Category Archives: Libertarianism

Al DiamonMaines Libertarian Party has been reborn.

If the Libs cant stay alive this time, theyll have no one to blame but themselves.

Thanks to rulings by a federal judge in November and early January, the Libertarians will be able to participate in the 2022 election with a reasonable chance to place candidates on the ballot. Now, it remains to be seen if other minor parties will have the same opportunity.

Third parties havent had an easy time in Maine. The old rules said that to be listed on the ballot, they had to have at least 5,000 registered members a year before a general election. The Libs managed to accomplish that in 2016, when they topped out at over 6,200 admitted Libertarians. But the law said fledgling parties were required to increase their membership to 10,000 before the next election, a level that proved to be beyond the Libs capabilities.

The party, which opposes most government imposition, from the military draft to mask mandates, went to court claiming the election regulations were unconstitutional. That lawsuit is still pending, but while waiting for a resolution, the Secretary of States Office took it upon itself to declare all existing Libertarians were no longer members, rendering them officially unenrolled.

In November, U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker overruled that action, and in January, Walker ordered Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to allow former Libs to rejoin their old party. He said cleansing the membership rolls was a step too far, because it imposed on political expression, political association and equal protection. Walker ordered Bellows to notify all displaced Libs of their options.

The judge also said Libertarians seeking to get on the ballot could collect signatures not only from their own party members, but also from independent voters.

That should be enough to render the Libertarians a real party, just like the Democrats, Republicans and Green Independents. Except for one slight difference. Walkers ruling doesnt expressly grant the other parties the right to gather signatures from unenrolled voters. That leaves the Greens at a significant disadvantage.

The Greens Independents have about 41,000 members or nearly seven times more than the Libs. But its been 16 years since a Green qualified to run for statewide office. Thats because its almost impossible to collect the required 2,000 signatures from party members to make it on the ballot.

In 2020, Green U.S. Senate candidate Lisa Savage was forced to drop her party affiliation and run as an independent because Green voters were too dispersed across the state to make it practical for her to find them and convince them to sign her petition. Even though Savage had to collect more signatures as an independent, 4,000, she had an easier time because any registered voter could sign.

This year the Greens are hoping to run candidates for governor and the 2nd Congressional District seat. Theyre asking the judge to expand his ruling to include them. Theyre also appealing to Bellows to give them the same break the Libs got. Anything less seems unfair and undemocratic. Also, elections are more fun when they include entertaining wackos.

Such a change hardly means the state will soon be overrun by elected officials from fringe parties. In their entire decades-long existence, the Greens have only managed to run a couple dozen legislative candidates and have elected exactly one.

The Libs did briefly manage to equal the Greens legislative success by a different method. In December 2020, GOP state Rep. John Andrews of Paris, one of the most conservative members of the Legislature, switched his party affiliation to Libertarian, making him one of just two Lib legislators in the entire country.

Earlier this month, Andrews rejoined the Republican Party, telling the Bangor Daily News, many of my principles are aligned with them. But Andrews real reason might be that in a district leaning heavily to the GOP, having he word Libertarian after his name wouldnt have enhanced his chances of re-election.

All of which seems to indicate the Libs still have a struggle to stay alive.

I belong to the Keg Party, and were usually too drunk to sign anything. To join, email aldiamon@herniahill.net.

Read more here:
Politics & Other Mistakes: Liberating the Libertarians Daily Bulldog - Daily Bulldog

A very large number of people are unjabbed, even though Britains Covid-19 vaccine roll-out has, in general, been a great success. Of the total UK population, some 78% have had at least one dose slightly above the G7 rich nation average of 77% and thats not counting its genuinely worldbeating booster campaign: 53% of British people have received third doses.

The overall figure would be even higher were it not for the UKs cautious approach to vaccinating under-18s. That said, as of early this week, about 9.7% of the eligible UK population (i.e. the over-12s) have still not had even one dose of the vaccine a total of around 5.6 million people.

Around five million of those are over 18, and have been eligible for a vaccine for many months.

There is certainly a sizeable group in the UK who strenuously oppose Covid vaccination and the attempts to encourage it, for reasons from libertarianism to distrust of modern medicine to conspiracism. They have held large protests in London; in some cases, theyve harassed politicians and teachers, and threatened public health officials. On 29 December, protesters stormed an NHS Test and Trace centre in Milton Keynes and assaulted an emergency worker.

Numerically speaking, however, committed anti-vaxxers are fairly insignificant. Theyre very vocal, and they have a strong presence offline and online, says Dr Mohammad Razai at the Population Health Research Institute, St Georges, University of London. But theyre a very small minority.

Yes, because they spread fear and disinformation to a much larger pool, known by health officials as the vaccine hesitant who dont have a particular political agenda, but for a broad range of reasons are undecided and doubtful.

Research by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has found that the primary factors driving vaccine hesitancy in younger adults includes distrust of vaccines; distrust of the Government and of those encouragingvaccine take-up; and concern about side effects.

More prosaically, many also believe that in their case vaccines are unnecessary, as they are at low risk of harm from the virus. And according to a recent Oxford University study, up to 10% of Covid vaccine hesitancy in the UK can be accounted for by needle phobia.

In Britain according to the most recent ONS survey they belong disproportionately to specific social groups, notably young adults, those of black or black British ethnicity, the unemployed and those living in deprived areas.

Ethnic minorities are significantly more likely to be hesitant, particularly those with low levels of trust in government. Among over-50s, the national rate for booster take-up is 75%; it is 42% in the Pakistani ethnic group; 44% in black Caribbeans; 45% in black Africans.

Yes. In cities, where there are young and transient populations, as well as more diverse demographics, vaccine coverage is markedly lower than in other areas. In Manchester and Liverpool, about one in three over-12s have not had a first dose; in the London boroughs of Newham and Hackney, 38% and 37% have not had a first dose.

That compares to 22% in the more affluent borough of Richmond, and 11% in wealthy and less diverse areas such as Wiltshire and Shropshire.

Theres no doubt that the unvaccinated are making the pandemic considerably worse. The ONS found that the Covid death rate in England among people who had a second jab was 96% lower than in those who were unvaccinated between January and October last year.

At present, the risk of hospitalisation from the Omicron variant is 90% lower for those who have received a booster shot. Conversely, the UK Health Security Agency estimates that unvaccinated adults are around eight times more likely to be admitted to hospital than those who have been jabbed.

The latest figures show that unvaccinated patients accounted for 61% of the patients admitted to critical care with Covid-19 in the UK in December, though they make up only 10% of the population. Obviously these cases add greatly to the pressure on the NHS. Its also clear now that though vaccinated people do contract and spread Covid, unvaccinated people do so at higher rates.

It has largely restricted itself to promoting vaccines through advertising campaigns and, more recently, to public condemnation: last week, Boris Johnson accused anti-vax campaigners of propagating mumbo-jumbo, saying it was time to call them out.

But unlike many other European nations, the UK has no history of making vaccines mandatory; it has shied away from the draconian measures seen abroad. Indeed, such steps as it has tried to take have proved a political minefield for the PM. When a vote was held on introducing Covid passes to enter some venues, the Government suffered a large backbench rebellion.

In November, Austria which had one of western Europes lowest Covid vaccination rates announced a lockdown for the unvaccinated: a stay-at-home order for those with no proof of immunisation, with fines of s500 for those who defied it. Even that was apparently not enough; it is set to become the first EU country to make the jabs obligatory, as of February.

In Germany, the new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is also pushing to make vaccination mandatory, despite resistance from coalition partners. Italy has opted to make it mandatory for anyone over 50. Greece is pondering a similar move. In France, President Macron has vowed to piss off the unvaccinated by making their lives as difficult as possible: by banning them from cafs, restaurants, entertainment venues and long-distance transport.

Many nations, from Canada to Ukraine, require all public sector workers to be vaccinated; in the US, all those employed by companies with more than 100 workers must have vaccines or recent tests.

Singapore is now charging unjabbed patients for Covid treatment, on the grounds that they make up a sizeable majority of those who require intensive in-patient care and disproportionately contribute to the strain on our healthcare resources.

Given the politics of the situation, mandatory vaccination is out of the question. In any case, many British public health experts feel that to make vaccinations compulsory would only serve to provoke a backlash.

The evidence suggests that with the vaccine hesitant, persuasion at a local level works best: many GPs and community leaders have worked tirelessly to win over hard-to-reach social groups. Ensuring that clear information is available in multiple languages also helps, as does providing convenient booking slots, especially to those who arent online.

The good news is that hesitancy has fallen consistently this year, and is likely to fall still further: nothing convinces as effectively as knowing other people whove been jabbed.

Read the original:
What is the impact of those refusing to get vaccinated? - The Week UK

Editors note: Guest editorials may not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper. The following is from Thomas L. Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

One perennial proposal in the ongoing fight (actually more a set of dueling theatrical productions a la professional wrestling) over election integrity is a requirement that voters produce official, government-issued identification documents, complete with photo, at polling places.

Anyone whos ever worked door security at a nightclub (yes, I have) knows that possession of a card with a photo vaguely resembling the person possessing it is no guarantee of identity. And polling places have a built-in advantage over nightclubs: EVERYONE has to be on the guest list to get in.

Having individuals pretend to be voters when they arent doesnt seem to be a real problem, if for no other reason than that its an incredibly labor-intensive way to fraudulently swing an election outcome.

In reality, the photo ID requirement drives seem to be more about making sure that only the right people those who have the time and money to sit around government offices waiting for those very special cards get to vote. There being, probably not coincidentally, a strong correlation between being one of those right people and possessing a skin tone that matches one of the lighter shades on the Pantone Matching System Color Chart.

But it seems to me that theres room for a compromise here a way to take the supposed concern seriously, and do something about it, in return for something that naturally follows from doing so.

Side A of this grand bargain proposal is simple: Give the photo ID to vote advocates what they want. You dont get to vote without showing a government-issued photo ID.

Side B is a little messier: Since photo ID is so important that its impossible to trust the results of an election not requiring it, all past elections not requiring it are deemed null, void, and of no effect. Every political official chosen in an election without photo ID requirements is automatically recalled, and every law passed by those officials or by voters in a non-photo-ID election is rescinded.

Yes, all of them, all the way back.

I have it on good authority that not a single member of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, or any of the legislators or convention delegates ratifying the Constitution, possessed government-issued photo identification documents.

How can we possibly know that the gentlemen purporting to be James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, et al. werent just a gaggle of randos in borrowed wigs and waistcoats who fraudulently passed themselves off as the genuine personages?

If, as its advocates claim, photo ID is necessary to election integrity, we cant trust that any past election was properly conducted or properly decided, and should therefore not consider ourselves bound by those elections results.

Your move, election integrity panic-mongers.

See original here:
Editorial: Photo ID to vote? Well, ok, but - Kingsport Times News

Unshackling India (HarperCollins India), an ambitious new volume on economic reforms by Ajay Chibber and Salman Anees Soz, is remarkably comprehensive in its coverage. It impressively navigates a finely-balanced path between the usual binaries in development discourse: Dirigisme versus libertarianism, state failure versus market failure, growth versus distribution, public enterprise reform versus privatization, and so forth. Also, before getting into the details of reforms in specific factor markets and sectors, the authors lay out what they consider foundationalchanging the role of the state and human development. I entirely agree with them that a dysfunctional state and the snails pace of human development are indeed the two key constraints that have held India back.

In the chapters on government and public enterprises, as in others, the authors first summarize the main findings of a vast body of research on the subject, often along with relevant research on other countries. Based on that, they then present their own detailed reform agenda. The overarching message is simple. The state in India is not too large, relative to the size of the country, but it spreads itself thin in doing too many things. It lacks the capacity to do all these things well, so we end up with poor governance and delivery of essential public services. The first plank of reforming the state is therefore to reduce its scope. Just do the few things a developing-country government must. The second plank is to strengthen state capability to do those things well, whether it be delivery of public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure development, law-and-order and defence, or regulation to protect the environment and ensure that markets remain contestable, or macroeconomic management.

Another key message is decentralization down to the local government, the level at which citizens encounter the state and at which many public services should be delivered. This will require major reform, even constitutional amendments, to empower local governments politically, enable them to mobilize adequate resources and build their capabilities. On the subject of public enterprises, the authors focus on privatization. But they also carefully sequence which enterprises should be privatized when.

The second foundational intervention they propose is rapid human development. Summarizing Indias abysmal record on learning outcomes and the appalling quality of health services, underlined by the collapse of our healthcare system in the second covid wave, the authors emphasize that no country can aspire to be a major global player without a skilful and healthy workforce. And none of that is possible without a sound foundation of basic education and high quality basic healthcare. The real commanding heights of an economy are not steel mills, power plants and heavy industries, as early planning models assumed, but education and healthcare. This theme runs through the book.

The authors then nutshell the literature, draw lessons and present their reform proposals for all factor markets and major sectors. In their tour de horizon, some proposals are inevitably more compelling than others. Let me select a couple which struck me as the most important.

In agriculture, apart from other proposals like replacing product support with more income support, PM-Kisan and MNREGA, and incentivizing crop diversification away from water-guzzlers like rice, wheat and sugarcane, the authors focus on the emergence of farmers producer cooperatives, as shown by Amul in the case of dairy. This is a major institutional development thats gaining traction in several states. Perhaps it is the only way of making agriculture viable when farmland is mainly owned as tiny plots by millions of farmers.

In the case of industry and trade, the authors propose that instead of raising protectionist tariff barriers, which are self-defeating, the government should pursue a light-touch industrial policy,which played a major role in the rise of the East Asian miracle economies, including China. This approach has already helped Indian firms penetrate global markets in sectors like automobiles, auto parts, engineering goods, electronics and pharmaceuticals. Such support could also be extended to defence equipment, green technology, etc, to ride the fourth industrial revolution driven by digitization, artificial intelligence and robotics. In this context, they feel the recently-introduced Production -Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme has great potential.

I could pick many examples. However, there is perhaps an internal inconsistency in the authors approach. Reforms are also interventions requiring state capability and they suggest reform measures for everything from government and privatization to education, health, raising womens labour force participation, social safety nets, labour, land, the financial sector, agriculture, industry and trade, services, climate change, emerging technologies and even disaster management. Yet, their foundational proposal is to reduce the scope of our capacity-constrained state.

In that light, it would be better to focus on a few key reforms, strengthen state capacity to do those reforms well, and leave the rest to the invisible hand of the market.

Sudipto Mundle is chairman, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. These are the authors personal views

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

Link:
Unshackling the Indian economy will be a tall order - Mint

Damien Grant is a regular columnist for Stuff, and a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers Union but not of any political party.

OPINION: We are a content lot. Secure in our Shire as Omicron batters away at our MIQ like orcs raging against the citadel of Minas Tirith. We are remarkably sanguine given what is occurring just over the horizon.

Going about life behind our mighty moat, there is a feeling that we are fine, no matter what happens on the other side of the Misty Mountains.

We need to pay more attention.

READ MORE:* An economic catastrophe is looming* The Reserve Bank is in disarray* Housing rule changes hit retirement plans to help middle-class moaners* The Government's Covid-19 spending will be an economic albatross for decades

There have been enough articles, books and even movies dedicated to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to fill Lake Taup; yet lost in the sheer volume was where it all began. And it began in the back blocks of American suburbia and the unintended consequences of the US federal governments noble desire to expand home ownership to the poor.

STUFF

Investors now own 36 per cent of all Kiwi homes, new research shows.

This process had a long history over multiple administrations, but one of the regulatory effects was to give banks an incentive to make loans to low-income households. It is clear that this played a role in the development of predatory lending practices, such as teaser and no-doc loans.

Many commentators, myself included, believe that these and similar practices contributed to the sub-prime crisis. Others hotly dispute this.

What isnt contested is that by the mid-2000s America was enjoying a house price bubble. From 2004 the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates, which contributed to a fall in house prices and a sharp rise in housing loan defaults. Eventually, a financial house of cards that had been built on institutions who owed these now-toxic loans, fell over.

We know what happened next, but we forget that no one saw the GFC coming. I mean, no one. Not really. It is true there are pundits now pointing to pre-GFC articles predicting some calamity, but there is always some idiot forecasting an economic collapse.

If you dont believe me, just go back and read my last decade of columns. Ive confidently anticipated all sorts of economic disasters that have not occurred. One day I will get something right and will be crowing insufferably about it from that day forth.

My point, which I have taken some time to get to, is that we do not know what will cause the next big thing, because we keep looking back at the last big thing and expecting it to repeat. It rarely does because knowledge works like a vaccine. We see it coming and prepare for it.

We cant stop what we cannot predict.

Because my business and temperament is built around catching the next wave of economic bad news, I am consistently looking for evidence that it is coming, yelling like an exuberant dwarf stumbling over a lost penny when I find it. Predictably I am let down by the failure of the real world to respond appropriately.

As a consequence, I was self-aware enough not to get excited as Evergrande, an incomprehensively massive Chinese developer, fell over this week. Financial journalists appeared even more excited than me as they tapped out breathless stories about the size of the default and the implications for the global economy.

Ng Han Guan/AP

The Evergrande Group headquarters at left is seen near other skyscrapers and construction sites in Shenzhen in southern China's Guangdong province, Friday, Sept. 24, 2021.

I do not think this will amount to anything, because the monetary authorities in Beijing have seen it coming and will have observed how the Americans handled similar defaults. They will probably successfully navigate the financial fallout of Evergrandes demise without their entire economy contracting.

Yet; there is something else occurring in China that isnt being widely reported and, consequently, is more interesting to me. LGFVs, or Local Government Financing Vehicles. Id never heard of this odd financial instrument until I read an article in The Economist during the Christmas break. Now I am seeing them everywhere.

LGFVs became popular in China after the GFC. They are loans raised by Chinese provincial authorities to build infrastructure projects; at least nominally. They are usually off-balance-sheet and secured by the returns from the projects they funded.

According to the South China Morning Post, most of these loans are short-term, while the returns from the projects have proven to be inadequate to cover the debt.

The Economist and others have reported that the scale of these opaque instruments is massive, rising from 16 trillion yuan in 2013 to 53 trillion yuan today. This is equal to half of Chinas GDP.

Local authorities are beginning to default. Assuming that LGFVs constitute a substantial part of a large number of global balance sheets, a systemic China-wide default would have a greater impact on the Chinese economy than the sub-prime loan defaults did in the United States. The sheer scale of the problem could be beyond even Beijings ability to contain.

AP

China's President Xi Jinping.

When we look back at the GFC, it helps to remind ourselves that even though this economic collapse happened on the other side of the Pacific, the contagion spread to our shores. Today our trade with China is considerably more important than our commercial relationship with our American friends. Our exports to the Middle Kingdom are worth around $20 billion annually.

If that market falls over we will lose not just a substantial export market but expect to see a massive repatriation of capital as Chinese investors pull cash out of New Zealand. Readers would be surprised by the extent of Chinese capital propping up large sectors of our economy, especially in construction.

Of course, none of this might happen. Or it could happen tomorrow. What should concern us, sitting smugly behind our quarantined moat, is that we are plugged into a deeply uncertain global economy with risks and potholes that we neither know about nor would really understand if they were explained to us.

Like Frodo and his band of merry halflings we are wandering blissfully into a dangerous environment not really comprehending the risks that abound, and ill-equipped for the challenges certain to be tossed our way. Let us hope that our pluck and charm will serve us as well as it did Tolkiens little creations.

View original post here:
We Kiwis are a content lot, but trouble looms over the horizon - Stuff.co.nz

January 14, 2022

January 14, 2022

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced it would create a new internal unit to focus on domestic terrorism. Citing ethnically and politically motivated killings in El Paso, Pittsburgh, Charleston, and two attacks against Congress Jan. 6 last year and the shooting at a Republican practice session for the annual congressional baseball game in 2017 Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that countering violent domestic extremists is among DOJ's "highest priorities." The new unit will work closely with the Civil Rights Division,Olsen added, likely to allay civil libertarian fears of government overreach.

Certainly, given the troubling episodes of violence meant to harm or intimidate political opponents and national organizations implicated in those events, a coordinated federal response seems appropriate. Indeed, federal law enforcement is most justifiable when state and local agencies are unable or, in the worst cases, unwilling to effectively protect civil rights and liberties of individuals in their jurisdictions. The federal government is often the organization best positioned to find and prosecute political actors whorepeatedly participate in violent incidents in different jurisdictions across the country.

However, political and ideological views and the right to disseminate and organize around those views no matter how noxious are protected by the Constitution up to the point those actions spur violence or other crimes. Even with the best intentions and staffed with attorneys of the highest integrity from the outset, a domestic terrorism team will be inherentlysusceptible to shifting politics and mission creep that could impermissibly target protected First Amendment activity and violate the due process rights of law-abiding Americans.

This is hardly a baseless worry.Recent history is replete with examples of federal abuses of power that violated the civil liberties of Americans in the name of anti-terrorism.

Most notoriously, the Church Committee investigation revealed how the FBI, CIA, and NSA repeatedly and illegally spied on and undermined protected First Amendment activities as part of the COINTELPRO operation from the 1950s through the early 1970s. Closer to the present day, fear of terrorism led to surveillance of Muslim communities in the United States before 9/11, and famously increased thereafter, including warrantless wiretaps of telephone calls and surveillance of politically active Muslim Americans. Other investigations have led to specious charges against less-than-competent individuals for conspiracies mostly or wholly concocted by law enforcement agents or informants.

Since at least the early 2000s, progressives and civil libertarians repeatedly warned about potential and subsequently confirmed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in 1978 as a check on executive authority to spy on Americans, the act and the FISA court (or FISC) it created eventually enabled the very behavior they were meant to prevent.

Following 9/11, FISC approved hundreds of requests that resulted, inter alia, in the phone record data collection of millions of Americans with no conceivable tie to terrorism or espionage. Although the post-9/11 abuses started during the George W. Bush administration, and reforms were initially resisted by Republicans, FBI agents later misrepresented evidence to FISC to investigate Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor, prompting outrage and calls for reform from conservatives.

Presumably, few domestic terror investigations would fall under the purview of FISC and its typically secret proceedings, but the evolution of FISA from a bulwark against government snooping into a conduit for mass data collection is instructive in three key respects.

First, well-intended legislation is not enough to protect American civil liberties. Procedures to implement a law may naturally evolve into patterns and norms that hinder oversight and prevent accountability, especially in institutions not regularly subject to public scrutiny.

Second, particularly within a law enforcement context, any investigating agency will necessarily try to gather as much information as it can, even to the point of taking in more data than it can reasonably handle. This is not because law enforcement is inherently bad; rather, the essence of investigation is the collection of information, and thus it is unreasonable to expect those agencies to strictly limit a core function of their own accord.

Third, bureaucratic institutions are never fully insulated from partisan pressures or interference. Politics will always play some role in how a government institution is run and what protections it receives from the elected branches of government. This doesn't mean that every new president or attorney general will target specific groups or shield others, but political appointments and publicly stated enforcement priorities will invariably influence who ultimately faces investigatory scrutiny.

Thorough internal reporting, continual congressional oversight, and public legal challenges to asserted government authority are essential to reining in potential due process abuses in any federal enforcement agency. Current practices provide ample reason to be on alert for future abuses.

Last year, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Eddington wrote in the Orange County Register that the FBI had opened up an "assessment" of the Concerned Women for America (CWA), a conservative non-profit advocacy organization. An assessment is a type of FBI investigation, created by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008, that requires no direct evidence of criminal activity to begin. According to internal documents Eddington obtained, the Obama-era FBI opened the assessment on CWA in 2016 after the organization received a two-star rating from Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog that rates organizations' use of funds on a five-star scale.

The agency was ostensibly investigatingthe "possibility of fraudulent activity," but, put simply, assessments are a way for the FBI to go looking for crimes they have no legally justifiable reason to suspect. This is a blatant violation of basic principles of due process, yet a 2011 New York Times report showed the FBI initiated more than 80,000 assessments in a two-year period, most of which amounted to nothing as did the CWA assessment.

But just because the government ultimatelydrops a groundless investigation does not mean no harm has been done by their snooping. News of federal investigations can be ruinous to personal reputations, even if the targets are ultimately exonerated. Moreover, if criminal investigations become commonplace against political actors, they can have a chilling effect that dissuades Americans from exercising our constitutional rights.

Crucially, all of the above instances happened without a dedicated domestic terror unit at DOJ. Adding a new unit will increase the likelihood of similar abuses.

The creation of any law enforcement entity with an open-ended mission invariably provides incentive to fulfill that mission, whether or not it is the best use of resources at any given time. Just as gang, drug, and gun task forces in local police departments can always find something to do, the potential for domestic terrorism will never fully go away. So even if the risk of domestic terror declines, any lawyer in that unit will havea built-in incentive to find new terrorists. So long as the DOJ and FBI have the investigative authority to look at political groups for no particular reason, the risk for abuse is so great it can be treated as inevitable.

Ethnic and political violence cannot be tolerated in a free society, and the government has an obligation to protect Americans from such intimidation. However, the government must not violate our political rights in the name of their protection.And while it is too early to pass judgment on the initial actions of the new domestic terrorism unit, history and experience teach us to be wary of its power going forward, no matter how well-intended it is or which political party is controlling the office.

Read this article:
The dangerous incentive in a new domestic terror unit - The Week Magazine

A 40-year-old from Buenos Aires City was the lucky winner of the raffle for libertarian deputy Javier Mileis first monthly paycheque this week and while the lawmaker was happy to follow through on his campaign promise, he probably isnt as pleased with the result.

The winner reportedly registered at the last minute on Tuesday night, competing with almost one million participants competing for the sum of 205,596 pesos (around US$1,000).

"The winner is called Federico Hugo Nacarado, 40, who registered last night at 9.10pm," Milei confirmed on Wednesday.

However, the ideology of porteo Nacarado is far removed from the liberal economist since he considers himself to be a fanatical Kirchnerite.

"I love Cristina[Fernndez deKirchner]," maintainsNacarado, who works in the construction sector. He said his wife entered him into the raffle "because you have to if there is a contest going.

Mileis parliamentary salary will be raffled the same way every month, Libertad Avanza sources informed, open via https://mipalabra.javiermilei.com to all Argentine-born citizens aged over 18.

How are you doing, Javier? Thanks a lot, the money will come in handy, Nacarado told the deputy in a brief dialogue maintained via Todo Noticias television news channel, telling him that much of it will go to pay off bank overdrafts.

"At least he made a good start because he kept a promise, he commented on Milei and his recent incursion into politics.

"At home we are super K, the winner later told La Nacin, naming his three favourite Argentine politicians as first, Cristina Kirchner, then (Buenos Aires Province Governor) Axel Kicillof and third,Mximo Kirchner."

As for the ultra-liberal and anti-system economist Milei, 51, his comment was: "That money is mine, I can spend it like any other deputy or burn it in public or seek a form whereby that money stolen from the people returns to the people."

Just 25 years after swearing in on December 10, the deputy raffled his December salary of 200,000 pesos in a street overlooking a Mar del Plata beach at the height of the holiday season, transmitted directly by television news channels. The name of the winner emerged ahead of the presence of Milei himself.

The libertarian sprang from the academic world and political consultancy when he created his La Libertad Avanza party in 2020 which rubbishes what he calls the "political caste" and considers the state "the enemy, a violent oppressor who robs us of the fruit of our labours," in his words.

In the November 14 midterms, Mileis party finished third in the City of Buenos Aires with 17.3 percent of the vote, winning two seats in the Chamber of Deputies although not represented in the rest of the country.

The initiative was criticised by many of his fellow-deputies while the Agencia de Acceso a la Informacin Pblica, an autonomous government entity, began an investigation to corroborate that it complies with personal data protection legislation, given the possibility that the real aim of the raffle was to assemble a data base of possible voters.

"What does Milei live from, how does he pay his bills?" asked deputy Sabrina Ajmechet, of the centre-right opposition Juntos por el Cambio coalition, warning that if legislators do not collect their salaries, "only the wealthy could enter politics."

"I pick up money for my work, as outlined by Article 74 of the Constitution," said his ally Jos Luis Espert, another ultra-liberal economist, differentiating himself from Milei, who argued that he renounced his earnings from private activity before swearing in as a deputy on December 10 and that he will live in future from economics lectures.

TIMES/AFP/PERFIL

Read more:
Milei raffles off monthly pay and the cash is won by a Kirchnerite - Buenos Aires Times

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

View original post here:
Election season 2022, a look at the ballot | Local News | waxahachiesun.com - Waxahachie Sun

WASHINGTON, DC Gov. Chris Sununu laid out some of the work he says the state needs to continue to do to be the best place to live and work in the nation in an interview at the Cato Institute Thursday.

The libertarian think tank in Washington ranked New Hampshire Number One among the states for fiscal, regulatory, and personal policy in 2021. But it has recommendations for improvement.

Entering his fifth year as the state's chief executive, after recently announcing he plans to run for a fourth term rather than for the U.S. Senate, Sununu, a Republican, said his agenda going forward is to work on existing issues like the COVID-19 pandemic, reduce overdose deaths, increase school choice, pass right-to-work legislation, agree to his version of paid family leave which is "not an income tax" and try to tackle the lack of available housing as the state grows in popularity and prosperity.

While COVID-19 "is still very much with us," and on his front burner, Sununu said he would resist government mandates over the choice of businesses and hospitals to decide whether mandatory vaccinations among employees and mask-wearing among visitors and patrons was necessary.

In much the way he said local control has been the hallmark of the state's success, he said individual choice over government mandates always work out better saying those approaches are eventually "doomed to fail."

He criticized teachers' unions in general saying they are "out for themselves."

"I try not to be a union basher," Sununu said but he called their approach a "failing model."

Sununu said he embraces school choice now and going forward particularly for low-income families who find that their public school is not working for them, and he noted the popular voucher approach the state has taken for that demographic.InDepthNH.org reached out to both the NEA-NH and the New Hampshire Democratic Party for a response to the interview that was livestreamed but did not immediately receive a response from NEA-NH.

NHDP Chair Ray Buckley said: "Instead of attacking New Hampshire teachers and pushing a costly school voucher program that will gut public education, Chris Sununu ought to be doing his job and working to fund public education for all students in New Hampshire."

"Chris Sununu and the NH GOP need to end their obsessive culture war on U.S. history that's hurting Granite State children, and let teachers teach," said Buckley.

Sununu traveled to Washington D.C. for the policy conversation with William Ruger, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, and Jason Sorens, an adjunct scholar there, and the director of the Center for Ethics in Society at Saint Anselm College.

The conversation was virtual and was watched by many with three questions taken at the end of the hour from the public in a chatbox.

Both Ruger and Sorens are authors of Freedom in the 50 States, its sixth edition which is an index of personal and economic freedom in America by states during 2021.

In 2020, Florida was ranked the number one state on the basis of how their policies promote freedom in the fiscal, regulatory and personal realms but in 2021, New Hampshire returned to the number one position with Florida second, Nevada third, Tennessee fourth, and South Dakota fifth.

The 50th or the worst-ranked state according to the Cato index was New York while neighboring states Massachusetts ranked 30th, Vermont 43rd, and Maine 43th.

Sununu said the top five states on the list produced by the report are where "people flock to."

The report indicates that due to the pro-freedom direction of New Hampshire and its legislative policies it is likely to be harder for other states to "regain the crown" next year.

New Hampshire's 400-member House of Representatives, considered by Sununu to be the most representative in the nation, flipped from Democratic to Republican control a year ago with more than 100 endorsed Freedom Caucus candidates being elected. They are all up for re-election this year.

Sununu called it an honor to be considered the number one state for freedom and said "who you elect matters."Sununu said he was fearful that the next generation is shying away from politics because it has become so divisive and personal but he urged those in states which don't have the freedoms that New Hampshire enjoys to run for office or get civically engaged as the best way to make a difference and see change.

"Stay positive," he said. "You need hope."He gave an example of success in that regard as the town of Walpole which built affordable housing which looks like a barn and in character with the community.

He said the state needs to engage the business community and entice and empower them to be part of the housing solution as a way to fight against the "NIMBY" or not in my backyard philosophy obstructing housing development.

He also pointed to his efforts to reduce taxes as part of the reason the state is doing so well noting that he reminds his father John, a former governor, that he was not able to do what he has done.

The report had some concerns for New Hampshire from its freedom-loving perspective.

It said New Hampshire's regulatory outlook is not so sunny and noted: "the granite state's primary sin is exclusionary zoning."

It recommended that the state needs to legalize gambling, pass a right-to-work law and that local governments need to get a handle on school spending and taxation.

Sununu was asked by a caller about legalizing marijuana and said the state has decriminalized it under his watch and he would be receptive to bills that would handle it in the right way, but he worried about the state's drug problems and does not want to exacerbate or diminish advances to turn that crisis around.

Sununu said the bottom line for freedom in New Hampshire is that local control means individuals have more of a say. That brings with it an inherent sense of freedom from government and the ability to engage at a micro level to come to a consensus and see meaningful change and feel that individual voices are heard, which is not a top-down government at all but by the people and for the people, he said.

A copy of the CATO report can be found here.https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

This story was originally published by InDepth NH.

Continue reading here:
Sununu Goes To Washington To Talk To Cato Institute About New Hampshire - Patch.com

Novak Djokovic's father called the Serbian tennis star the "Spartacus of the new world" in a bizarre rant in which he also described him as a symbol for the poor and oppressed.

Speaking in the hours after his son was turned away by Australia's Border Force as he tried to enter the country for the Australian Open, Srdjan Djokovic launched a tirade in which he also said that Novak is a "leader of the libertarian world."

Djokovic had previously been granted a medical exemption from having a COVID-19 vaccine by the Australian Open, however an issue at the border saw him held for several hours, before being moved to a quarantine facility ahead of deportation.

As of Thursday, the 34-year-old is being kept at a hotel in Melbourne while his legal team fights his ordered deportation.

"Novak has become the symbol and a leader of the libertarian world, a world of poor and oppressed nations and people," Srdjan Djokovic told Russian media on Wednesday, according to The Guardian.

"They can incarcerate him tonight, shackle him tomorrow, but truth is like water, as it always finds its way. Novak is the Spartacus of the new world that doesn't tolerate injustice, colonialism and hypocrisy."

Spartacus was a Thracian gladiator who led a slave rebellion against the Roman Republic and has since served as a symbol for those revolting against oppressive rule.

"Novak has shown you can achieve anything if you have dreams, and he shares these dreams with billions of people who look up to him," added Srdjan.

On Wednesday, Srdjan Djokovic also claimed that his son was being held "captive" at Melbourne airport, and threatened to take to the streets in protest.

"If they don't let him go in half an hour, we will gather on the street this is a fight for everyone," he said.

Srdjan Djokovic isn't the only person to speak out against his son's denied entry to Australia. The star's former mentor Niki Pilic described the situation to Reuters on Thursday as a "disgrace."

"Politics have interfered with sports here as it so often does," said Pilic.

"The Australian Prime Minister is trying to please a part of the country's society and improve his poor political rating by saying 'Djokovic can't compete because I said that unvaccinated athletes will be banned from competing'.

"In my opinion it's politically motivated. To deny entry to the winner of nine Australian Open titles because of wrong paperwork, if the visa application was erroneous, is farcical."

Ossian Shine, Global Sports Editor for Reuters, tweeted on Wednesday to say that the visa Djokovic was using to enter Australia was the "same one" successfully used by "three other tennis players."

According to the Daily Express, however, errors in the supporting documents provided by the Serbian's team are believed to have resulted in his entry to the country being denied.

Srdjan Djokovic is a longstanding and outspoken advocate for his son. In the weeks leading up to the tournament he accused organizers of attempting to "blackmail" Novak into getting a COVID vaccine.

"Whether he will appear there depends on them how they will position themselves. He would want it with all his heart because he's an athlete, and we would love that too," Djokovic senior said when asked if his son would be at the 2022 tournament.

"Under these blackmails and conditions, he probably won't. I wouldn't do that. And he's my son, so you decide for yourself."

Excerpt from:
Novak Djokovic's dad called him 'Spartacus' and a 'leader of the libertarian world' in a bizarre rant about hi - Business Insider India