Below is my column in the Hill on the latest controversy over President Joe Biden’s unilateral use of executive power. Despite an impressive list of court losses, Biden is now asserting such authority as the basis for the single largest debt forgiveness in history.
Here is the column:
In 1987, President Reagan reached a milestone in sending to Congress the first trillion-dollar budget. The size of it caused intense debate in Congress over the debt load, but an eventual “consensus” budget was reached.
What is shocking today is not simply the size of the more than $4 trillion federal budget but that President Biden just wiped out what is estimated to be $1 trillion owed to the country — the size of the Reagan budget — without a single vote, let alone approval, by Congress.
The idea of a president giving away such a fortune with the stroke of a pen should alarm every American. Not only will the massive payout likely fuel inflation but critics have objected to having working-class people subsidize the debts of college-educated citizens. Others object that it is unfair to those who sacrificed to pay off their loans or those of their children. When one such father asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) whether he would get a refund after struggling to pay off his daughter’s college education, Warren dismissed him with an “of course not.“
Some Democrats in Congress have joined Republicans in condemning the plan.
Biden knew he could never get Congress to agree to such a massive write-off, so he did not try. Instead, he acted unilaterally, and Democrats like Warren expressed euphoria, although Warren wanted five times more debt forgiveness. The former law professor saw little problem with a president giving away hundreds of billions of dollars.
As was the case under President Obama when he circumvented Congress, Warren and others are celebrating their own constitutional obsolescence.
This is not supposed to happen in a constitutional system based on shared, limited powers: The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, but Biden just gave away the store. James Madison described the essence of our system of separation of powers in Federalist 51 as premised on the belief that “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” No branch is supposed to have enough power to govern alone. Biden just did, however.
The legal basis for this action is superficial and strikingly cynical. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) previously stated that Biden could not unilaterally forgive such debt and would need a vote by Congress.
President Biden is using a law designed to help service members and their families deal with debt accrued in fighting for this country. The terms of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 allows the secretary of education “to waive or modify … financial assistance program requirements … affected by a war, other military operation, or national emergency.” Biden had promised to wipe out tuition debt in the campaign and simply hijacked the Act for that unintended purpose. Putting that aside, the Act ties such relief to an inability to cover such costs due to the war or emergency. The Biden plan would use the law to benefit individuals without such a showing, including many of the 40 million beneficiaries who are relatively wealthy and could pay off the loans.
The Office of Legal Counsel, considered the ultimate authority on legal interpretations in the Executive Branch, looked at this issue during the Trump administration. Its memo concluded that “the Secretary does not have statutory authority to provide blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge, or forgiveness of student loan principal balances, and/or to materially modify the repayment amounts or terms thereof, whether due to the COVID-19 pandemic or for any other reason.”
The Biden Office of Legal Counsel issued a new opinion concluding the opposite, due to the ongoing pandemic — a curious argument, since the Biden administration was just in court arguing that the pandemic was effectively over, in order to allow undocumented individuals to enter the country. Citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the administration sought to stop the enforcement of Title 42, which allowed the government to turn away migrants at the border.
While the administration might find support from a lower-court judge, its argument likely will receive a chilly response from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that President Biden has violated the Constitution and overreached in his use of unilateral executive authority. Biden has, arguably, the worst record of court losses in the first two years of any recent presidential administration. This year, the Supreme Court blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccination mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees. That followed statements by Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, that the administration had found a “workaround” of the Constitution in such executive orders.
One of those losses is likely to come back to haunt the president. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate control regulations in curtailing greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. The court ruled that the “major questions” doctrine barred Biden from circumventing Congress in taking major action with large economic and political significance — sort of like an up-to-trillion-dollar federal giveaway in the middle of a recession.
Biden is fully aware of the dubious basis for this massive giveaway. However, his administration is rushing to get money out the door in October, a month before the midterm elections.
That has a certain familiarity to it.
Last year, Biden called for the CDC to impose a nationwide moratorium on the eviction of renters, despite being told by his White House counsel and friendly legal experts that the move was likely unconstitutional. It was hardly a difficult question; the Supreme Court previously indicated the claim of such power was unconstitutional. In an amazing admission, Biden recognized the overwhelming view that this was unconstitutional and told the media he hoped his administration could get as much rental assistance money out the door as possible before the eviction moratorium was stopped by the courts.
The federal courts quickly rejected his asserted authority, and the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the eviction order was unconstitutional.
It appears Biden is repeating a somewhat similar strategy on student debt, hoping to give billions in debt relief before an injunction stops him.
The reasons for his optimism may have nothing to do with the merits of his legal claim. In order to challenge the program, litigants need to establish standing to seek relief. The court has been hostile to such claims, including rejecting taxpayer standing. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation that a group opposed to government funding of religious programs under the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program did not have such standing.
Biden undoubtedly hopes that, despite intense opposition to this giveaway, no one can secure judicial review. If successful, he would make a mockery of the constitutional system. He would first unilaterally give away between $500 million and $1 trillion, then show that no citizen can challenge him, and no court can check his authority.
Then again, standing might be found and the courts just might be able to stop this plan.
However, Biden may still succeed if he is able to get the money out before any injunction. No one in Congress would be keen to pursue students for unconstitutionally forgiven debt.
Ironically, as figures like Warren praise Biden for circumventing Congress, she and others are rallying voters to “defend democracy.” After all, nothing says “democracy” like an exercise of one-man rule.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
You do not seem to grasp – it is NOT your money.
The money govenrment spends – does not belong to you. It does not belong to all of us collectively.
It belongs to the people who earned it.
Tax cuts are an admission that government takes far to much from all of us, for the poor value it delivers – and the very limited choice we have on how that money is spent purportedly for our benefit.
All government spending means taking money from people who did something productive to earn that money, and giving it to people who are not doing anything productive.
We could send every child in the country to catholic school for about 1/4 what we pay for public school – and catholic schools perform as well or better than public schools.
Cyber charters cost less – about 50-75% of the cost of traditional public school and they deliver outcomes equal to public schools – except with students mostly from the worst public schools.
Some of the more expensive private schools in the country are cheaper than the DC or NYC or pretty much all of the shittiest and most expensive schools in the country.
The point is that better and cheaper education than that delivered by government is trivial.
Most parents of school age children could afford catholic school tuition if they just did not have to pay school taxes.
That is pretty damning. That means that the school taxes paid by those of use without school age kids are just government waste.
Economist Robert Barro – the #4 Ideas Respec ranked economist in the world – far higher than Larry Summers or Paul Krugman found that accross OECD countries – including the US Government produces about $0.25-0.35 in value for every $1 in taxes it takes from the economy.
That means for every $1 taken from YOU – all of us get between $0.25 and 0.35 in actual value – YOU likely get even less personally.
Other robust economic studies repeated many many many times over the past 100 years find that for every 10% of GDP that a govenrment spends, the growth in standard of living declines by 1%.
Currently total US govenrment spending is 40-50% of GDP. Reduce that to 20% – much more than is need to provide all the services that legitimate govenrment provides – courts, police, defense, and standard of living would increase by 2-3% more per year. That sounds small – but it is actually quite large.
5% growth instead of 2.5% growth doubles your standard of living every 14 years.
At 1.6% growth – the average during Obama’s tenure – standard of living takes 44 years to double.
When Mao died in the 70’s the Standard of living in China was $90/year. Today it is $11,000/year.
That is what real growth does to a country.
India over the same period has seen about half that increase. While All of africa has seen no gain.
And the US has seen standard of living barely double twice. In europe it has done slightly better than double once over the same period.
Big government – government spending ultimately makes you poorer than you would be otherwise.
John, you likely already heard this, but just in case https://stanfordvideo.stanford.edu/thomas-sowell-on-uncommon-knowledge/ It is a 42-minute video interview. A transcript version is available as well. It is very revealing as is the data provided in the book that does a comparison of all the charter schools compared to the public school from the same grade in the same building.
I have not heard this video. But Sowell is very good on Data.
I am pretty knowledgeable on alternates to traditional public education as my kids were cyberchartered.
This occured because my daughter who is both persnally driven to excell more than anyone I know, and with learning disabilities likely the result of 2 years in chinese orphanages, having gotten 5 excellent years of public education, hit “the team of teachers from hell” in 4th grade and we HAD to do something. After a rushed look through our options we picked a cyber school – because it would cost us nothing, and it could not be worse than letting her continue in traditional public school.
And we never looked back. We changed cyber charters as the kids hit HS – those that are good at lower grades are not alwyas good at upper ones. Further once you learn you have choices – you make choices.
Cyber charters in my state have changed – for the worse over the period I have dealt with them – as a result of heavy handed state regulation being forced on them by teachers unions – over the objections of parents and cyber school teachers.
The biggest difference is that 15 years ago cyber charters were mostly – procede at your own pace, and do not advance until you master each unit. This is a really good approach – especially for students that have difficulties.
Today they are much more like traditional schools – just from home. You now MUST attend specific online live classes at specific times, you are forced to proceed at the pace of the rest of the class.
My daughter took all day and into the summer to get through all of her classes for a grade. She would focus on one subject at a time often for a day or two. You can not do that now.
My son would get up at 10, and do all his work for the day by 12, and do whatever he wanted for the rest of the day.
You can not do that now.
And still the vast majority of cyber schooled kids are minorities, from single parents, from cities with failed schools.
And these kids are performing at or above the states median – coming from schools that were at the bottom.
Teachers in my state love to point out that cyber charters barely perform better than traditional public schools.
What they fail to note is that most cyber school students are either from the worst schools in the state, or they are students that were discipline problems, or they are special needs students.
Public School districts use cyber charters as the dumping ground for their failures – and still Cyber charters meet or exceed the performance of traditional public schools.
For an enormous number of kids a cyber charter is the difference between a future, and ultimately jail.
A ssignficant portion of cyber school students are the children of single minority mothers – with $hitty lives, often criminal records who are determined their children are going to have a better life than they do.
John, I am sure there are many educational alternatives. All of them should be used and compete with one another. The only way to get the public schools to improve is competition.
You should listen to the video because Sowell demonstrates how a study can be done on a soft topic. It is based on his last book published on his 90th birthday. After listening to the audio, and reading the book along with criticisms of it, I have no doubt that education must be in a competitive marketplace and that we can educate our children much better at a lower cost. In fact public schools are not a necessity.
John Say,
There are mandates (expensive ones, I might add) that are put on local public schools by the state and the feds (and too often with benefits for corporations) that charter and private schools do not have to do. They are not playing by the same rules. Public schools carry a ball and chain and are then ridiculed for not running as fast as the others.
But, then there’s this:
“they deliver outcomes equal to public schools – except with students mostly from the worst public schools.”
Public schools must educate ALL kids, including kids from terrible circumstances–the kids private and charter schools can reject as not performing or behaving to expectations.
PR, My kids were cyber Chartered and to a very large extent you are incorrect.
A kid in a traditional public school that is a discipline problem – will in very short order become the problem of charters.
More and more public schools are dumping special needs students into charters and cyber charters.
The largest single group of charter students are from failing public schools.
In my state charter school students are still part of public school. The local school district collects taxes and monies from the state and forwards 75% of that to the charter school that a charter student attends. Thy keep 25% for doing nothing.
More recently traditional schools have been forced to provide programs like extra curricular activities to the charter students.
But very few charter students take advantage of that.
Further in my state nearly every single requirement that a traditional public school must meet – a charter must meet.
Next, we are so far only talking about charters. Catholic schools, private religious schools. and purely private schools are almost completely financially independent. In my state – school buses take students wherever they wish to go, and a portion of the federal and state monies that go to traditional school students also go to private school students.
But nearly all the mandates are the same.
Finally – SO WHAT ? If Public schools have state mandates on them that private schools or charters do not – SO WHAT ?
The goal is the education of children not the compliance with mandates, and private schools, charters, cyber charters are doing as well or better for less cost.
If traditional public schools are burdened with mandates that are clearly unnecescry – they should get out from under those mandates.
“More and more public schools are dumping special needs students into charters and cyber charters.“
The Sowell study was exclusively NYC. People were chosen by lottery of those who applied. The outcomes were based on the state exams. The comparisons were based on matching the grade where public and private schools were in the same building.
Therefore the charter schools had to deal with the same population. They had to deal with special needs in the same fashion as the public schools. It was a near perfect study and the outcomes were tremendous.
“Public schools must educate ALL kids, including kids from terrible circumstances–the kids private and charter schools can reject as not performing or behaving to expectations.”
And the reality is that today public schools dump those students on charters and cyber charters.
Students who are discipline problems, if they do not get fixed – are dumped on charters and cyber charters.
Often special needs students are dumped on charters and cyber charters.
Parents in failing schools move their kids to charters and cyber charters.
I would further note that Charters and Cyber charters ARE public schools.
That is the difference between truly private schools and charter schools.
Charter schools are funded by school taxes, federal education monies and state education monies.
In my state the local school district collects the funds and transfers 75% of its per student monies to the students in charters from that district. Today those public school districts are supposed to allow charter students to participate in extra curricular for the 25% they keep, but few if any charter students participate in public school extra curriculars.
PR, my kids were both cyber chartered after the 3rd grade. That switch point was arbitratray – driven by the failure of my local public school to educate my asian kids each with different needs.
I would note – AGAIN that cyber charters and charters are PUBLIC SCHOOLS, all the balls and chains you talk about apply to them to. They must take ALL comers. They must take students tradtional public schools dump on them.
Contra what you assert – in my experience the mix of students in cyber charters is more diverse and has on the average MORE of students with special needs, issues, …
I want to address one other point.
I am NOT pushing any specific solution – in fact I am arguing STRONGLY against “one size fits all” solutions – like traditional public schools.
In a perfect would I would completely eliminate public education, and let the market sort it out.
I want the education choices for chilldren to be the same as the breakfast choices at your local supermarket.
If you want basic corn flakes – you have half a dozen choices, and if you want organic, fair trade, gluten free, sugar free all natural Kashi – you have multiple choices.
I do not give a schiff if 6yr olds are having drag queen story time.
What I care about is that MY KIDS are being educated not indoctrinated.
Free markets place consumers in control. The best solution is free markets in education.
Cost will drop, and quality will rise. as free markets ALWAYS do.
The modern conservative approach – dating back almost to my childhood, of continuing public funding of education – but leaving Parents determining who gets paid to educate their kids is a 2nd best approach.
Some US states are somewhat close to that. Sweden has been doing that successfully for a long time.
Regardless, every student is different.
Cyber charters – particularly as they were 15 years ago were a very good choice for my kids and my family.
But not for all kids and all families.
If my wife and I had it to do over today – we would home school. The resources today for that are far better and affordable,
And
that would allow us to bring back the good parts of cyber charters that state rules have since destroyed.
I will note – because way too many make stupid assumptions.
Neither I nor my family are “fundamentalists”.
The closest approximation of our relationship with religion would be Jeffersonian.
my wife is actively hostile to christian fundamentalism – because she was raised VERY fundamentalist.
We have tried a number of more liberal churches – like Unitarians, and what was essentially a gay church.
And we are just too uncomfortable with organized religion for even those.
John,
I wish you were more Jeffersonian in your outlook on education and self-governance.
Charter schools badly undermine our constitutional republic and with that, self-governance.
I fear your praise is inadvertently helping them catch crawdads. 🙁
Rather than let public schools languish under the weight of governmental and ideological absurdities, I hope you might consider getting involved, somehow, in your local public school to make things right. Go to school board meetings, attend committee meetings, talk to your elected representatives on the school board about the sort of education and content you’d like to see and why that will build capable and free people. Read books by Mortimer Adler, Neil Postman, and Susan Wise Bauer about education.
First, I do not think Charter schools are perfect.
But traditional public schools are worse. They are far worse today. But even when I was a child half a century ago they were problematic.
In the real world anything that does not require government is done far better by markets than government.
That is not an oppinion – massive amounts of real world data supports that.
More recently there are lots of people warning about how bloody and murderous marxism, lenonism, socialism are.
Which is true.
But the data is that ALL forms of statism – all big government performs substantially worse than more minima government.
Schools are just one example.
Myriads of factors, competion, innovation, departures from one size fits all solutions, direct responsibility to clients mean that businesses – even schools as businesses out perform government 9999 times out of 10000.
One of the simplest examples of the merits of free markets is the breakfast cereal aisle in the grocery store.
If you want cornflakes – there are multiple choices – branded or not of generic cornflakes at a discount.
If you want fair trade, organic gluten free Kashi – that is available too.
Or try starbucks – or almost any coffee shop today. Thousands of choices.
Government NEVER does that.
The Fed just reported that over the life of the government student loan program – decades, the cost of college has increased by $0.60 for every $1 in student loans that government subsidizes.
Put simply the student loan program has done next to nothing besides put students in greater debt.
So NO I am absolutely not a fan of public schools. They were a bad idea in the 60’s when they were far better than today.
“If you want cornflakes – there are multiple choices – branded or not of generic cornflakes at a discount.
If you want fair trade, organic gluten free Kashi – that is available too.
Or try starbucks – or almost any coffee shop today. Thousands of choices.”
And if you’re poor, you get Brand X. To have a free, self-governing people, they need a great deal more than Brand X. To bring it back to education, they need the best that mankind has to offer–to be part of the best conversations that have been had over the ages and to see also where we have come from to now.
Thousands of choices and most of them bad for your health.
Teach us to number our days and to seek wisdom and discernment. There is not time enough to sample and sort thousands of choices.
“And if you’re poor, you get Brand X.”
Maybe – so what, you still get brand X.
“To have a free, self-governing people, they need a great deal more than Brand X.”
Nope, absolutely false. and obviously so.
In the 18th century even the wealthy did not get “brand X”.
The Poor in the US today – even in the world today, live better than Kings 10 centuries ago.
“To bring it back to education, they need the best that mankind has to offer–to be part of the best conversations that have been had over the ages and to see also where we have come from to now.”
I can not make sense of this argument. If I understand it correctly you are arguing that everyone needs the best possible education.
That is false. We may WANT that, but we obviously do not NEED education at all. As a nation we do better with an education than without. But you still confuse wants and needs.
But even actual needs are not provided by government. We NEED food to survive – govenrment does not provide us our food.
We need Air to survive – government does not provide that. We need shelter – govenrment does not provide that.
Absolutely free markets will not distribute anything uniformly to everyone. So what ?
We are not equal. Trying to use force to make us equal ALWAYS ends in bloodshed.
Trying to accomplish the impossible through government always ends badly.
“Thousands of choices and most of them bad for your health.”
Your opinion – which you are entitled to.
What you are not entitled to do is impose it on others by force.
Pick the food you want. Something people even a century ago could not do.
But you should thank Free markets that you even have the possibility to eat what you claim to be healthy.
I would further note that in 1850 Life expectance in most of the world was about 45years.
Today it is near 80 throughout the world.
That rise is the result of free markets providing all those “unhealthy” choices you decry.
Do you understand that the number of calories consumed per day by people througout the world has DOUBLED since 1965.
Concurrent with most of the world rejecting communist and socialist schemes and allowing freeish markets througout the world
Starvation today is purely political. Not only is the world capable of easily feeding itself – but nearly every single country is capable for feeding itself – but for politcal conflicts and war lords.
Governments did not do this – obviously, the world still has some really bad govenrments.
“Teach us to number our days and to seek wisdom and discernment. There is not time enough to sample and sort thousands of choices.”
Real liberty – which is freedom from being constrained by force from others – nearly always government, means getting to make those choices for yourself.
Are you really so angry that people have too many choices, that Like Bernie you think the answer is to use FORCE to assure than no one has more than ONE choice ?
“But the data is that ALL forms of statism – all big government performs substantially worse than more minima government.”
Which is why local control of public schools is so important.
“Which is why local control of public schools is so important.”
Local control tends to be better than state or federal control.
But best results are ALWAYS for value for value transactions.
Where the person receiving the service, pays for the service, and decides which service in a competitive market meets their needs best.
Our schools systems are essentially designed arround the same ideas that the idiots who concocted anti-trust laws had about economics. That we see echoed by idiots like Bernie. In the 2020 campaign he said that we could solve all kinds of problems if we just had one kind of deodorant, and one kind of sneaker. The money we would save would let us solve all kinds of other problems.
It the real world time after time this proves FALSE. We have lots of different deodorant and sneakers because people are different both in their fundimental needs and their preferences. At the very early stages of a new market – producers compete to provide nearly identical products to everyone at the lowest cost. But fairly quickly – and more so the higher the standard of living of the market – the same fundimental product permutates and we see big producers and little produces and myriads of different versions. Look at the breakfast aisle in your grocery.
And at the same time – prices decline. The soviets actually tried Bernie’s model. It did not work. It has not worked anywhere. In fact it is pretty much ALWAYS true that people with grand plans about how to better do anything for everyone – especially when they are not constrained by having people actually pay them for their solutions, come up with solutions that FAIL.
We have seen this with Covid.
Why do you think education is different ?
Better than local control is NO government control.
The vast majority of the important things in your life have little or nothing to do with government.
Education should be no different.
Education is not something that only government can provide,
it is not a legitimate domain for govenrment.
It is not a justified use of FORCE.
I have been involved in public schools my entire life.
My family had an architectural business, and our single largest market was education – and the largest segment of that public schools.
I have been engaged with administrators, an teachers and school boards, and everything about public schools my entire life.
And what have I learned ?
BURN THEM DOWN!!.
They can not be fixed. Even in the golden age – if there was such a thing, they were full of problems. Today they are not repairable.
In my perfect world there would be no public education of any kind. But that is politically impossible.
Since we can not for the moment avoid public financing of education – then give control of education money to parents.
Allow each parent money for the education of their children and let hem take that to whatever school they want.
Make all schools completely private funded by the money parents are given for their kids.
That is not the best that can be done. But it is the best that is politically possible.
Our current education system is not fixable.
“then give control of education money to parents.”
That is not fair to taxpayers. Who elected those parents to make decisions with their neighbors’ money?
Seriously ?
Education is the politically most dangerous ground for the left.
Why ? Because it is the one place in the world that nearly everyone rejects egalitarianism.
We can want racial equality, employment equality. Every other type of equality in the world.
But every single parent in the world wants the BEST for their kids. Not the same as everybody else.
Young adults will live in shitty and unsafe neighborhoods to prove their progressive cred.
But if they can – they will leave when they have kids. Very few people who have the ability to do otherwise will subject their kids to shitty, unsafe, neighborhoods with crappy schools.
And no amount of little red book indoctrination will change that.
“But every single parent in the world wants the BEST for their kids.”
Tad bit overstated. Many parents do want what is best for their kids. But, sadly, not all. You know this. Don’t let idealism run away with you. 🙂
Even those who do want what’s best for their kids may need guidance on what that could be if they themselves have only seen narrow valleys, so to speak.
Absolutely there are a small number of drug addicts and abusive parrents who do not give a schiff about there kids.
Though all too often these children do WORSE when the state intervenes.
The book is old, but if anything things have gotten worse. I would suggest reading “weeping in the playtime of others”.
It is a damning indictment of our Child Protective System – from the prospective of the left.
Ron DeSantis was elected in FL as a result of the votes of 300,000 poor single black mothers who voted for Desantis Because Gillium threatened to close the charter schools that were their kids only hope.
Your faith in experts is incredibly naive.
“I Would Rather Be Governed By the First 2,000 People in the Telephone Directory than by the Harvard University Faculty”
William F. Buckley Jr.
Nearly always those providing others guidance are the last that should be trusted.
“Alas, alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you are
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
You will not venture half so far
Other men who might enter the gates you
Keep from passing through!
Drag them down with you!
You snakes, you viper’s brood
You cannot escape being Devil’s food!”
Do not ever trust the advice of those who do not have “skin in the game”.
A bum on the street will likely give better advice – if his future depends on it, than a PHD who faces no benefits or consequences for their advice.
In a rational world – “tax payers” would have no voice at all – because parents would pay for their kids education.
But we will not get that. Regardless, the next best we can do, is to give tax payers control of the money, probably at the statewide level. And let parents determine where they send their kids, and therefore who gets the money.
We want schools operating with the understanding they are providing a service to parents, and that whether they get paid for that service depends on how well they do – as judged by the parents.
That is what produces the best outcomes.
That is why in ANYTHING that can be done without government – it should be done without government.
Whenever you frame an argument as about “fairness” you lose.
There is no objectively correct measure of fairness.
On most non-trivial problems, if I ask 10 people what is the “fair” solution – I will get 11 answers.
Fixations on “fairness” – equity, egalitarianism, are why the french revolution failed, and the american one did not.
They are why communism fails always and socialism always performs worse than anything smaller.
Not a huge jefferson fan.
While he often wrote well, I am otherwise not impressed.
That is too bad. He was against large corporate interests messing around in government, among other things.
He was skilled at writing, yes, but what he had to say in his skillful manner matters more.
“He was against large corporate interests messing around in government”
Constrain government to its legitimate role and that problem solves itself.
Big Business, does not seek to rent from government power government does not have.
I do not hate Jefferson. He is one of many of our founders that were giants with clay feet.
He was often right, and often wrong. To a significant extent the country followed him when he was right, and didn;t when he was not.
I would note that it was those large corporate interests in government that enabled Jefferson to complete the Louisiana purchase.
One of the greatest advocates against federalism, engaged in the most significant act of federalism in US history.
When I was a teen I was sent to an experimental school at a local public teachers college.
It was incredible. I can not cover their program in a few paragraphs, beyond saying it worked very well and it worked for good students and poor ones.
I have noted that my family designed and built public schools, and that I spent alot of time with boards, and administrators and teachers. I asked why what I saw at the experimental school was not being incorporated into our schools.
Everyone had an answer – and it was always someone else’s fault. It was near universally acknowledged that we had a pretty good idea how to do better. But there were myriads of entrenched interests preventing it.
The only changes I have seen to public schools in my life have been for the worse.
The places that even the smallest improvements are occuring are private schools and charters.
Public schools in Iowa have had a long history of being solid, mostly because of the local control (till their legislature recently broke that).
I attended several different districts and got an excellent education–thought-provoking, challenging, room for and encouragement of creativity and independent inquiry (with guidance). We discussed many of the Great Works and explored meaning, learned quite a bit about world history and cultures, the science was challenging and interesting, and students were encouraged to be well-rounded in academics, the arts, and athletics.
I know what public schools can be.
You shouldn’t lump them all together as awful because you experienced lousy public schools. That is unfair.
Besides, a lot of the problems started after A Nation at Risk, then NCLB, Common Core, and Race to the Top. The Feds need to get their corporatism-stained dirty mitts out of education. The State governments need to back off, too, and let people in their own communities figure out how to create an excellent education.
“Public schools in Iowa have had a long history of being solid”
As they did everywhere – until they did not.
That is the nature of anything within government.
“I attended several different districts and got an excellent education–thought-provoking, challenging, room for and encouragement of creativity and independent inquiry (with guidance). We discussed many of the Great Works and explored meaning, learned quite a bit about world history and cultures, the science was challenging and interesting, and students were encouraged to be well-rounded in academics, the arts, and athletics
I know what public schools can be.”
“Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
You have a simple choices – you can leave schools in government where you will have a permanent war trying to preserve in some parts of the public school system some semblance of your Camelot of the past.
Or you can move the entire education system tot he free markets where with almost no effort not only you – but even the wing nuts you are at war with will be able to get what they want – to the extent that what they want is for themselfs rather than to impose that on others.
“You shouldn’t lump them all together as awful because you experienced lousy public schools. That is unfair.”
The schools I attended – public and private, elementary, secondary and college were good to excellent.
Several years of the public schools my children attended were excellent – until they were not.
“Besides, a lot of the problems started after A Nation at Risk, then NCLB, Common Core, and Race to the Top. The Feds need to get their corporatism-stained dirty mitts out of education. The State governments need to back off, too, and let people in their own communities figure out how to create an excellent education.”
Some of the things the Feds have done are bad, some good, some of the things states have done are bad, some good,
some things done locally are bad some good. As a generalization local tends to be better, But not as a principle.
Regardless what always works well and what does NOT pit us constantly against each other is free markets.
Do you have any doubt that an entirely private education system will deliver for YOU as well and likely better than your past Camelot ? Amazingly it is likely to also deliver for those you are at war with – what they want as well
Free markets do the best of delivering to everyone the closest possible approximation of what they want and need with the least amount of effort and conflict.
Again go back to the breakfast aisle. There is nothing in there you MUST buy. Everything that is in there is there because someone wants to buy it – and can afford it. EVERYTHING. And there is something for nearly everyone.
Name anything government does that has ever accomplished that ? Your Camelot might have delivered for you – but not everyone.
When you go to the grocery store – do you have to engage in political holy war, massive fund raising. Campaigning. and continue this permanently – to assure that your wants and needs are met ? Absolutely not.
With govenrment YOU must work HARD to assure that it meets your needs – and in doing so you Always deprive others of theirs.
With free markets, you have to do nothing – and both your needs and those of others are met.
The only need met better by government than markets is the need to impose your will on others.
The legitimate domain of government is where that is desirable.
It is highly beneficial – society depends on it that we have ONE view regarding the use of violence to acheive our goals.
We can not have society where everyone gets to choose when they can kill their neighbor.
But we can have everyone free to make their own choices of breakfast.
Education is far, far different than breakfast cereal. It is an important unifying element for a society (within reason). What stories do we all know? What concepts do we all more or less have in mind? Yes, there should be room for individuality, but we should at least all be able to get each other’s allusions.
“Do you have any doubt that an entirely private education system will deliver for YOU as well and likely better than your past Camelot ?”
Yes. I have doubts. Not just for me, but for my neighbor’s children.
Nope, education is not different from breakfast cereal.
It is just another want or need, that does not require force to acquire.
It is that simple.
The most fundimental aspects of education – the 3R’s have little or nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Further I reject your claims that education is an important means for inculcating shared culture.
The right thinks that, and the left is actively using that to destroy past culture and introduce their own.
Culture will always be a battlefield. That fight must be completely divorced from government – and that includes public education.
It is not ever governments job to force culture on us – not good culture whatever that is, not bead culture.
I would further note that the left’s efforts to weaponize schools to inculcate culture will backfire.
We live in the most diverse country in the world, at the most diverse time in history. To a very significant extent that is good. But diversity and broad shared culture are mutually exclusive. Diversity and big government are mutually exclusive.
I have noted in prior posts – I do not give a damn if some schools have drag queen story hour for pre-schoolers.
But that can not happen in state schools. The State can not legitimately impose culture on us.
Private schools can. And like breakfast cereals we are each free to seek out the school that teaches the culture we wish to see inculcated into our children.
Again education – especially the parts you call out – cultural education is exactly like breakfast cereal – we do not each want the same thing.
““Do you have any doubt that an entirely private education system will deliver for YOU as well and likely better than your past Camelot ?”
Yes. I have doubts. Not just for me, but for my neighbor’s children.”
Why ? I have none at all. Charter schools have been an incredible boon to minorities – particularly black single mothers, wherever they have been allowed.
I noted that my children were cyber chartered. Half their classes were inner city minorities – almost all black from piss poor schools and single parent families, where the mother was determined that her children were going to have a better life then she did.
Very few of these minority kids performed at the same level as my kids. But ALL of them did far better than their local state schools.
Further I am not proposing a one size fits all solution – like our state schools.
Cyber charters are not for everyone. Each charter is different .
Catholic schools outperform public schools – especially in poor neighborhoods, and they do so at least than 1/4 the cost. Obviously money has nothing to do with education quality.
A family with two kids could send them to catholic school today for less than the portion of their rent the landlord allocates to school taxes – and that is without addressing the fact that catholic schools give need discounts and family discounts, and will take non-catholics. There is an excellent mennonite HS in my county that will take anyone that costs about 1/3 what the public HS costs. There is an exclusive and completely private HS that costs a bit more than 1/2 what public HS costs. Within a few miles from me is a nationally renowned girls boarding school that costs less than DC or NYC pays per child – and they include room, board, and horseback riding.
So we are clear – I do not seek to deprive anyone the opportunity to have their children educated as they wish.
If it is important to you that your child has drag queen story hour everyday – send them to the school that does that.
If you want your child taught CRT or racist anti-racism – send them to the school that does that.
If you want your child taught that American is irredeemably racist – send them to the school that does that.
But each and everyone of us who wants differently should have the same freedom to chose where we send our kids and what thy are taught.
I do not want to drive the wing nuts out of public schools.
I want to drive the government out of schools, so that NO ONE gets to dictate to anyone else what schools are.
Where schools thrive or die based on their ability to meet whatever the wants and needs of the parents sending kids to them.
Where schools decide what they want to teach and parents decide whether they wish to send their kids to schools not based on the force of the state, but by what each school offers to them.
I do not want or expect every school to be the same. In fact I expect them to be quite different. I expect to be offended by what many schools teach, and still able to send my kids elsewhere.
Public schools – even your utopian version can not do that. Free markets can easily.
Just as they provide you with multiple choices of breakfast – including some that suit you – even if you think that what others want is bad. Even if you are right – you still get to choose, and so do others.
“and it was always someone else’s fault. It was near universally acknowledged that we had a pretty good idea how to do better. But there were myriads of entrenched interests preventing it.”
Sounds like there was perhaps insufficient local control. And/or, perhaps, the people in the “community” were actually rather selfish individuals mostly interested in controlling their petty fiefdoms instead of doing what was in the kids’ best interest, which is a shame. Hubris was perhaps in the mix, too. 🙁
The things I was discussing were not merely ways of improving teaching locally – but ANYWHERE.
It is 50 years since I attended that experimental school that worked incredibly well with a mix of students.
The closest thing I have seen ANYWHERE to what was being done there was the first few years of my daughters K12 cyber charter – before the state dumped a bunch of regulations that choked learning.
Further I am NOT advocating for some specific change to education – aside from getting government entirely out of it.
Just as I would not try to FORCE Elon Musk to build cars a specific way.
What I am saying is that ANYTHING that you wish to see undergo constant improvement – rather then bloating and decline – Get it out of government.
With respect to local control – one of the many major problems we have with public education is the politics.
We have politics in everything. But in schools we have massive amounts. Local control is mostly better than state control which is better than federal control. But if you want the best possible outcomes – schools, administrators, teachers must profit from teaching students, and parents must be free to move their students – and the profits those affiliated with the school make, elsewhere when they are not happy. The issue is not control. Parents do not need to control schools. They just need to be free to take their children and money to wherever they think delivers the best value for THEIR kids.
A private school – even public charter schools are mostly answerable to parents – who one way or another are paying them. But local public schools have all kinds of interests fighting for control.
There are three essentials I can quickly think of that are requirements for school improvement choice, transparency, and accountability. Others might exist, but I think those three are good choices. They do not sufficiently exist in school systems where I know.
The most important improvement – not just in public schools, but throughout our broken system is more free markets.
We can not fix education top down. If we could it would have been done.
The same is true of our broken healthcare.
Republians have fought for decades to improve education. They have had significnat improvements – mostly related to charter schools, and significant losses – mostly related to traditional public schools.
DeSantis and to a lessor extent Youngkin are at the lead on this.
But Republicans are WRONG about the remedy. The answer is not trying to take control of public schools away from left wing nuts. Ultimately that is probably a losing game. They will regroup. they are very adept at seizing control of institutions.
The solution is to de-institutionalize.
Rather than fight over Drag Queen story time – just de-institutuionalize public schools.
The very best thing Youngkin and DeSantis and republicans could do is to change the structure of education.
convert all public schools into charter schools, and attach education funding to the student, leaving parents free to decide where to send their kids.
This would not entirely obliterate the sexualization of the education of our kids,
It would not entirely oblitarate the marxist political indoctrination of our kids.
It would not vaporize all the evil the left has done to education.
But it would make it all deminimus. the tiny portion of parents that actually want this nonsense could send their kids to Karl Marx Charter.
The overwhelming majority of parents would send their kids to schools that had the best chance of preparing them for a better life.
I do not think Charters are perfect. Given the ability to do so I would get government entirely out of education.
But the perfect is often the enemy of the good enough for now.
RE:”The solution is to de-institutionalize…” In this, what’s your solution for dealing with ‘The Money Union” on the local, state and federal levels?
What are you calling “the money union” ?
Regardless, my solution to pretty much everything involving government, is less government, and less power in government.
The bigger more powerful government is the less freedom each of us has.
John, there is never a perfect solution, and with times all solutions degenerate. I prefer smaller steps. If the steps are too large one might not be able to get out of the crevice they fall into.
Depends on the problem.
Incremental steps in the right direction quite often make problems worse not better.
We have likely seen this with Covid.
I have ranted about all the interventions we have done regarding Covid.
I will use masks for an example. There is massive evidence that widespread mask use has no impact on Covid.
But common sense and lots of testing shows a real effect in laboratories.
Masks fail – as do nearly all covid interventions because Covid was initially highly contagious, and now it is possibly the most contagious disease we have ever faced.
It is highly likely that all the interventions we have done have “flattened the curve”.
China clearly had a smaller percent of cases so far than anywhere else in the world. They have definitely “flattened the curve”. But they are also clearly facing economic disaster – as well as an incredible health crisis if they do not continue this zero covid strategy that they must continue forever.
It is now self evident to the world and many in china that zero covid is not acheivable – even by China’s draconian means. But China can not stop.
Their vaccine does not work. It is increasingly apparent that no vaccines really work, but the chinese one is completely useless. They have a nation of 1.6B people – mostly densely packed, and no natural immunity at all.
If hey stop their zero covid approach they will see 5M deaths a month for many many months.
Globally our efforts to thwart covid have near certainly slowed it down.
But they did not stop it.
Slowing it down has given it more time to mutate, to become more infectuous and in some instance more lethal.
Vaccines that were somewhat effective against delta for short time are nearly useless against Omicron.
It was obvious to some near the start, and more and more all the time, that doing anything more than slowing Covid down was never possible, and that slowing it down is not only bad economically and in so many other ways,
but actually bad as a public health issue.
It is possible that if the world had done nothing. Covid would have spread like wild fire and burned itself out.
possibly before Delta, certainly before Omicron.
Incremental sometimes makes things worse not better.
“Incremental steps in the right direction quite often make problems worse not better.”
Of course, things can happen in either direction. We discussed social change, which requires changes in human nature and, therefore, smaller steps.
Severe infection is different. When there is a good treatment, hit it hard and hit it fast. Covid was different. History and statistics told us a different story.
Attempting to change Human nature is far outside the legitimate domain of government.
Frankly social change – is not the domain of government.
Changes to the structure of our society and institution are not social change – except in the most pedantic and broad sense.
I do not as an example accept that the government can legitimately teach civics, or “american values” whether defined by the left or the right.
Schools can – but not government schools, therefore there should be no government schools.
Nearly always when we run into some conflict between government and minority groups over values, the problem is government is involved where it does not belong.
I have no problem with CRT being taught in schools, I have no problem with Drag Queen story time.
The problem is GOVERNMENT Teaching CRT or sponsoring Drag Queen Story time.
I have no problem with insurance companies paying for abortions.
I have a problem with GOVERNMENT mandating insurance companies pay for abortions.
“Attempting to change Human nature is far outside the legitimate domain of government.”
I do not believe it is the government’s job to change human nature and didn’t say it was. However, in the real world, both sides change for better or worse, despite what we desire. The rapid speed of technology adds more confusion.
Your ideology doesn’t represent the type of government we have, so when I speak, I am dealing with what we have, not with what you believe we ought to have.
You are correct about my Ideology.
But you make a common mistake in pretending it is just an ideology.
There is a debate amoung libertarians over utilitarianism.
I prefer to duck that debate.
But it is still true that utilitarianism and libertariansism if not the same substantially overlap.
Why does this matter ? Because utilitarianism is the “ideology” of “what works”.
Our government may not be libertarian. But it is always true an nearly always demonstrable that moving towards more libertarian-ism WORKS, and away from it FAILS.
I frequently take aim at socialism – which is essentially the opposite of libertarianism. I am not alone in attacking socialism.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history should know the bloody awful history of socialism. There are no actual success stories – the socalled scandanavian socialism failed and the scandanavians have been working there way out of it for 5 decades, it is not an accident that scandanavia is higher in human freedom indexes that the US.
Regardless the most bloody and brutal governments in world history are socialist.
But I have taken care on occasion to note that we are not seeing the narrow failure of socialism,
Big government in all forms fails.
The larger govenrment is the less efficient it and the country as a whole are.
Government is abysmally unproductive, the larger govenrment is the lower the rate of increase in standard of living.
This is both an evidence based claim and a logical conclusion that was proveable BEFORE the evidence.
All of this is to address your sort of reverse no true scottsman fallacy.
The reality is libertarian govenrment works best – in theory and in practice. It may be true that we have been moving away from that for two centuries, what is politically easy may be something else. But for both ideological and logical and even reasons rooted in human nature, or in utilitarianism, Libertarianism will always produce a better outcome.
This is no mere ideology or theory. It is very very real and massive amounts of data in both broad and narrow domains support that.
The meaningful question you raise – is do we move in small steps of big steps.
That is more complex. Big steps are nearly always the least harmful and painful – but not necescarily in the moment.
They are also more likely to succeed.
Small steps tend to be more politicaly viable, but it is often the case that a small step in the right direction makes things worse not better. Moving in small steps is actually far more complex.
A big step means getting as close as possible to arrangements that we KNOW will work.
Small stepps mean creating intermediate arrangements that even though the head in the right direction can easily be worse than the starting point.
Just one possible problem is thatsmall steps often introduce – or amplify moral hazards.
“The reality is libertarian govenrment works best “
But, John, we don’t live in a theoretical world. We live in the real world, with real people, many of whom are uneducated concerning the benefits of freedom and individualism.
Both small and big steps can go in more than one direction.
Examples of big steps. Lenin-Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, and many more. An example of a big step moving in the correct direction is America, counterbalanced by the French Revolution occurring almost simultaneously that moved in the wrong direction. Take note of how rarely the big step leads to success.
Trial and error is a series of steps leading to slow but steady progress. That is how science works.
“But you make a common mistake in pretending it is just an ideology.”
It is an ideology.
“But, John, we don’t live in a theoretical world.”
It works in the real world. It works better than anything else.
“We live in the real world, with real people, many of whom are uneducated concerning the benefits of freedom and individualism.”
You lack of knowledge regarding an internal combustion engine does not change the fact that it works.
“Both small and big steps can go in more than one direction.”
“Take note of how rarely the big step leads to success.”
Civil War, Lousiana purchase, Alaska purchase. WWI, WWII, Industiral revolution, information age.
The conversion of Uraguay to the Free market, the conversion of Poland to the free market.
Generally the collapse of communisism – again not always done perfectly, but still always an improvement
China’s adoption of capitalism.
Just a few big steps that on net were far better than alternatives – that is not to say each did not include mistakes.
Nor are these the only big steps that were successful. I would note – most big steps occur outside of government.
“Trial and error is a series of steps leading to slow but steady progress. That is how science works.”
That is SOMETIMES how science works.
“But you make a common mistake in pretending it is just an ideology.”
It is an ideology.
It is not JUST an ideology.
Socialism is more than an ideology – it is also an economic system – and abysmal one.
Libertarianism is not just and ideology it is also an economic system. An incredibly successful one.
It is also a legal system – the foundations of our legal system.
I have noted I am not a utilitarian. But I am very close – all libertarians are.
One of the things that separates libertarians from socialists, is that most socialists look to work arround the fact that their ideology does not work. They are always betting the next time they will get it right.
Libertarians are the opposite. If it does not work – it is WRONG – like unpoliticised science is supposed to be.
Unlinke Socialism, libertarianism not merely works, But bad libertarianism nearly always outperforms everything but better libertarianism.
Socialism is a system where its adherents claim – next time it will not fail because we will get it right.
Libertarianism is a system that pretty much never fails – but that works better the more closely it is followed.
“It works in the real world. It works better than anything else.”
John, if it works in the real world, then you can name a few countries where libertarianism of the type you prescribe resides. Can you name one?
I think the next step is figuring out what each of us means by a big step. I discussed the big step of changing governments, as evidenced by the names I mentioned.
When you talk of the Louisiana Purchase, you are talking about a land deal that cost $15 Million and considered unconstitutional by many. Would it have been constitutional if your government was in place? That is not important, though Manhattan Island was purchased from the Lanape Indians for $24, and its present land value is around $2 Trillion. None of this is meaningful. Large changes in government has frequently led to the worst type of despotism. The US is the exception.
For most of the latter half of the 20th century most of the world was moving towards much more libertarian government.
I used to be able to use Hong Kong – total government in Honk Kong is about half what it is in the US,
And Hong Kong went from a standard of living of a few hundred dollars a year to signifcantly higher than the US.
But Hong Kong is going to H311.
Singapore nearly perfectly matches the pattern of Hong Kong. They are not a perfect libertarian government they are authoritarian and punishments are draconian – but overall there is more freedom than the US and a higher standard of living and much smaller government.
I beleive most of the nordic countries are now freer than the US. They have a fraction of the laws and regulations we do, They still have SOME of their larger social safety net – though they have been shrinking that. They also have higher overall taxes.
The US in the 19th century was incredibly libertarian. During that time period we went from a relatively insignificant british colony to one of the worlds great powers. Peak US 19th century government during the Civil was was 8% of GDP – less than 1/5th of now. Most of the 19th century was 3-5% of GDP. Standard of living doubled every 15 years.
In the late 20th and early 21st century Both China and India went from socialism to capitalism – and Both had incredible gains in standard of living. China has gone the wrong direction since Xi took power – and appears to be on the cusp of a huge financial crisis.
Regardless the EVIDENCE of the past – the past 200 years, the past 100, the past 50 all demonstrates that the principles and values I am offering not merely work incredibly – better than anything else ever – without any contest at all. But that they even do better than everything else when implimented BADLY.
As I said before Socialists and Communists are constantly saying – but that was not real socialism, or with better leaders we will get it right. But they never do. Conversely – as you note – we do not have a libertopia.
But we do have nations accross the world that have implimented libertarian principles and values to varying degrees.
UNIVERSALLY – no matter where a country starts – even small steps in the direction of more free markets, greater freedom, result in improvements ALWAYS. Bad libertarianism succeeds. More universally does better.
Freedom and free markets are with near certainty a curve – like the laffler curve for taxes.
100% freedom and no government – anarchy does not work.
From the past 100 years we have massive economic data that tells us that the optimal size for government is LESS THAN 19% of GDP, form 200 years it is likely that the optimum is somewhere in high single digits.
That is about 1/5th the current government.
John, we are on the same wavelength but you probably have a finer idea of libertarianism than I do. My history tells me such perfection is not desirable, and that pragmatism will lead to a longer life.
When I wrote my last note, I immediately thought of Hong Kong and Singapore, Singapore, in particular, because of its diversity. It has demonstrated economic advancement, but the trade-off is authoritarianism. China has adopted some of Singapore’s methodology. Many small Chinese entrepreneurs can do what they want in China if they don’t interfere with the government. But we see their present direction, which is not satisfactory for the people or the world.
You are providing a new type of formula where GDP v. freedom.
You keep talking about perfectionism.
This is a red herring. Libertarianism is not about perfectionism.
I fell like you did not read what I wrote.
All forms of leftism are ultimately about perfectionism. Communism does not even work very well in monasteries and convents.
Libertarian ism works almost no matter how badly you implement it.
I do not disagree with you that SOMETIMES baby steps are the best approach.
But it is equally true that OFTEN you just need to rip the bandage off.
Neither I nor any libertarians are the perfectionists you imagine. If you want that Try anarcho-capitalists and the Center for a Stateless Society. They have literally worked out how to outsource the entirety of government to the free market.
That is pretty damn Utopian.
I think they are wrong – at the very least they have a radically different view of the social contract.
My problem with incrementalism is that it is not true that all steps in the right direction are good.
There is such a thing and moral hazard, Changes interact differently with the parts of government that have not changed, and frequently badly.
We are witnessing an excellent example right now. We have essentially acheived open borders by presidential fiat.
I believe that open borders is actually a good thing – I also believe we need a wall.
Regardless, It is currently costing more each year to deal support just one years worth of new immigrants, than it would to build the entire wall.
Open Borders is libertarian. The social safety net is not.
You can not have open borders and the social safety net.
You have massive moral hazard.
I want the “teaming masses yearning to breath free”
I have zero interest in people coming to the US to freeload.
We can not tell whether people coming to the US right now are seeking to “breath free” or to live for free
Incrementalism works SOMETIMES.
This is not about perfectionism. YOUR rigid adjherance to incrementalism is more of a religious perfectionism, than what you sometimes call my “extreme libertaarianism”.
I pointed out one example where you can not take ONE libertarian step, without taking several, or you will have failure.
This one was obvious. But all of them are not. The world, society, the economy are incredibly complex and self adjusting and self regulating. But the response to a change is not always predictable.
It is not always obvious the impact of one step.
As an example ObamaCare pretty much put the nail in the coffin for private practice medicine in the US.
My personal Doctor started a practice that he owned with 2 other doctors 50 years ago. He was successful, it grew, more doctors joined – some as employees, but some as partners. I am sure he has grown quite wealthy.
Within a few years of PPACA passing – his practice, and nearly every similar practice in my community – some larger, some smaller were bought out. All the hospitals in my community – there were about a dozen independent hospitals in my county for most of my life. Now all the doctors, all the hospitals belong to one of two statewide networks.
These are still private. But we are doing to medicine what we did to Drugs.
There are good parts to Big Pharma, It takes multibillion dollar companies to develop some very amazing drugs.
But there are very bad things. The government talks about Orphan diseases, we have passed laws to encourage the development of treatments of diseases that just do not have enough suffers to pay for the cost of developing new treatments. But despite law requiring them to do so, the FDA almost never approves a drug that does not go through the entire multibillion dollar testing and vetting process. Big Drug companies will not do that for drugs with small markets and small drug companies are long gone.
We have just done the same thing to doctors and hospitals. There will be benefits. But there will absolutely be harms.
Some that I have not imagined yet. It is certain the harm will outweigh the benefit.
John, libertarianism is inanimate, so when I say, “My history tells me such perfection is not desirable, and that pragmatism will lead to a longer life”, it has to do with how your desires fit into an imperfect world. I will take smaller steps and pragmatically accept an imperfect ideology. I am not entirely sure where you stand because when undesirable developments rise to the top, you skip libertarian goals and say, “TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.”
I do not disagree with how you relate communism to perfectionism. I have said that many times myself in the fashion that one can dream of a perfect world, but that is an impossible goal. Madison touches on the problem in Federalist 51 that you just copied for another.
In the libertarian world, one should not need force, but we are dealing with men, so the same problems facing our founding ideology and communism exist in libertarianism. I am looking at results, not what should be.
“Open Borders is libertarian. The social safety net is not.
You can not have open borders and the social safety net.
You have massive moral hazard.”
This is the ultimate problem, and it is not going away. That is why I accept small steps to move us away from the brink of disaster. I’ll accept larger steps, but we do not have the political wherewithal for any administration to take those gargantuan steps.
I do not accuse you of “extreme libertaarianism”. I am looking toward solutions that work. I want to see pragmatism injected into one’s ideology. The founders were very pragmatic. Their primary concern was survival.
“Turn about is fair play”
is a WARNING not a value.
I will oppose republicans abusing our rights as democrats have.
But that does not mean I will feel sorry for the democrats ensnared in their own hypocrisy.
Democrats constantly pretend that Trump and republicans are fascists or Hitler.
They are not.
But Democrats are working hard to recreate the circumstances that brought Mao, Stalin, Robespieere, Musolini and Hitler about.
We increasingly here talk of “civil war” – mostly from the left.
I think that is unlikely, but not impossible.
Regardless, it will not resemble “The war between the states”
It is more likely to resemble the 1968 summer of rage – on steroids.
Mass violence an chaos is a recipe for a strong leader – maybe right, maybe left.
>>”I am not entirely sure where you stand because when undesirable developments rise to the top, you skip libertarian goals and say, “TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.”
> “a WARNING not a value”
John, a warning is force and what you said is an implied human sentiment, sentiment leads to action, and action leads to change, both good and bad. Such action is intimidation or force, which is not a part of the libertarian ideology.
A warning is not force. It may be a threat of the use of force.
John, help me out here. The bully in school says to a smaller kid. ‘I’m warning you. If you don’t give me your ice cream I will beat you up’. The kid gives the ice cream. The bully was not proper or legal but the smaller kid gave him the ice cream because he knew he would be beaten up if he didn’t.
That is not the type of justice libertarians advocate. To me, warnings can be force. They can also be a notice such as ‘the bridge is broken’. ‘Turn about is fair play’ can be interpreted in both directions.
Every threat is not a bully demanding ice cream.
“I am warning you, that if you constrain which minority members are allowed on which committes – when you are in the majority, we will do the same when we are” – Is that bullying ?
Regardless, as alibertarian I beleive the rules should be followed – even when the other side does not.
So I do not beleive in tit for tat – even though on occasion it is oh so appealing.
I will admit to taking great pleasure in DeSantis’s “dumping” venezuelans in Martha’s vinyard.
All that said, I do not control what republicans will do with control of congress.
But it is perfectly reasonable to WARN democrats, that in many many instances they are likely to engage in tit for tat.
I have said here repeatedly that Democrats with near certainty will end up as victims of their own conduct, when it is done to them. I will not be the one doing it. I will be the one defending their rights, just as I am defending republicans rights now.
But that does not preclude warning them.
Nor does it preclude getting guilty pleasure from their comeuppance.
“Act as though the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law ” Kant’s catagorical imperative.
That is a fair rendering of libertarian-ism.
It is also utopian, and as you note repeatedly we do not live in utopia.
I have no problem warning democrats that when they lose power – it is not going to be libertarians they will be answering to.
John, you have stated that the actions of the justice department are not Kosher. They involve a degree of force that is not legitimate. Therefore, “Turn around is fair play” involves that same force. I am not saying that I disagree with the approach, but rather that approach can and in this case, is using force.
I don’t like tit for tat either, but tit for tat is human nature, where libertarianism and human nature separate. If the ideology doesn’t afford protection from that negative human nature, the libertarian individual is doomed to a second-class existence.
” I will not be the one doing it.”
That makes you dependent on others doing it for you.
We are dancing all over the place.
I am going to try to clarify.
On MANY MANY issues, I WARN those on the left of the future they are likely driving into being.
Those WARNINGS are serious – if the left continues as it is, it is likely to produce the responses I WARN about or something very similar.
Those WARNINGS include noting that having acted badly themselves, not only will they create a backlash, but few will care, and no one is likely to be sympathatic.
My WARNINGS are NOT usually advocacy. It is very rare that I think that conservatives SHOULD engage in the same bad conduct those on the left do.
I have repeatedly defended the conduct of Trump and J6 Capital protestors.
That does not mean I think they SHOULD have done as they did. I do not think anyone SHOULD dance in the house chamber in bearskins and a viking hat.
What one CAN do legally – and what one SHOULD do are not the same.
“We are dancing all over the place.”
John, there is no dancing. We or I are dealing with a question in the fashion that one deals with scientific theories. If it fails to work, even once, it is wrong.
I pointed that failure out. That demonstrates that the libertarianism you are projecting has faults even though it or its variations might be the best we can come up with today.
That is why I said: “If the ideology doesn’t afford protection from that negative human nature, the libertarian individual is doomed to a second-class existence.”
You said you would not play tit for tat. That made me conclude you would depend on others doing it for you.
We do not even appear to be talking about the same thing anymore – obviously we are dancing arround.
What are you talking about ?
I have been pretty clear I am talking about warning those on the left.
That has nothing at all to do with libertarianism.
What is it that you think is an example of failure ?
I do not appear to be in the same conversation as you are.
“What are you talking about ?”
Your statement, “TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.”
That is not some libertarian principle.
Therefore how can it be an ideological flaw ?
Again what are you talking about ?
I must be misunderstanding you because to me, you are connecting to unrelated things.
“Again what are you talking about ?”
John, we have gotten into the gray area again, where our respective arguments become repetitive circular arguments.
I explained how your desired actions are construed as a force. That is what happens when one defines an ideology too narrowly. Imperfections get in the way. A threat of force is force. I’m glad you think it isn’t because it provides your personal ideology more flexibility.
There are two independent lines of thought, an as best as I can tell you have connected them.
The first regards “Turn About is fair play” or other warnings to the left.
These are NOT statements of libertarian principles. They are not ideological.
They are not even in all instance reflective of what I beleive is Right, moral or correct.
They ARE what I expect is likely to occur.
The seconds regards libertarian ideology.
As best as I can tell you have claimed that a failure or ideological error on the part of the first group, falsifies the 2nd.
I do not know what error you are claiming, regardless the first line has no immutable logical link to the second.
We are not in a grey area. I thought I was pretty clear in what I was saying.
But your responses make it clear I was not, and I know have no idea what you think we are talking about.
“The seconds regards libertarian ideology.
As best as I can tell you have claimed that a failure or ideological error on the part of the first group, falsifies the 2nd.”
John nowhere have I said that, nor would I. Libertarianism isn’t a narrow set of beliefs. The generalized rules are understood, but when specifics touch the gray area, there are multiple opinions.
Libertarianism is not a specific formulation of beleifs.
Most but not all libertarians accept the NAP as a core principle.
But even those that do not specifically accept the NAP, are very little different in goals, and values.
They just have SLIGHTLY different principles.
Libertarianism does not even try to answer all the questions of life.
Very generalized its core is that more individual freedom is nearly always good and less is bad.
There is no fundimental issue with “gray areas” – not that everything is perfectly defined.
Only that with very few execptions gray areas are not a consequential problem for libertarians.
The other area that is not clear – which mostly you have not address is limits.
We know – beyond dispute that for every modern government that exists reducing the size of government by 10% of GDP would have a positive impact.
What we do not know is exactly where the optimal size of government is beyond that it is smaller than every single modern government in a developed nation.
The issue of limits is only important – as we get close to them. It has no relevance to government from 30-60% of GDP,
Less will ALWAYS be an improvement. There are no grey areas.
Sepatately you raise the issue of incremental vs. sudden change.
That has nothing to do with ideology.
Absolutely, large abrupt change is incredibly disruptive. But large abrupt libertarian changes are always net positive after the dust settles. Conversely incrementalism is often more politically feasable. But frequently small changes in the right direction – because of known or hidden moral hazards make things worse not better.
That is not an ideological grey area, it is just evidence that what you call political reality is often WRONG.
“Libertarianism is not a specific formulation of beleifs.”
John, that is what I have said numerous times in our discussions which makes it very difficult to respond when sometimes it seems you claim all libertarians agree to a specific point while at other times you state they don’t. To further confuse the issue, some of your points are not considered libertarian by you until a later response. All of that is fine and dandy, but when you comment, the one reading it shouldn’t have to discover the answer in a different response.
I consider myself a pragmatic classical liberal/libertarian where the country is bound to its Constitution interpreted strictly where the rule of law must be universal.
“That is not an ideological grey area, it is just evidence that what you call political reality is often WRONG.“
That you wish to forget ideological gray areas when you write, “Libertarianism is not a specific formulation of beliefs.” is peculiar. That you call my political reality often wrong is likewise peculiar since you don’t know my political realities.
When it comes down to our first discussions about immigration, your statement only discussed open borders. I reacted with a bit of disbelief, and now you are including the fact that we have a welfare state, so to have open borders, we need to account for the welfare state, which has been my position all along. You prefer the theoretical, ‘if we don’t have a welfare state….’ I prefer the pragmatic, ‘we have a welfare state, so open borders are impossible, but immigration is not an impossibility.
“There are two independent lines of thought,”
John, there are significant gaps between what you and I are saying. The debate is so lengthy with so many different components that this was bound to happen. Many thoughts might come from the discussion, so rather than answer directly, I will take one and discuss it.
You use what you call non-libertarian arguments in your dialogue. My claim is pragmatism puts a cap on libertarianism. You seem to claim otherwise but skip libertarian arguments for the more common non-libertarian ones, such as Turn about is fair play. In other words, where libertarian principles fail, you are willing to travel outside of libertarianism rather than live with it. Pragmatically, I think that is a good idea.
“I explained how your desired actions are construed as a force. ”
I am not looking to disagree, but it is irrelevant whether actions are construed as force.
They ARE force or threat of force, or they are NOT.
Mis construing is an error on the other parties part.
If they ARE force or threat of force the next question is whether they are Justified.
That is more complex. We do not have absolute universally agreed criteria for that.
However the support of a majority makes justification more likely, but it is NOT sufficient.
I would note that the bar against the unjustified initiation for force – the “non-agression principle”
is a widely held libertarian (and by others) principle. It is NOT the definition of libertarian.
The non-agression principle is one formulation of Kant’s catagorial imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
“A threat of force is force.”
No, but the moral requirements for a justified threat of force are the same as an actual use of force.
The non-aggression principle bars unjustified threats of force.
“I’m glad you think it isn’t because it provides your personal ideology more flexibility.”
As best as I can tell, you are trying to convert “Turn about is fair play” into a libertarian principle.
It is not. It is however a very common turn of phrase that most everyone understands.
Further I am not discussing my own choices or actions. I am not republican and the republican party does not pay much attention to me.
Is there anyone here that doubts that come Jan 2023, when/if the GOP takes both chambers of congress that it is going to use that power against democrats and that it is going to use the conduct of democrats as normalization for their own conduct.
Is that moral ? that depends on the specific conduct. Are republicans likely to go as far as democrats in their blatantly immoral conduct ? Unlikely.
Further regardless of what Republicans will actualy do when in power
ALL OF US should constantly be using the “shoe on the other foot test”
Would it be moral for my opponents to act as I am ?
If democrats do not want Republicans to use specific tactics when they are in power, Democrats should not normalize the use of those tactics.
Finally, I will likely find myself defending democrats against the abuses of republicans – if republicans do in power as democrats have done. But I will not have any sympathy for democrats. The are bringing all this on themselves.
None of this is libertarian.
The vast majority of arguments I make are NOT libertarian. They are just logically correct, or accurate observations of the world.
Turn about is fair play is not libertarian. It is not even a valid moral principle.
But it is a warning that most everyone understands.
And to a large extent the world works that way.
We are increasingly ratchetting towards ever worsening conflict.
Every ends justifies the means step that is taken, takes us closer to lawlessness and violence
We can pretend that it is unclear who is leading the way – it really is not.
But at the moment it is crystal clear that Democrats in numerous ways have pioneered new standards of conduct that they will not like being subject to themselves.
“As best as I can tell, you are trying to convert “Turn about is fair play” into a libertarian principle.”
Not at all. John, it is actually more of the opposite. I am pointing out the limits of libertarianism
and why it transforms itself into an ideology mixed with pragmatism. That is what we saw when the Constitution was signed.
There are parts where we have gone off track and this response of yours provides a variety of subject matter. I don’t want things to get further confused so I will skip the rest and leave it to you to repeat any comment that you feel needs to be discussed. My non-comment is neither agreement or disagreement.
I would be happy to discuss the limits of libertarianism, but I do not see that in these posts.
Pragmatism is independent of libertarianism.
It is not inherently in conflict.
Pragmatism, like conservatism is not an ideology. It is a collection of values, not principles.
We have a conservative movement that is increasingly libertarian.
Most libertarians are to some extent conservative.
“Pragmatism is independent of libertarianism. It is not inherently in conflict.”
John, that is true. I believe pragmatism is necessary for survival.
“Not at all. John, it is actually more of the opposite. I am pointing out the limits of libertarianism”
By connecting two things that are not connected.
John, that things might be in the same thread or related doesn’t make them significantly connected. But, once again, I can’t say that for sure. You will have to show those two things and explain what the significant connection was in order for me to comment further. I probably will need the quotes so I can figure out the context.
“If you steal his ice cream he will break you leg”
How does that fit into your framework ?
The tradeoff is not authoritarianism.
Hong Kong WAS less authoritarian than Singapore.
Regardless, authoritarianism in Singapore, Hong Kong and China are likely more cultural than anything else.
As a rule in China, Singapore and Hong Kong you have alot of economic freedom but little political freedom.
I would suggest reading Ronald Coases Excellent “How China Became Capitalist” – it is an easy read by om of the 4 most brilliant economists of the past century.
Without political freedom you can only get so far.
Further the more diverse a society actually is the more freedom is an actual necessity.
China, Hong Kong and Singapore are NOT diverse compared to the anglosphere.
“The tradeoff is not authoritarianism”
John, I didn’t say there was, except for the countries specifically mentioned, all three.
Singapore has a high index of economic freedom, and Singapore is one of your examples of how libertarianism works. It also is authoritarian. Let’s think more about any nation ever in existence that survived based on libertarianism alone. It’s not going to happen. The best we can do is adopt libertarian ideas and accept the imperfection. In many ways, that is what the founders did.
Again monocultures are typically more authoritarian. That is a function of lack of diversity.
I would further not that Singappore and Pre takeover Hong Kong are not exactly authoritarian.
They are really just rigid in their application of the rule of law. They have far less laws and regulations than the US but far stronger enforcement.
Further, I am not that strong an advocate of democracy – not even representative democracy.
I am not rushing to move to Singapore. Like the vast majority of the world they are also racist there.
There is only so far a white american can go in Singapore.
But if I had a choice between fewer laws, but strictly enforced and what we have in the US I would pick the former.
Still trying to pretend this is utopian.
“Still trying to pretend this is utopian.”
John, I am not sure what you are saying.
My words are clear.
John, it pains me to argue with you over such tiny things when we have so much agreement.
“My words are clear.”
Are they?
Here is the prior response:
>>“Still trying to pretend this is utopian.”
>”John, I am not sure what you are saying.”As you well know, the word, this is a pronoun and I don’t know what it refers to. It could refer to many things even specific parts of things.
I am not accusing you of being utopian.
Not GDP v. Freedom.
But Freedom -> GDP.
There is an excellent discussion of this – though Simon uses slightly different terminology, in Julian Simon’s
The Ultimate Resource II – which is available for free online.
The major flaw in UR II is that Simon died in 1999 and it has not been updated since.
Nearly all his arguments are correct, but they need to be re proven using newer data.
John, in the countries you mentioned, one tradeoff was freedom.
“Freedom -> GDP”
I agree with that as well. Political repression restricts ideas which is one of China’s major problems today, and that restriction of ideas has negatively affected their economy.
“John, in the countries you mentioned, one tradeoff was freedom.”
No Freedom was never a tradeoff.
Each of these countries started off significantly less free, and became significnatly more free.
And experienced significant growth in standard of living as a result.
Absolutely many of these places are less free than the US is.
We often get confused because a country that is not free is successful,
Failing to note that it did not become successful until it became MORE free.
Freedom in China or India are NOT equal to that of the US. Nor is GDP/PPP.
Burt in all countries that increased in freedom GDP/PPP increased.
China has 5 times the people of the US, it has a lower GDP than the US.
But 36 times the GDP it had in 1974.
“No Freedom was never a tradeoff.”
They did not trade GDP for a loss of freedom. Their movement toward a libertarian society occurred with links to authoritarianism. I’m not linking cause and effect.
“Each of these countries started off significantly less free, and became significnatly more free.”
All three mentioned societies have seen a reduction in their freedom and a continuing decline.
John,
I disagree that most local public schools have all kinds of interests fighting for control (outside of the corporatized state and federal governments).
“With respect to local control – one of the many major problems we have with public education is the politics.
We have politics in everything. But in schools we have massive amounts”
I think this is mostly a problem in enormous districts. However, it may depend upon how politicized people are in a given locale.
Politics does not have to infect local self-governance or education. Are the people corrupted by politics? Maybe. Maybe instead they should be working forthrightly with their neighbors to help the kids get an outstanding education.
“What I am saying is that ANYTHING that you wish to see undergo constant improvement – rather then bloating and decline – Get it out of government.”
I do not see local control, with your neighbors acting as representatives, as the ugly thing that is bureacratized “government”. Are your neighbors inclined to improvement or are they themselves stagnated (this is not a progressive vs conservative affliction, by the way).
PR,
I am not especially inIterested in debating small vs. large districts or how which specific type of district fails.
I am arguing to turn as much of the education system over to the market as possible.
In a free market all those problems resolve themselves. Schools compete to attract students. They make their own choices as to how to do so, and they succeed or fail based on their success at persuading parents of thier value.
I do not want to argue over whether bigger or smaller is better, whether schools should have world class sports or arts fascilities.
These questions do not have a one size fits all answer.
And free markets do the best possible job of meeting each of our wants and needs.
Again look in the grocery aisle. There is not two or three brands of near identical cornflakes produced by 2-3 huge competing businesses – this was the broken model of free markets that our antitrust law starting in the 19th century is based on.
It is also the model that socialists and communists keep fighting.
In the real world businesses are highly diverse – just as people are. And just like people, they become more diverse the higher our standard of living is.
I would suggest reading about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and then think about how that works with economics.
I do not care how you see local government.
So long as government is small and limited to its legitimate functions – those things that only government can do,
All the rest takes care of itself. that is how free markets work.
“even public charter schools are mostly answerable to parents – who one way or another are paying them.”
Parents may or may not pay a small fraction to charter schools (do they own property? Are they above or below the poverty line?). If they pay taxes, what percentage of their personal taxes follows them to the charter school? Their neighbors pay the lion’s share and they have NO say in how those monies are used.
Who pays for charter schools?
Taxpayer dollars get sent to charter schools. Taxpayers, overall, have no say in this.
“Parents may or may not pay a small fraction to charter schools (do they own property? Are they above or below the poverty line?). If they pay taxes, what percentage of their personal taxes follows them to the charter school? Their neighbors pay the lion’s share and they have NO say in how those monies are used.
Who pays for charter schools?
Taxpayer dollars get sent to charter schools. Taxpayers, overall, have no say in this.”
It is clear from your questions that you are not very familiar with Charter schools.
First they are not the same from state to state.
Most states have charter school programs that are only open to students in failed school districts.
Charter schools are paid for exactly the same way as public schools.
Typically they are privately owned, and for profit, receiving per student payment from either the state or local school district for the students they educate.
Though again each state is somewhat different.
Parents must choose to send their kids to a charter school – they are not required to – and that is the most critical feature.
I moved my kids from a cyber charter that was very good at elementary education to one that was much better at high school as they entered hs.
The key point is that Charters MUST make parents happy or students go elsewhere – to other charters, or back to traditional schools. That drives them to excellence.
In most states charters are performing at or above the mean for students in the state. That does not sound impressive until you grasp that charter students are by significant majorities students from failed public schools.
These are typically minority students whose parents choice are charter their kids or have them join gangs.
How are charter schools paid ? Different states, different rules.
In my state charter schools receive money per student.
That is their only public finding. They are paid 75% of per student cost of the local school district. These funds come partly from the state and partly from the local school district.
Charter Schools are typically privately owned – that means just like your grocery store tax payers, parents, customers have no say in how they spend their money. But have complete control of whether they send their kids to that school.
Charters are answerable to parents – because if they do not meet expectations – parents take their kids elsewhere.
That is how actual free markets work. And they work well.
This also means charter schools are not cookie cutters – as I mentioned – some focus on excellent elementary education, some on quality HS education. Some on special needs students. I beleive in some places some charters focus on maths and sciences,
others on Arts. All have to meet the same core requirements as all other schools in the state.
To a large extent this is like the cereal aisle in the grocery store – parents get to choose what best fits the needs of their kids.
Something that does not happen in traditional public schools.
How much say do you have in your local school ?
The school district I grew up in now has a 100M auditorium and stage – it is far better than any of the theaters within an hour of me – and there are many excellent theaters – though it is not as good as the one in the adjacent school district.
It has an incredible football stadium – as well as soccer fields, track, lacross, … Millions were spent on providing college level or better sports fascillities.
I am sure that the parents of students involved in sports or theater think this is grand. but all of us paid for this.
No students are likely to graduate and make a living at sports, and few in the theater.
I am not knocking sports or theater – I ran cross country in HS, Managed the football team, and was the statistician. I was also in the fall play.
All this done with a very small budget for athletics and the arts – though more than adequate.
So why does every school district in my county have arts and sports fascilities that are superior to colleges and universities when I was at college ? They do not need these. They do not significantly improve education. And most students do not benefit from them.
Charter schools address this. If a charter school wishes to make sports or theater a value add – its hook to attract parents and teachers – that is fine. It will be responding to the wants and needs of those attending, and those with different wants and needs will go elsewhere.
“Who pays for charter schools?”
If one looks at market theory one doesn’t care if the parents pay, gramps pays, a friend pays or anyone else pays. The school satisfies those who control the dollars.
Prairie Rose,
Ignore Heckle and Jeckle; they are irredeemably irrational and incoherent trolls.
– Dissolve the unconstitutional Department of Education.
– Decertify all teacher and public worker unions.
– Elected officials must establish local school districts with the power to hire, fire, pay and direct teachers, and to provide a strong basic education.
– Private schools may exist in the free markets of the private sector as private property which government has no power to “claim or exercise” dominion over, or regulate.
Congress has no power to tax for or to regulate schools.
All education is local; it must be kept local.
The military is every nation’s first workforce and it will NEVER allow a union.
Elected officials cannot transfer the power of their elected offices to communist teacher union thugs, or to public worker union thugs, for that matter.
There is nothing in your remarks I disagree with.
I would merely add that:
We should go farther.
Education is not a legitimate function of government.
Not the federal govenrment, not the state government, not local government.
Locally governed education MIGHT be an improvement over state and federal.
But it still falls short.
It still uses FORCE to determine what children within a district are taught.
Loan Deranger
Gaetano Donizetti.
Biden has a phone and a pen.
Tell us again, Biden, Pelosi, et al, how it’s conservatives who are the threat to Democracy.
It’s “Constitutional Cynicism” you say.
It’s a lot more than that.
“It’s the Single, Solitary Human Being That’s Finished”
John, Are you trying to be Howard Beal.
Brilliant – Keep up the Good Work ✯
Turley is half Italian. He knows the ultimate question is always “cui bono.”
Biden gives away a trillion dollars with the stroke of his pen. Who benefits?
First, would be the current college students and recent college graduates. I’m sure some are conservative, but we all know what is going on in the academy today. The vast majority of beneficiaries will be partisan progressives.
Second, the colleges and universities that hiked up their tuitions, hired legions of useless DEI bureaucrats, and handed out useless but expensive degrees. They were the initial beneficiaries of these loans, and they will continue to profit from this dysfunctional system. The loan forgiveness is an indirect bailout of the academies — the most progressive places on earth.
We have to start seeing what democrats are doing for what it is: Giving tax payer dollars to their partisans. They do it all the time. Republicans never give their partisans money. Why shouldn’t the government lavishly fund True The Vote. There are hoards of democrat equivalents on the government teat. Remember ACORN? Lois Lerner’s henchperson gets put in charge of hiring 87,000 IRS agents. Who do you think she is going to hire at generous federal government salaries? That is going to be 87,000 more democrats on the government teat.
It’s not debt forgiveness, but a debt transfer.
People who agreed to repay money they received, passed that responsibility to taxpayers. The money didn’t spring forth from a magic money tree. We all paid for it.
Unfortunately, such measures further increase the cost of college tuition, and fuel inflation. Universities know that students’ budgets just got freed up by another $10,000. This encourages them to keep raising tuition or bloating administration. Students think that if the government gave out taxpayer money once, they’ll do it again. That rhetoric about how college should be free wouldn’t apply just once. They’ll go into even more debt, thinking they won’t have to actually pay it back. It also further heats up inflation, as people have more money to spend.
It’s a slap in the face to those who didn’t go to college, or those who worked two jobs to pay off their student loans. Younger students who just missed this handout are going to be wondering where their “free” $10,000 are.
Sometimes, shoveling money at a problem is adding fuel to fire.
Karen S.
What is stopping the next presidential candidate, either party, from promising on the campaign trail that they will relieve $20k in student debt?
Then the other guy to say $40k in student debt!
And so on.
Why stop there?
Car loans?
Mortgage loans?
Rent?
At this point the public knows the ABC agency are withholding all the exculpatory evidence of J6.
Judges need to throw out all charges! Then Change the Antifa/BLM/Govt Intel instigators
Where’s that Ahole Ray Epps? John Sullivan? And the rest of those creeps?
So Ph’ Commie/Nazis.
What we need is the truth.
Not the political narrative of the J6 committee or the media, but the truth.
After that let the chips fall where they lie.
I expect the real truth is damaging to the left more than the right.
I expect the real truth is that protesters had their first amendment rights violated resulting in violence.
But whatever the truth is – let it out.
Thanks JT for providing a explanation and an analysis in this column of your conclusion in your August 29 post that the loan forgiveness program is unconstitutional. I appreciate the follow-up.
Seems like obstruction is best case scenario for trump. If any of these missing classified documents can be paper trailed somewhere else immediate espionage charges land on him. For those of you who regularly make excuses for him, well, let’s just say it’s time to realize just how tenuous his position is now.
What does Trump’s conduct have to do with Professor Turley’s thesis that the college loan forgiveness is unconstitutional?
Probably time to bring trump in for official questioning re classified materials.
Estovir, is this what you want to see in the future?
—
Document dump in Biden-Tech collusion suit reveals ‘massive, sprawling’ censorship: plaintiffs
Justice Department fights demand for Anthony Fauci testimony, including “nature and content” of phone conversations with Mark Zuckerberg. Several White House staff among 50-plus federal officials tied to misinformation removal efforts.
“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased” by what the defendants have already turned over, New Civil Liberties Alliance lawyer Jenin Younes said.
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/white-house-ordered-fauci-parody-takedown-dozen-agencies-involved-big-tech?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Jonathan: Pres. Biden may or may not be able to legally defend his use of executive power to forgive student debt. But it is going to play well with millions of students and former students who are saddled with student loans they can’t possibly repay. They are also voters. The GOP now indicates it is going to court to stop the president’s “usurpation of constitutional power”. The niceties of legal issues aside, the optics of the GOP telling students they should pay back every penny of their onerous loans won’t be good for GOP candidates in the fall elections–especially at a time when the GOP is claiming to represent the interests of “ordinary working-class Americans.”
And it’s ludicrous for you to argue Biden’s order is an “exercise in one-man rule”. For four years Trump acted like he was above the law. He took money from the Pentagon budget to build his “Big Beautiful Wall” when Congress refused to provide money for it. Even now Trump is demanding he be immediately re-instated president because he continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was “stolen” from him. Trump wants “one-man rule” like no other president in history!
But let’s discuss other important breaking news. As we approach the Fall the J.6 Hearings are going to heat up again. The Committee has Ginni Thomas in their sights. They want her to testify voluntarily about her efforts to overturn the 2020 election. She has refused so a subpoena will probably be required. Will she fight the subpoena? Stay tuned. Now the Washington Post has published emails showing Thomas was pressing lawmakers in Wisconsin, in addition to Arizona, to get them to set aside the election results in that state. Wisconsin Senate Election Commission chairwoman Kathy Bernier and GOP state rep, Gary Tauchen, say they received an email from Thomas on 11/9 pressing them to “take action to ensure that a clean [!!] slate of Electors is chosen for our state”.
If Thomas is compelled to testify, refuses and is held in contempt, this could prove very embarrassing for her husband, Justice Thomas. He has indicated he will not recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 election. It would not only be embarrassing but a breach of judicial ethics for Justice Thomas not to recuse in a case involving the political activities of his wife. It looks like we’re going to see more “blockbuster” J.6 hearings in the Fall.
“But it is going to play well with millions of students and former students who are saddled with student loans they can’t possibly repay. They are also voters.”
Dennis, how much crazier can one get than advocating the President of the United States pass an executive order that unconstitutionally removes power from the legislative branch controlling the power of the purse, and giving that power to the executive branch?
You said your expertise was in history, Obviously, the history you studied had nothing to do with the Constitution, Separation of powers, or the rule of law.
All that the GOP has to do is to propose an alternative. What I would suggest is legislation making student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy (something that they were until legislation sponsored by Biden that made them not dischargeable). If they were dischargeable, then it would be left to bankruptcy judges to decide when student debts are unconscionable onerous, which is just the sort of thing bankruptcy judges decide all the time.
So, where student debts work a real hardship, they can be discharged in bankruptcy.. Prosperous former students don’t escape their debts. And the universities don’t get paid. (And seeing that the universities do get paid is a major reason for the Biden administration’s proposal making sure that the universities do get paid. Universities are a major interest group for the Democrats).
Unconscionably onerous, is what I meant. I don’t know whether I or Autocorrect is responsible for the mistake.
There is a sliver of hope. The head of twitter has said that they shouldn’t have killed the Biden laptop story and the leader of Facebook has said that he was instructed by the FBI to censor anyone who posted about the laptop. Maybe the heads of these two social media giants have decided that they don’t want to be owned by the federal government. When the Biden administration wants a work around to take the congress out of being involved in the making of law the only realistic definition of what they are doing is totalitarianism. They can’t convince the people who represent you that their ideas should be implemented so they just declare law by decree. You will question the “Dear Leader” at your peril and he will of course brand you if you do as a Semi-Facist. Heil Biden.
Did the “head of twitter” confess that he and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America stole the election, precisely due to the fact that they, in fact, stole the election?
They began stealing elections when they failed to enforce extant immigration law on January 1, 1863, by compassionately repatriating 3 million illegal aliens, and continued adding to their voter rolls through further illegal immigration over the southern wide-open border, then continued stealing elections by illicitly, corruptly, unconstitutionally and improperly ratifying, not one, but three “fake” amendments to the Constitution, one of which, in their opinions, eliminated the power of State legislatures to impose vote criteria, the first of which were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, in the 1788 presidential election, set by the very Framers and Founder of the United States of America.
They have exponentially increased their capacity to steal elections ever since in the American restricted-vote republic, which was to persist under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in perpetuity – certainly as long as the Ten Commandments.
All they have done for 150 years is violate constitutional election rules and steal elections.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
WHEN DO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BEGIN TO DO THEIR DUTIES PER THEIR SWORN OATHS?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.”
– DOJ, Office of Justice Programs
___________________________
The judicial branch and Supreme Court have the power of Judicial Review, and the duty to adjudicate all acts of the executive and legislative branches including unconstitutional student loans.
Congress has the power to tax for debt, defense and infrastructure, infrastructure being general Welfare – ALL WELL ADVANCE, as roads, water, electricity, internet, sewer, post office, etc.
Congress has no power to tax, fund and establish student loans.
Congress has no power to forgive student loans.
Congress has no power to regulate student loans.
The executive branch has no power to tax for or regulate anything.
_____________________________________________________
SEVERELY LIMITED AND RESTRICTED ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS TO TAX AND REGULATE
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;…
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;….
___________________________________________________________________
THAT’S ALL, FOLKS!
Isn’t the Presidents Declaration relevant to Marbury v. Madison? If the courts can rule against Acts of Congress and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, in which part of the Constitution is the Executive given the power to arbitrarily take control of the Treasury to forgive debt owed the United States? The Constitution does give equal power to the Courts declarative authority on legality.
Professor Jacobson at ‘Legal Insurrection’ warns that Biden with his horrible rant and his handlers’ conduct are trying to provoke violence.
I think he is right and I think that is what was on the menu on 1/6 when agents and BLM and Antifa infiltrated the crowd and stirred up trouble with impunity.
Ray Epps is apparently an example per:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ray-epps-uncharged-in-capitol-riot-but-feds-arrested-woman-engaged-in-similar-conduct
Some in the government appear to have been wishing for a Reichstag Fire event so they can justify their totalitarian conduct. They didn’t really get it on 1/6 but they likely will keep trying.
Meanwhile they will keep telling us that a goofy, unarmed crank wearing horns nearly toppled the government on 1/6.
One odd thing about the old goat is that he keeps threatening half the country with F-15s. Where were the F-15s when the Buffalo Horn Man was pushing over the Washington Monument [BLM will get around to doing that]?
And who is going to fly the F-15s? There was a time early in the French Revolution when uniformed military were ordered to aim their rifles at protesters and they refused. Later they turned them around and pointed them in the other direction.
But this sorry lot seems ignorant of history or they wouldn’t have staged Biden in a Hitleresque speech. By the way, the word from the odd looking WH spokescritter [I’m not going to risk getting a pronoun or gender wrong] is that if you don’t go along with the majority [as defined by WH] you are an extremist. Goebbels couldn’t have said it better.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/09/joe-biden-delivers-one-of-the-most-menacing-bitter-angry-and-divisive-speeches-in-modern-us-political-history/
Young– I pray that the WH “spokescritter” is an affirmative action hire. Surely no one would intentionally hire someone so clueless unless motivated by something other than ability. Her comment (so far un-retracted) that if you don’t go along with the majority you are an extremist can only mean she and the President would have opposed the Supreme Court overruling Plessy v. Ferguson and the right of privacy the Court found in Roe v. Wade, and a host of other cases involving human rights since at the time nearly all of the decisions were counter to the “majority.” Even the most uninformed among us knows that a fundamental strength of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is the protection it affords minorities from the “tyranny of the majority.” She/he/it/they really is a twit, but she is perfect for this WH.
Honest–
She has to be an affirmative action hire. That said, she is stupider than even they expected.
But she is a tar baby. They can’t get unstuck from her without getting racism demerits.
That said, she is the perfect public face for this bumbling, nasty and incompetent administration.
Mass Formation Hypnosis: The Psychology of Totalitarianism Exposed, Professor Mattias Desmet In-Studio
5,878 views
·
Sep 2, 2022
3
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
https://banned.video/watch?id=63128338f675d544c48601e8
I wouldn’t say tar baby. More like rag doll with head stuffed with cotton.
“Biden with his horrible rant and his handlers’ conduct are trying to provoke violence.”
That is right out of Lenin’s playbook. Hitler’s as well. Part of Marx’s writing was advocating revolution.
Continuing our conversation of Donald Trump from 2 weeks ago, the following news article made me think of our recent exchange. I had told you then that Trump’s behavior towards Carly Fiorina and Megan Kelly, just 2 examples, was reprehensible. You argued he had changed. I disagreed and let it go. Trump is still the awful, reprehensible, low life that I saw him to be when he threw his hat into the RNC nomination. It is a sad testament that he beat all of the other RNC candidates.
Trump is an awful human being. What man would stand for another insulting his wife? Surely you would not.
A man this depraved (just like Hillary and Joe Biden) do not deserve any support nor praise from Americans. Defending Bill Clinton back in the 1990s was reprehensible. Now Republicans do the same with Trump. He is who he is down to his bone marrow, and anything he says that challenges his well deserved depiction is an act. He is after all a reality TV producer. What he is now doing to Elaine Chao is despicable, and every Republican should excoriate him as such. They wont because like Democrats who made excuses in the 1990s for Bill Clinton, Republicans have morphed into such creatures.
Donald Trump’s Vendetta Politics
The former President smears Elaine Chao because her family is ethnic Chinese.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-vendetta-politics-elaine-chao-transportation-secretary-mitch-mcconnell-11661969905
” I had told you then that Trump’s behavior towards Carly Fiorina and Megan Kelly, just 2 examples, was reprehensible. You argued he had changed. ”
Let me quote and add to what I believe, so it is clear in your mind.
No man is a Saint, and sometimes what appears to be the devil turns out to be a Saint. Who knows who the next Bartolo Longo will be, and who is it who knows what path will bring him there? Can good come from evil? Yes, and I will accept good from anyone if it makes the world a better place.
There is no way I can dissuade you from hating Trump though hate is not something one should carry in their heart. Catholicism and Judaism teach love, something you know is my preference, even when others have caused me harm.
Be that as it may, Trump does have some bad qualities. He is a sinner, but so am I.
Everything you mention has to do with the man before he was President. Who is Trump? The man before 2016 or the man afterward? Trump post-2016 improved the lives of our citizens and the citizens of the world. He created peace. He also promoted what you love, which at the same time promoted morality. Such actions are not those of a devil.
Trump’s insults to those you mention were reprehensible, but I mentioned that politics was a bloody sport, and if one looks at what politicians say, do, and don’t do when they promise certain things, one can say, to the hell with all of them.
Statesmanship has disappeared, but at least Trump fulfilled his promises or at least tried his best to complete them. When voting for Trump, I am not voting for the man who insulted those people. I am voting for the man who fulfilled what he promised and made America a better place.
The devil comes in many forms. When one looks at many of our politicians today, one wonders how many are the product of the devil.
I support Trump wholeheartedly, knowing the opposition, even in his own party, might lead to the catastrophe of an American Venezuela.
Character is important to me, but what I have learned in life is that living is more important. Therefore at times, I have to ride side by side with one I might dislike in the hope that my ability to compromise will bring a better life to all.
In the end, your choice is Biden, who has never been moral (he lied about everything, is unconstitutional, and is a thief). The alternative to Biden is another Democrat, but you have seen the horrors of Democrat control. Finally, there is Trump if he should run, DeSantis if Trump chooses not to run.
There is no rational choice, even when one includes morality. Today’s Democrats act in a fashion that doesn’t comply with the morality we discuss. The choice between a man who is imperfect but has done good, against those that say what you might like to hear even though logic should tell you they are lying. That is the choice you have to make, the leadership of the phony Jesus of the Democrats or the imperfect but effective leadership of the Republicans.
The choice should be Trump (or DeSantis), for any other choice is a disaster for America.
There is no way I can dissuade you from hating Trump though hate is not something one should carry in their heart.
Well done.
I wrote previously:
Defending Bill Clinton back in the 1990s was reprehensible. Now Republicans do the same with Trump.
which is exactly what you have proven with your above comment. So again, well done! That was too easy.
I have posted the following comment many times. It applies to you and Republicans who have followed the trajectory of Democrats, two parties that are indistinguishable today, to our great poverty
We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.
– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, 2005
https://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html
Had you kept attending Temple, feeding, challenging, exercising your mind and soul with Judaic teachings, and if Christians had done the same for their spiritual nourishment, we would not be in this place today. Period. End of story.
As I stated earlier, sloth is a treacherous thing. We are a slothful nation. The statistics of Americans and religion today are clear: people have stopped exercising on a daily basis their religious foundational practices, the same ones that built this country.
A bodybuilder does not become muscular and fit by abandoning the gym and relinquishing nutritious meals. A lawyer does not become proficient at lawyering by avoiding the practice of law. A pilot does not become an expert aviator by watching videos on flying. It takes practice. It takes work. It takes guts to walk the talk.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, & George Washington together wrote George Washington’s Farewell Address, which I have posted 2 other times here. I have also posted John Adams words on how the constitution was written for a religious people.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
Those are the facts. You choose to embrace relativism. Nothing good comes from that which is why we are where we are today. That is on you and all those who bemoan our current country. Had they kept firm to their religious foundational principles, had they raised their children in the same ways, had they taken charge of the education of their children at home, we would not be in this state today. Recall I wrote that the one thing that sustained me throughout my poverty is the love my parents provided. I was rich beyond compare. Today’s youth are hopelessly lost. That is the fault of their parents
You can not offer a treatment or remedy to a pathology without understanding how the organism became sick. If you never understand why the body became sick, you can not offer a treatment. I hope I am wrong but I believe the only way our country will get better is when we are all brought to our knees and realize we need each other as in a natural disaster, or terrible devastating war, etc.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-s-farewell-address/
Estovir, firstly, I am not a Republican though, in today’s ugly politics, I will not vote Democrat until they return to a more normal version of the Democrat Party ceasing to promote socialist and fascist ideas while undermining the rule of law.
I was a Democrat for most of my life but voted independently. Many years ago, I switched to the Republican Party so I could vote in the primaries for a particular person. More recently, I moved away from the Republican Party because they were not responsive to the needs of Liberty. I will, however, vote solid Republican until there is a change in the Democrat Party. Liberty, the Constitution, and free market economics are foremost in my mind.
“Defending Bill Clinton back in the 1990s was reprehensible. Now Republicans do the same with Trump.
which is exactly what you have proven with your above comment. So again, well done! That was too easy.”
You didn’t prove that at all. The Democrat Party is glued in lockstep to destroy the Constitution, our Liberty, and the free market system. The free market system of America has elevated the standard of living worldwide and brought more people out of poverty than all charities combined.
If you want Castro, vote Democrat. If you want Liberty and private property suck it in and vote for someone you have no respect for. At least you will be free, and your property, intellectual and otherwise, will be yours.
“two parties that are indistinguishable today, to our great poverty”
The two parties are not indistinguishable, though I have no love for the Republican Party of today. However, Trump pushed the Republican Party (which acted like cannibals eating their own) in the direction of Liberty, private property, and the Constitution. You are trying to equate opposites, and that is wrong. Though this issue shouldn’t even be considered, you are equating the killing of a child of a nine- month old to those that wish abortion abolished or limited. How you can equate the two is impossible for me to understand.
“We are building a dictatorship of relativism “
That may be true. However, you are advocating building an absolute dictatorship by Democrats, or have you not noticed what has been going on?
“Had you kept attending Temple, feeding, challenging, exercising your mind and soul with Judaic teachings,”
How do you know what another person believes? You don’t. You seem to be favoring Catholic politicians that promote atheism. Does attending church provide you with absolution from such beliefs? Maybe you believe so, but to me, that is not true. Your actions today and tomorrow tell us who we are despite our attendance and observance of religious practices. The mobster who keeps killing, in my opinion, is not absolved through religiosity. He is absolved when he believes in being righteous.
” It takes work. It takes guts to walk the talk.”
It also takes compromise and recognition of relative evils. You seem to accept the evil of heinous actions over the evil of bad words. That is not being righteous.
“You choose to embrace relativism. “
You can hide behind relativism for only so long. Then you are forced to make hard decisions that aren’t pleasant but in the end, benefit all rather than yourself and your religiosity.
” Had they kept firm to their religious foundational principles”
What religious principles have I not upheld? What humanistic principles have you not upheld with your religiosity? Note, I am not talking about your religion that preaches things I believe in. I am talking about symbolic actions instead of necessary real actions.
“Recall I wrote that the one thing that sustained me throughout my poverty is the love my parents provided.”
Recall, that I reminded you to replace hatred with love.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
I am not disputing that. However, I am disputing the actions of those that would silence religion and morality. You seem to be supporting them. It was under Trump that abortion was removed from the federal government. It is the Democrats who are turning against people because of religion.
Did you listen to my last video from Project Veritas? The assistant principal is recorded saying they subtly don’t hire good Catholics because they don’t bend to the will of the socialists. Our children are learning from these types of Democrat supporters.
You seem to base your feelings on emotions that have been drummed into your mind. I am not insulting you. Things like muscles being built in the gym can also build a mindset that is not open to recognizing that the world changed and Democrats have become fascist, against the Constitution, Liberty, and the free marketplace.
“You choose to embrace relativism. Nothing good comes from that which is why we are where we are today.”
And nothing but destruction comes from your proposed “solution” to relativism — religious dogmatism.
That dogmatism created the worst period of human history — the Dark Ages.
Surrender your brain and moral autonomy to society (relativism) is merely the flip side of: surrender your brain and moral autonomy to God.
An independent thinker does not surrender his moral autonomy to any “authority.”
Who’s worst Estovir?
You, Me or Trump?
Or Carly Fiorina, Megan Kelly, Nikkie Halley, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary or countless other Evil C’s? I’ve better dogs as they are dogs behaving as dogs do.
https://medium.com/koinonia/what-comes-after-three-d8ccfc540688
*********
BTW: FYI, I hope you’ve already seen this video decades ago as I have. Just look at the shape of Spain, Cuba, Ireland, Scotland, USA etc…, all sorry lots as nations they are.
George Knows, just read or view.
They may get one. Not the outcome they seek.
Young, if you think January 6th was triggered by Antifa, you’re a delusional idiot.
“Biden with his horrible rant and his handlers’ conduct are trying to provoke violence.”
Yep.
Those with fascist urges need a pretext to usurp rights, to censor speech, to create political “criminals,” and this:
To declare a National “Emergency” *before* the midterms. Then they can game that election, too.
“No one in Congress is keen…?” Disagree. Any Republican member of Congress should have standing to sue, and surely one will, on the basis that Biden has unconstitutionally usurped their vote on what is effectively a government spending bill. Given her previous agreement on that position, maybe Pelosi would join in the suit (LOL!)
Your statement reveals how well your insulting pen name suits you.
Laughably wrong – You are a low class ***wipe. The US Constitution indicates that all spending bills originate in the Congress (House) and this is a spending bill (at the minimum imputed) as it is spending US T/Ps monies. If plan to retie on a retirement of investments, you best hope that good Corporations make the grade, survive, and produce for your monthly benefit. You hide behind a disrespectful superficial façade, and spew swill.
We live in an Orwellian time. This is a truly fascist government. The sole purpose of it’s
Actions is to maintain power in perpetuity acts in defiance of the constitution: it collaborates with high tech corporations to suppress free speech; it weaponizes law enforcement agencies and it persecutes it’s likely opponent in the next election This is a truly evil administration