Compulsion

Some parents of disabled students are suing Governor Desantis of Florida. Why? They claim that the state’s lack of a mask mandate is discrimination because the other children not wearing masks makes school unsafe, and is thus a violation of the ADA.

“He likes to be with his friends, he likes to be integrated into the school environment,” said attorney Matthew Dietz. “He shouldn’t have to be in a trailer isolated just because he has a disability.”

So instead, all of the other children in the entire state should be forced to wear masks? Yep, that is exactly what they want.

So Will’s parents and those of 14 other disabled students on Friday sued DeSantis, the state Department of Education and school boards, seeking an injunction to prevent the state from discriminating against the disabled students by denying them a safe environment.

Note that no one is saying that children CAN’T wear masks at school. The governor is saying that the child and their parents retain the choice of whether or not to wear a mask. That isn’t good enough for the left. People can do things without being compelled to do so. What is it with liberals? They think that the only way people do anything is for the government to require it, under threat of force. No wonder they hate cops. Every progressive idea ends with police, jails, and gulags.

I disagree with the premise of this lawsuit. I am not sure that the ADA can be used to compel behavior or acts from people uninvolved in the education of the special needs child. Yes, an IEP can be used to compel acts from the school or teachers, but I think it is stretching the boundaries of the ADA to require other students take acts to assist the student.

For example, putting a clause in the IEP requiring that other students push an ESE student’s wheel chair from class to class would not be appropriate.

Fundamental Change

A news story this week is another indication that a fundamental change in American politics is taking place. If you can read between the lines, you can see that there has definitely been a change in the DC climate.

The Biden administration defended the unconstitutional eviction moratorium in court. What they had to say about landlords is a glimpse into how the administration views small business owners.

Any injury to Plaintiffs caused by a temporary administrative stay is outweighed by the risk of illness and mortality

DOJ attorney

Pro socialist lobbyists said that “realtors, home builders and apartment associations wasted millions of dollars and goodwill in a public fight to allow landlords to evict struggling tenants during a historic and deadly global pandemic.”

This fits with Socialist dogma, which blames business owners for taking advantage of the poor, either by underpaying workers, or overcharging them for rent and loan interest rates, so this statement isn’t surprising. What IS surprising is what this says about the effect of lobbying.

The lobbyists for the landlords were incensed. The National Association of Realtors was frozen out of the offices of those who they have, until recently, counted on. The association gives out more than $30 million a year in contributions, making them one of the largest lobbying groups in the DC scene. The Realtors’ PAC contributed nearly $2 million to House Democratic candidates in the 2020 election cycle, including $10,000 apiece to Waters and Pelosi. Yet none of that mattered in this case.

For decades, lobbyists were used to the status quo, where they handed out millions in bribes campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. So what has changed?

Why would Democrats suddenly not need the money of one of the largest lobbying groups in the nation? It could be argued that there are so many delinquent tenants that the politicians need their votes more than they need lobbying cash. I don’t buy this one. The Democrats, and especially Joe Biden, had already sold the story of the Supreme Court declaring it to be unconstitutional.

Your guess is as good as mine. There is some reason out there for why the Democrats are infuriating a large source of campaign cash. Even if elections don’t matter, money does. What has them so worried? This one leaves me with more questions than it does answers.

Free versus controlled

A free market economy is one where the market itself decides what is bought and sold. There is no control whatsoever- the people who comprise the market are the ones who make the decisions. Each seller and each buyer are free to chose, and this means that it is possible for each person to succeed or fail based upon the results of this decision.

By distributing the decisions, the power, and the wealth amongst all of the people in the economy, freedoms are maximized. A pure market economy means however, that people will fail because of poor decisions. The enemies of a free market will point to these failures as examples of the general failures of the market economy itself.

The problem with Socialism and Communism is this: they are centrally planned economies where legislators decide what is bought and sold, as well as who does the buying and selling. At its most extreme, the entire population falls under central control. That is the point of a centrally controlled economy: control.

The problem with a controlled economy is not just about the control and the lack of freedom that results. Those who are in charge of a centrally planned economy inevitably use that power and control to route more power, money, and control to their own personal benefit.

The problem is that people will find ways to circumvent that control, and there will always be some sort of free market present. Even in the old Soviet Union, there was a robust black market. To sell on the black market was to sell “on the left” or “nalyevo.” These black marketeers were by definition criminals under Soviet rule, becoming quite rich in the process. The fall of the Soviet government removed what little constraints were placed upon them, and these black market free marketeers became powerful criminal syndicates. They are the ones who are now raping the computer systems of American companies through ransomware.

Of course the US has become more and more of a controlled economy as time has gone on, and this process has been accelerating ever since the Civil War. Antebellum, the Union was exactly that- a union of states, each of which maintaining its identity. People in the Union would, when asked where they were from, would reply, “I am a Virginian,” or perhaps “I am a Pennsylvanian.” The war changed all of that. Once the war was over, the states lost most of their power and a new, powerful Federal government took its place. People began to say “I am an American.”

The robber barons of the railroad industry demanded that the newly powerful Federal government step in and protect them from States’ attempts to restrain their powers and profits. So in 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was established, becoming the first Federal agency to control economic activity. The US began taking steps towards central control of the economy. The old saying goes, “When legislation decides what is to be bought and sold, the first thing that is bought and sold are the legislators.”

As interstate and international businesses became more and more wealthy, they became more powerful. (The golden rule of history is that the ones with the gold make the rules.) A never ending stream of government regulations is passed at the behest of the people and businesses that have the money and power, and this is used to rig the game. People don’t control their businesses, the government does.

The irony here is that the game being rigged is then pointed to by Socialists as the reason why the economy needs more regulation, more control, and less of a free market. This is how suckers push for Socialism.

That’s where we are. People are dissatisfied that they are being kept from success. Some because they are lazy and want success handed to them. Others because they see regulation and larger competitors are set against them. So one group pushes for more power to be granted to the very people who caused the problem in the first place, because they have been promised handouts that are impossible to deliver.

The two groups cannot be reconciled. At its heart, our current problems began in the 1860s. Many people falsely believe that the Civil War was about slavery. That is hogwash. Slavery was about the northern businesses, mostly centered around manufacturing and based in large cities, attempting to control the businesses in the south, centered around agriculture and smaller cities.

Less than fifty years after the war ended, the government got all of the power it needed when it was granted the power to tax income.

It’s hard to pinpoint when the nation that was envisioned by the founders died. Perhaps it was in 1860, or even 1865. Perhaps it was in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment that authorized an income tax. Perhaps it was later that year, with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which eliminated the states from having a voice in the National government.

I sometimes wonder where historians of the future will decide to place the death of the union. Maybe they won’t remember it at all, perhaps our nation will just be a footnote or a single paragraph in some history books 250 years from now, and even then only to mention our greatest achievement, landing a man on the moon. I won’t be here to see it, and neither will this nation.

The mark

People are all upset that they can’t tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, so they are broadcasting their vaccine status by having it tattooed on their arms. There is even a high school in New Hampshire that was writing vaccine confirmation in permanent marker on students’ hands.

But can’t those be faked? So a pair of Russian entrepreneurs has come up with QR code tattoos that can be used to identify your vaccine status. There is even talk of invisible tattoos to mark those who have been vaccinated.

Technology is offering an answer. IBM is using cell phone based digital wallets and block chains to verify vaccine status.

Bill Gates is proposing that our medical records and vaccine status be imbedded in our bodies.

Proving that today’s satire is tomorrow’s fact, the Babylon Bee is right on the spot with this. For Convenience, Vaccine Passport Can Now Be Tattooed On Your Hand Or Forehead

It started as mocking and satire.

Now it is moving towards reality.

Does this apply to laptops?

Apple announced that it will begin scanner user’s phones for child porn and reporting results to the police. My first thought is to wonder if this will also apply to laptops that have been dropped off for repair. Then I realized that, should Apple scan a Clinton laptop, the company will commit suicide the next day, and the security cameras will be broken.

Seriously, this begins with “protecting the children” as all such things do. It shortly progresses to scanning phones for disloyalty to the government. We are on the verge of seeing the most restrictive police state ever devised.

Great reset, indeed.

Market Forces

In a comment to my post on subscription products, an Anonymous user had this to say:

The marketplace is a feedback mechanism to discover what buyers want. The feedback vendors are getting is that products with remote controls leased on a subscription are acceptable, because buyers keep accepting them. This is not a “market failure”, and we don’t need communism to force other people to give us what we want.

No policeman would stop you if you made and sold an aftermarket engine computer for a tractor. Farmers can buy a $300,000 350 HP 8-wheel-drive tractor, but all farmers nationwide can’t chip in $500 each to hire a techie to car-customize it? Why do you trust farmers to vote?

To tackle the first paragraph: The problem is that this isn’t a free market. In a free market, companies that are poorly run go out of business. This means that businesses in a free market have a disincentive to make poor decisions. In this market, they get a bailout, pay huge bonuses to the executives that made the poor decision, and continue business as usual.

Businesses getting bailed out has become a huge part of what the government does. Just in the last 20 years, the following bailouts have happened:
GM and Fiat Chrysler received multiple bailouts for a total of $85.6 Billion, Amtrak: $1 billion, Adidas $3.3 Billion, US air carriers have received $26.6 Billion, Bear Stearns $25 Billion, Citigroup $45 Billion, Bank of America $45 Billion, AIG received $180 Billion, Fannie Mae $116 Billion, Freddie Mac $71 Billion, the list goes on. Over the past 20 years, bailouts have totaled over $1 trillion.

Addressing your second paragraph: The reason that farmers can’t just modify a truck or tractor to circumvent that software is simple: Federal Law prohibits it. It is a felony under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to modify the software of a product that has some of its capabilities controlled or restricted by software. So those subscription based devices, vehicles, and tools? They have the full protection of the might of the US government.

That isn’t a free market.

Collective rights

Some Stanford professor who claims to be an expert in our nation’s founding documents has published his thoughts on the founders and their concept of individual rights.

The claim here is that when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, they did not intend it to mean individual equality. Rather, what they declared was that American colonists, as a people, had the same rights to self-government as other nations.

Bullshit. This is easily disproven by the words of the Declaration itself. Look at the sentence that they are referring to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If Thomas Jefferson were talking about the collective rights of the colonists to self government, then why would he refer to their creator?

If this asshat knew anything about our founders at all, he would know that the founders relied heavily upon the philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.

First there was Thomas Hobbes, who had some ideas about humans and the need for government:

  • The natural state of mankind (the “state of nature”) is a state of war of one man against another, as man is selfish and brutish.
  • The way out of the “state of nature” is a “social contract,” to be agreed upon by the people to be governed and the government.
  • The ideal form that government should take is an absolute monarchy that has maximum authority, subverting mankind’s natural state and creating societal order in the process 

Johnn Locke took the ideas of Hobbes and came up with some ideas of his own. Locke’s Second Treatise is centered around three ideas.

  • What characteristics of the state exemplify its legitimacy?
  • What is the role of the state?
  • What is the citizen’s role in the state?

Locke was greatly concerned with the preservation of natural born rights and the protection of accumulated wealth in the form of property. He stressed that the role of the state is to protect each individual from the will and desires of others.

For Locke, the overthrow of King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 showed how governments and people should behave. He developed a philosophy that emphasized three points:

  • The natural condition of mankind is a “state of nature” characterized by human freedom and equality. Locke’s “law of nature”—the obligation that created beings have to obey their creator—constitutes the foundation of the “state of nature.” However, because some people violate this law, governments are needed.
  • People voluntarily give government some of their power through a “social contract” in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. 
  • If a government fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens or if it breaks the social contract, the people are entitled to rebel against the government and create a new one.

It was this basic foundation upon which the founders, especially Jefferson, intended to build a nation. The idea was that the sovereign was to be distributed amongst the people themselves. By distributing the power of the sovereign, it would be more difficult for any one person or coalition to abuse that power.

If this asshat academic from Stanford had any knowledge of Lock, classic liberalism, or Hobbes, he would know that. My guess is that he DOES know it, but is a collectivist who wants to take away individual rights and sees his bully pulpit as a way to do that. The only logical conclusion that I can draw is that this so called scholar is a liar and a fraud.

Let’s do a bit of research to see if I am correct. The scholar in question is a man named Jack Rakove. First: the man is no longer a faculty member of Stanford.

Second, to understand him, all you have to do is refer to this interview:

Eugene Volokh: First of all, it would have been so easy for the framers to say the right of the states to keep and bear arms, or the right of the militia. They didn’t. They said the right of the people. Again, right of the people appears in the First Amendment.

Jack Rakove: But they–they–they could as eas–easily have said the right of individuals.

Like I said- collectivist. If you read what he wrote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects, the right of the people to peaceably assemble are all collective rather than individual rights. That is, as long as some individuals have the ability to assemble, to bear arms, or to be secure in their persons and effects, that is just fine and dandy.

This guy is the kind of “scholarly expert” who will be explaining to us how the government can lock us in our homes, because as long as some of the “people” are permitted to attend birthday parties in Martha’s Vineyard, we are all free and the government is perfectly legitimate.

It will soon be time to test the limits of exactly why the Second Amendment is there, and why the people have the ability to alter or abolish the forms to which they have grown accustomed.

Subscriptions

In a move to prevent theft, Home Depot is going to start selling power tools that must be electronically activated before leaving the store, or else they won’t work.

I don’t like this at all. How long will it be before companies follow Tesla’s example and begin selling tools as a subscription service, where you must pay a monthly fee in order to use power tools?

Remember the great reset? In 2030, you’ll own nothing and be happy about it

SCOTUS

Joe Biden knows that the eviction moratorium is unconstitutional. He doesn’t care. In the words of the Washington Post: “Maybe it’s illegal, but it’s worth it”

Now this places the Supreme Court in a real bind. Since 1803, SCOTUS has held that any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is void. In practice, things are a bit different. This decision by the President creates a Constitutional crisis. What the President has done here is throw down the proverbial gauntlet. The court now must do one of two things: rule that the President’s actions are unconstitutional and attempt to enforce their decision, or they must ignore the moratorium and allow it to stand. In either case, the credibility of the court is now destroyed.

The Supreme Court is so worried that they will either be ignored, or that the Democrats will pack the court, that they are doing nothing that would upset the apple cart. The decisions on Obamacare, the election, and many other divisive issues are perfect examples. The court itself is no longer effective.

My prediction is that the court will find a way to dodge the question. They are deeply afraid of the answer to two key questions: What happens if the government ignores their decisions? Are they still relevant?

This has long term implications for the Second Amendment, and indeed for the very future of this nation. Things will begin falling apart more rapidly as the weeks go on.