a small number of the legislators (forty or fifty of the 424 total legislators), Free Staters exist in all parties and control enough seats to act as the swing vote. Both parties need to cater to the libertarians and liberty lovers in order to get bills passed. As a result, the project has already had incredible success at implementing libertarian policies.

To give some examples, Free Staters have helped with the passage of constitutional carry, the expansion of school choice, and the decriminalization of recreational Marijuana use. New Hampshire also has widespread cryptocurrency use, no seatbelt laws for individuals over the age of 18, no mandatory car insurance (and subsequently low insurance costs), and a low overall tax burden, having abolished the state income tax, state sales tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax. The culture has also changed to heavily favor homeschooling and an accessible political scene. The state has even entertained a constitutional amendment for secession from the United States.

All these factors and more have led New Hampshire to be an example of what a libertarian state could look like. The Republican Party of New Hampshire has adopted many libertarian policies, and their motto has even become the famous message Taxation is Theft.

Governor Chris Sununu has been a controversial governor in the state for his initial lockdowns, but has redeemed himself at times in his work with Free Staters. Whats more, the Granite State has passed a law that will limit the governors authority in future public health emergencies.

While the rest of the country still fights against an Administration bent on implementing vaccine mandates and other public health measures, New Hampshire has safely left the controversy of COVID-19 behind and pushed for further freedom. Out of every state in the country, New Hampshire was the only state to not accept federal funding related to COVID-19 vaccination efforts. The Granite State has even passed bills that prohibit Governmental vaccine mandates and passports, a win for the bodily autonomy of its citizens.

The Free Staters are not without their opponents, of course. A group known as Granite State Progress has gone so far as to host seminars on the issue of the Free State Project. A Democratic Representative, Cynthia Chase, has stated Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. Endorsements from major libertarians have outnumbered the few Democrats in opposition, however. Former presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul has endorsed the project. Additionally, 2012 & 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has thrown his weight behind the movement. Lew Rockwell, the Chair of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, has also called the state the northern capital of libertarianism.

Enthusiasm has erupted around the Free State Project, which was recently discussed on Tim Pools popular show TimcastIRL. Every year, more libertarians are moving to the state, as the need for freedom and liberty in the era of COVID has become apparent. Liberty is winning in New Hampshire.

Originally posted here:

New Hampshire Is the Freest State in America. Here's Why - Foundation for Economic Education

Here at UR, different political perspectives can be hard to come by. While students may disagree on minor things, a majority of the student population tends to sit on the same side of the political aisle. Thus, the work that David Primo, Professor of Political Science and Business Administration, is doing with the Politics and Markets Project (PMP) is vital to introducing his students and the UR community to contrasting perspectives. Created in 2014, PMP aims to bring diverse perspectives to campus and foster education, research, and debate on the ever-changing nature of business and government.

The project has brought in guest speakers with first-hand experience in areas like corporate strategy or crisis management to speak in some of Primos courses. Primo highlighted that guest speakers allow students to see that you dont necessarily have to go to law school to have an impact on public policy, you dont necessarily have to get an M.B.A. to have an impact on business. This semester, Primo plans to bring three or four speakers, and since their career talks are open to the public, even students outside his classes are able to benefit. These events go beyond topics related to his courses, focusing instead on the guests work and perspectives from their respective fields.

It can be difficult to see how the things we learn in class apply to real life, and Primo recognizes this. The PMPs goal extends to his classrooms, and Primo says that the main way in which the PMP has enhanced my teaching is that the guest speakers I can bring in add a different dimension to the course. Its one thing for me to teach about corporate political strategy, its another thing to hear from somebody who is actively working on it in their jobs.

Take Five student Josh Liao noted that [Primos] homework questions and assignments are very strategy-based. We are asked to come up with strategies for the case studies that he gives the class, and it puts you in a real-world situation and you are asked to think like a potential executive of a company.

Beyond the classroom, PMP also holds expert panels once a semester about major policy issues. Past events have included a discussion on immigration, and last semester, on the future relationship between the private sector and the U.S. government. The panel included a socialist, a libertarian, and people in between. These events strive to break the ideological bubble that college campuses are often in. In founding the PMP, Primo sought to facilitate an actual meaningful exchange of ideas on campus.

The projects next panel event, focusing on the relationship between Big Tech and Big Government, is on April 5 at 7:30 p.m. in the Wegmans Hall auditorium. The panel plans to debate both sides of the question of how much the federal government should be intervening in the operations of companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple. Primo says, it seems tempting to say we should have more regulation of their activities, but the flip side is that the federal government may not necessarily enact regulations that are beneficial. In exploring both sides, major policy issues such as these become open questions and the potential policies regarding them become much more complex.

Being surrounded by relatively like-minded people on campus, our own discussions can end up monochromatic and stagnant. If were ever going to have new, more creative ideas, we have to get out of our political comfort zone, and the PMP provides an opportunity for students to do just that.

Read more here:

Political science professor tackles the relationship between business and politics - Campus Times