Thursday, September 23, 2021

QUORA: ‘Why do Democrats contend that Republicans benefit from low voter turnout? Where is the evidence for that?’

 QUORA: ‘Why do Democrats contend that Republicans benefit from low voter turnout? Where is the evidence for that?

I posted this answer:

For as long as I can remember -- and that’s a long time -- so-called conventional wisdom has held that high voter turnout is bad for Republicans. It turns out, the evidence refutes that myth. The 2020 election exploded that conventional wisdom convincingly. 

As the New York Times’s David Leonard reported on 12/23/21, On the Myth that High Turnout Benefits Dems,

In 2020, turnout soared, yet Democrats did worse than expected. Yes, they defeated Trump, but they failed to retake the Senate (for now) and lost ground in the House and in state legislatures.*

The Associated Press made the point that lower turnout may even hurt the Republicans as much as, or more than, the Democrats, noting:

In Iowa, 76% of eligible voters cast ballots last November, among the highest rates in the nation, as Republicans swept races up and down the ballot. Trump easily won the state in what had been expected to be a close race, Republican Joni Ernst won reelection to the U.S. Senate, and Republicans flipped two U.S. House seats with no major problems or fraud reported. 

In an article for Commentary, Republicans, Stop Believing Your Own Election Myth, Chris Stirewalt observes that high turnout does not favor Democrats, and provides several examples to back up the claim:

Both sides attribute President Biden’s victory to this increased turnout, but this is probably false. In their book The Turnout Myth, political scientists Daron Shaw and John Petrocik put to rest the old saws about the subject. In 2006, Democrats swept in a low-turnout vote, but they got crushed in the midterms four years later when turnout increased dramatically. Turnout climbed from 2000 to 2004—but Republicans performed better at every level. Like those cycles, 2020 offered no evidence that bigger is bluer. Even as Biden was winning, Republicans defied expectations, gaining House seats and keeping a lock on statehouses across the country. It was not a blue wave that swept Trump from office. Rather, it was the nudge from moderate voters in the suburbs of big cities in swing states. Nor was it mail-in voting that made the difference. A study from Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy research presents very strong evidence that mail-in voting itself did not drive the turnout surge, nor did it constitute any significant partisan advantage.

Jon Ward makes the same point for Yahoo News, adding:

And this gets to the second major implication of the turnout myth: Republican fears [that] a more diverse country [favors Democrats] appear to have been largely unfounded.

The 2020 election was a perfect example of this. The GOP lost the presidency but won most of the competitive U.S. Senate races and gained seats in the House. It also did much better in state legislative races than expected.

And while we’re at it, let’s take a look at another myth that got tarnished in 2020 -- that the Democrats have a lock on the urban vote. As The Washington Post reported, Trump wasn’t just a rural phenomenon. Most of his supporters come from cities and suburbs:

Folks who talk about President Trump’s rural base are missing something.

Are rural Americans Trump voters? Yes, many of them. Trump voters outnumber voters who supported Joe Biden 2 to 1 in rural counties.

But are all Trump voters rural? Absolutely not. Voters in rural America accounted for less than a fifth of all votes cast for him.

Biden won a bit more than half of the urban vote, but it wasn’t a blowout victory — Trump had urban majorities in 21 states.

For the record, I do not have a political ax to grind here. I am an Independent not just as a registered voter but also philosophically. 

* The Democrats eventually won two Georgia’s two senate seats in a January runoff, giving them a tie in the Senate and effective control. But I believe it highly likely that Donald Trump’s voter fraud conspiracy rantings against Georgia’s election process discouraged enough GOP voters from voting that he swung that election to the Democrats.


QUORA: ‘What's wrong with automatic voter registration?’

Democracy Doesn’t ‘Win’ When Free Speech is Suppressed, Voting Rights or No Voting Rights.

Statistical Disparities Don’t Proof Discrimination in Voter ID Laws

The Vote: Get Off Your Butt and Register—But Keep the Nanny State Out of It

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

16 Year Old Voters? How About 21?

Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppress Anybody's Vote, or Voice

Freedom Is Not About the Right to Vote, So I’m Voting Anti-Democrat Across the Board

HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy

QUORA: 'I haven't heard any valid reason to restrict [Voting] other than felony crimes. Why are so many state legislatures trying to put restrictions?'

Monday, September 20, 2021

When Private Media ‘Colludes’ With Government, Blame the Government, Not Media: The Dollar is No Match for a Bullet.

There is a line of thought developing that holds that if social media companies restrict content that the government wants restricted, there is fascist collusion going on. Consequently, private social media companies should be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for anti-First Amendment violations.


As Lori Roman and Naomi Wolf write in Left and Right Should Unite to Stop Censorship for The Epoch Times

We, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton’s campaign and a former member of the George W. Bush Administration, may not agree on many public policy issues. Figuratively speaking, we wear different colored hats. But we have joined together to sound the alarm against censorship.

Viewpoint censorship threatens to destroy the country as it was intended to be—a beacon of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The First Amendment protects citizens from the government controlling speech, and the principle of free speech permeates our founding principles.

Just last week, the White House press secretary bragged that the Biden Administration is working with social media companies to flag speech they find unacceptable. They label it “misinformation” while a better description would be “inconvenient information.”

Corporations may think they are free to censor speech because the First Amendment was written to constrain government, but when they conspire and collude with the government to censor, they have crossed the line and left themselves open to litigation that could destroy their companies.

But this is very dangerous thinking. It assumes that Facebook et al are on equal footing with the government. That is entirely false. The government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force -- the power of the gun. Facebook has no such power. It only has the market power of voluntarism -- the power of the dollar. 

To equivocate Facebook with the Biden Administration is a grave injustice. The New York Times reports how Joe Biden “has assembled the most aggressive antitrust team in decades,

stacking his administration with three legal crusaders as it prepares to take on corporate consolidation and market power with efforts that could include blocking mergers and breaking up big companies. 

Antitrust not only empowers the government to block mergers and dismantle private companies, but also to levy ruiness fines and even jail executives. What chance does Facebook have against that kind of power? Yes, it can fight in court. But there is no realistic defense against undefined accusations, like “intent to monopolize.” Ultimately, government wins because it has, through antitrust, arbitrary, undefined, unlimited powers -- not to mention unlimited resources.

Let’s take a look at a recent example of how this mismatch between private companies and the government. President Biden has pressured social media to take down so-called “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccines. As Jacob Sullum writes in Joe Biden Is Trying to Impose Online Censorship by Proxy for Reason, “The administration’s public pressure campaign against COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ cannot be reconciled with its avowed respect for freedom of expression.” 

President Joe Biden wants to suppress speech that discourages Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19. Because the First Amendment does not allow him to do that, he is asking Facebook and other social media companies to do it for him.

Or at least that's the way White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who calls the Biden administration's demands for speech restrictions "our asks," describes the situation. But given the federal government's power to make life difficult for Facebook et al., the line between a request and a command is hazy, and so is the line between private content moderation and government censorship.

Psaki's assurances are hard to take seriously given the public pressure that the Biden administration is applying, its ability to launch litigation and support legislation that hurts social media companies, and its threat of "legal and regulatory measures." If those companies do what the president wants by cracking down on speech he does not like, they will be acting as the government's agents.

Emphasis is mine. Of course, a private company has a right to its political opinion. If it wants to help the Biden Administration advance a particular viewpoint about vaccines, it has as much right to take a political position as you or I have. It has as much right to ban what it considers “misinformation” on its platform as a lecture hall owner has to ban it in their venues or, for that matter, you or I have to ban it in our homes (although that would violate their stated purpose of fostering free expression and likely be commercially harmful over time). 

But that’s not what’s going on with the alleged “collusion” charges levied by the likes of Lori Roman and Naomi Wolf. These private companies literally have a governmental gun to their heads. New Jersey Representative Tom Malinowski captured the essence of this fact when, in support of his proposed Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act, which is intended to force companies to reign in “extreme left-wing”--and right-wing--“ideas,” he warned, “And if they don’t do it voluntarily, we’re going to have to regulate them to death.” 

I've been warning about censorship-by-proxy for a long time. The politicians can't directly censor, because of the First Amendment. But they have a powerful backdoor weapon, the regulatory state. Politicians can "arm twist" companies into submission by threatening regulation, in particular antitrust enforcement. The antitrust "laws" are particularly powerful. They're not really laws. They are unAmerican statutes that grant government arbitrary power, the tool of authoritarianism. Antitrust gives politicians power to prosecute any business for anything, at any time, at will. And it's a powerful tool for politicians to pressure private entities to do its bidding. Antitrust is Al Capone "politics," not law. Given that politicians of both parties are already threatening social media companies with antitrust, how much choice do they have to resist the political demand to censor their users? After all, the only power companies have is voluntary market, or economic, power. The government has the coercive power of law. Facebook’s dollar is no match for the government’s bullet.

This demonstrates the integral nature of rights, in which intellectual freedom depends on economic freedom, and vice-versa—and both depend on political freedom. It also shows how individual rights depend on grasping the crucial distinction between economic and political power, or what philosopher Harry Binswanger symbolizes as The Dollar and the Gun. This case shows how economic controls are used to crush other freedoms, like free speech. Intellectual freedom is not possible without economic freedom. Roman and Wolf call this “collusion” “indicative of America’s freefall into fascism.” Yes, it is fascism. But don't blame the social media companies. They are victims of the government’s fascist attack. Blame the government, which holds the power of the gun—a power that neither Facebook nor Twitter nor any private company possesses. The Italian government of Benito Mussolini, the original fascist, explains in “the ninth declaration of the Charter of Labor,

The intervention of the state in economic production takes place only when private initiative is lacking or is insufficient or when political interests of the state are involved. Such intervention may assume the form of control, assistance, or direct management. 

Fascism can only be initiated by the state. Private entities, in and of themselves, by definition cannot initiate fascism under a proper, individual rights-securing constitution. We need to understand this distinction. Our freedom depends on it. 

Related Reading:

Malinowski's Censorship-By-Proxy 'Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act' Advances

No, AOC, It's Not the Government's Job to 'Rein in Our Media': The First Amendment doesn't come with an exception for "disinformation," by Robby Soave for Reason

Americans Abandoning Free Speech Better Brace for the Consequences by J.D. Tuccille for Reason: Government will happily suppress misinformation in favor of misinformation of its own.

The Abolition of Antitrust by Gary Hull

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger

Antitrust Prosecution of Apple is Rotten

My published letter-to-the-editor: Google not a Monopoly

The Banning of Alex Jones: Facebook Choice or Regulatory Extortion?

Fauci Can’t Get His Own Facts Straight, Yet the Government Wants to Decide What’s ‘Misinformation’ on Social Media by Hannah Cox for FEE

Biden’s Antitrust Team Signals a Big Swing at Corporate Titans By Jim Tankersley and Cecilia Kang for the New York Times: The president has stacked his administration with crusaders who have spent their careers challenging corporate consolidation.

Friday, September 17, 2021

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

 234 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention ended and the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. This day is officially known as Constitution Day.


It was also an occasion for one columnist to declare that the US Constitution is "broken." The New Jersey Star-Ledger's Tom Moran wrote five years ago:


Kids in America are taught to venerate the Constitution, almost as if it were the word of God.

And that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared. He believed it was flawed, that experience would teach each generation new lessons and that it should be redone every 19 years.

But Jefferson lost the argument. And so the Founders signed a Constitution  225 [230] years ago tomorrow that is an impregnable fortress, firmly set against the forces of change that Jefferson welcomed and almost impossible to amend.

Does that make sense? Haven’t we learned valuable lessons over the past few centuries about how democracies thrive, and how they stagnate? In a day when our federal government is so dysfunctional, shouldn't we at least consider fundamental changes?

University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson is advocating a series of such fundamental changes to the US Constitution, which Moran discusses in his column. Levinson's proposals include instituting a direct popular vote for president and measures to greatly weaken the checks and balances that limit the power of any one branch of government. In essence, Levinson's purpose, according to Moran, is to expand the power of majority rule and break Washington's political "gridlock," which has made our federal government "dysfunctional."

Moran approvingly cites Thomas Jefferson who, as Moran strongly implies, would welcome these constitutional changes, or any changes suited to any generation.

Before we discuss ways to expand the power of electoral majority rule so as to enable the government to get more "done", we need to have a conversation about what the government's proper job it is to do.

The American constitution's basic function is to limit the government's power to the protection of individual rights. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution. Any discussion about the constitution has to begin with the Declaration--which, incidentally, was written by Thomas Jefferson:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .


In its essentials, this 55 word statement of proper government says:


  • Rights are held equally and at all times by all people.

  • Rights belong inextricably to the individual by virtue of his nature as a human being.

  • Rights are guarantees to freedom of action; to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness guaranteed by the labor or wealth of others.

  • Rights precede government.

  • Government is created exclusively to “secure”—i.e., protect—rights, not to grant them by legislative decree.

  • Government’s “just powers” being authorized by the people, through a popular vote.

  • “Just powers” being those powers, and only those powers, required for the government to fulfill the purpose for which it was created to begin with—to legally protect the people’s unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

First come rights. Then comes government. Then comes the right to vote. Of course, this is not the "Word of God," to be accepted uncritically. Each of these points requires extensive philosophical backup. None of these "truths" are in fact "self-evident." They must be learned and validated scientifically; i.e., morally and philosophically, as determined by the observable facts of reality concerning man and his requirements for survival and flourishing. And they were—by the Founding revolutionaries. But these are the essentials, as I see it.

The Founders did not intend to create a democracy, despite Moran's devious attempt to smuggle in that premise. They created a constitutionally limited republic protective of the liberty and rights of the individual, under which the constitution "carefully limits the power of the majority by drawing a legal boundary around it" (P. 113)—a boundary that stops majority and elected officials' power where individual rights begin. The Founders understood that the government presupposes individual rights. So the constitutional discussion must begin with the questions: What are rights, and what is the proper function of government?

As the Declaration states, every individual is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Since productive work is the only means of sustaining one's life and achieving happiness, it's obvious that the Founders understood--including in Jefferson's own words--that property rights are among those rights. The Declaration then states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Rights—which in fact are not endowments by either nature or God but moral principles derived from observations and facts about human nature—are sanctions to freedom of action in a social context, not a claim on the lives and property of others or a government guarantee of material well-being and happiness. Notice that the constitution does not authorize the government to redistribute private wealth.

Moran is wrong. America hasn't stagnated. It has "progressed" from what was a largely free country a century ago to a burgeoning regulatory welfare state—a dangerous regressionary trend unsupported by constitutional authority. Why? Because the fundamental principles upon which the constitution rests have been largely abandoned, opening the door to the piecemeal progression toward unlimited majoritarian rule, a manifestation of totalitarianism. Consequently, our best short-term protection against further encroachments on individual rights--and it's a weak protection--is political gridlock. I can't think of anything more dangerous to America's future than to begin tampering with the basics of the constitution in today's cultural environment. Before we consider unshackling majority rule, we must rediscover our Founding principles, roll back the regulatory welfare state, and provide ironclad guarantees that no one's rights be alienated by majority vote; i.e., respect the original intent of the constitution.

The Founders did not intend to replace absolute monarchy with absolute majority rule unconstrained by the principle of individual rights. As Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) asked during a debate over the propriety of the Revolutionary War in the movie "The Patriot", "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."

The answer: We shouldn't. As Jefferson said, "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." The Founders were not primarily concerned with giving the people the right to vote. They intended to liberate the people from predatory government, whether monarchistic, theocratic, socialist, or democratic.

There are those who would invert the original concept of Americanism—that the individual is sovereign and his life belongs to him—and replace it with the idea that the collective—i.e., the state—is sovereign over the individual. It is an attempted transition from republican constitutionalism to democracy; from individualism to collectivism. We cannot let the counter-revolutionary reactionaries succeed. The fight to defeat the reactionaries and restore and renew Americanism can start with this: As we celebrate Constitution Day, remember what I call the Constitution’s philosophic blueprint, or what has also been called the Conscience of the Constitution—the Declaration of Independence.

Related Reading:

America the Undemocratic

On a Revisionist's Proposal to Upend the Declaration of Independence

Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence—Onkar Ghate


The Declaration of Independence

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

Constitutional Ignorance Led to a Tyranny of the Majority—Gary M. Galles

John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Memo to Micah Herskind: ‘True Democracy’ is a Repudiation of Americanism

Micah Herskind, then a Princeton student, contributed a guest column to the 12/3/18 New Jersey Star-Ledger. His goal is to argue for restoring voting rights for individuals incarcerated in our prisons. Until then, he argues, America will never be a “formal democracy.” 

Of course, America was never intended to be a formal democracy. It was intended to be a constitutional republic based on individual rights, into which a democratic process is incorporated. Some call this liberal democracy, implying that liberty comes before the democratic process. In Until everyone can vote, we’re still not a democracy,

Herskind concludes:

Regardless of your politics, we must recognize that we will only live in a true democracy once everyone has the right to vote.

The Founding Fathers understood more than two centuries ago that an elected legislature can trample a person’s rights as readily as can a king, an aristocracy, or theocrat. So they bequeathed to posterity a constitutional republic based on enumerated limited governmental powers to protect individual rights from aspiring tyrants, including elected legislatures.

Yet here we are today with a Princeton student who should know better speaking of “true democracy,” as if the only “right” that matters is the power to run everyone else's lives via a vote. 

It is not. Democracy is not fundamental to America. In fact, it is the repudiation of America. The right to vote is not a fundamental right. A fundamental right is a right that precedes government, and the most fundamental right is the right to life; which means the right of each individual to chart the course of his own life in pursuit of his own goals, values, and happiness, including the right to whatever property he earns. The rights to life, liberty, and property are fundamental rights. The right to vote is a derivative of the fundamental rights. No one’s fundamental rights should ever be at the mercy of elections. 

Am I being too hard on Herskind? After all, his primary focus is on getting imprisoned individuals the vote. I think not. An indication that Herskind does not understand America as a rights-protecting nation first is in this statement:

But even voting rights legislation is an incomplete, if important, step toward democracy. Along with the right to vote must come a massive organizing initiative to register newly-eligible voters — or better, to automatically register all voters — and to get out the vote. Such an effort will be integral to democracy.

Emphasis added. As I argued in QUORA: ‘What's wrong with automatic voter registration?’

automatically registering eligible voters is a violation of individual rights.

Automatic voter registration violates the rights of individuals to decide for themselves if they want to register and vote. It is a personal decision that the state has no business deciding for anyone. Rationalizations about the “civic duty” or “politicization” of voting to the contrary notwithstanding, the state has no more business registering you to vote than it does registering you into a bowling league or as an Amazon Prime customer. The only role of the state is to make it as uncomplicated as it can to register to vote, consistent with running fair and trustworthy elections. The choice is up to the individual citizen, each according to his own values, conscience, and interests—period.

What's wrong with automatic voter registration? The very fact that it’s automatic, rather than voluntary.

True democracy repudiates these and other protections of individual rights. If Herskind understood America, he wouldn't advocate for automatic voter registration. What's next -- a fine for not voting? Don't laugh. If Democracy is primary, that's the logical next step. Principles and precedents have consequences.

Democracy is a manifestation of totalitarianism, in that every aspect of life and property are subject to political control/expropriation. I have no opinion regarding voting rights for ex-cons. Frankly, I wouldn’t care who voted if my rights were protected. But those protections are eroding under the increasing democratization of America. The alienation from our fundamental rights is a much more important issue than any voter’s disenfranchisement. Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live one’s life regardless of anyone else’s vote. 

Related Reading:

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People—Randy E. Barnett 

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

America the Undemocratic

Friday, September 10, 2021

The Dem's Jim Crow 2.0

The Biden Administration’s Covid Relief bill contained racially discriminatory programs, including a five $billion program brazenly titled the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act. In Black US farmers awaiting billions in promised debt relief By ROXANA HEGEMAN and ALLEN G. BREED reports:

BOYDTON, Va. (AP) — There was a time when Black farms prospered.

Just two generations out of slavery, by 1910 Black farmers had amassed more than 16 million acres of land and made up about 14 percent of farmers. The fruit of their labors fed much of America.

Now, they have fewer than 4.7 million acres. Black farms in the U.S. plummeted from 925,000 to fewer than 36,000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s latest farm census. And only about one in 100 farmers is Black.

What happened?

They were able to overcome the broken promise of “40 acres and a mule” to the newly freed slaves — a military order, later rescinded. But over the last century, they faced one obstacle after another because of their race.

Farmers needed loans to expand, to buy seed, to bridge the time between harvests. But lenders — chief among them, the USDA — often refused to give them money, and often rushed to foreclose. Suppliers and customers undercut them. Laws of inheritance led to the breakup of homesteads.

And so the Jim Crow era went, led by “liberal” Progressive Democrat Party policies. All of the hideous details are documented by Richard Rothstein in his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.

So there is no doubt that black farmers (and black Americans generally) were victims of a horrendous injustice perpetrated by their own government, retarding and/or halting the progress blacks were making after slavery was abolished and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendements were passed theoretically guaranteeing all Americans equality before the law. 

Reparations are a valid and just way to compensate victims -- actual victims. Black farmers were victims of their own government’s racist laws. Having been screwed out of just reparations right after the Civil War, blacks got screwed again by the same faction that, before the Civil War,  wanted to keep them enslaved. 

Yes. Show me an actual victim of government’s discrimination, and I'll show you someone who deserves government compensation. But this program promising $billions of handouts to black farmers is not about reparations. It makes no evidence-based distinction or judgement about who deserves these payments, or who is responsible. It makes no distinction between victims and non-victims. It simply assumes that if a farmer’s skin color is “of color”, that farmer is ipso facto a victim. It reaches back many decades, and more than a century, to justify this new racist program even though many, if not all, of the victims are long dead. All you need is black skin, and you are assumed to be a victim, with or without evidence. If you are white skinned, you are unfairly and arbitrarily excluded in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. The program is broadly group, not individual, oriented. It paints with a broad collectivist brush. It is collectivist, not individualist. It is identity, not equity, politics. It is not justice. It is injustice -- the one of the worst forms of injustice. It is racist. 

Having first championed slavery and then compounding their evil with a new evil, the Jim Crow era, the Democrats are now posing as the champions of their own victims by bringing back Jim Crow under the guise of reparations. Jim Crow laws are defined as any state or local laws that enforce racial segregation and discrimination. This farm program certainly fits that definition. Strictly speaking, the program is not segregation. It most certainly and explicitly is legalized racial discrimination. There is no way to sugar-coat this abomination. No "cause", no matter how "good", can justify racist government policies. The Democratic Party -- the party of slavery, segregation, eugenics, lynching, and racial identity politics, is acting true to its form and history. It is engaged in neo-Jim Crow, or, in their own terminology, Jim Crow 2.0.

So how should reparations work? It should be decided through the courts, the last bastion of evidence-based, objective decision-making and judgement -- the Pigford cases is a good modl of how discrimination damages should be pursued. The last place for reparations to be decided is through the legislature. Keep politics out of it, as much as is humanly possible.

The COVID black farm provision, which was sponsored by Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, violates basic principles of justice and equity. A person’s moral standing is determined by his own actions and choices. No one is born with pre-packaged grievance, victimhood, guilt, sin, or responsibility for past events. And that goes for farmers black, white, or other. An individual’s moral and legal standing is not determined by that person’s body chemistry, be it blood, genes, or skin pigment, or by the actions taken historically by people deemed to be of the same group identity. That would be racist and bigoted, and anyone who believes in such identity-based judgement is thinking like a savage, not an Enlightened, civilized human being. But that is the implicit assumption embodied in the Democrats’ farm bill, which was snuck in without debate or transparency as part of their massive COVID relief bill. It assumes farmers with white skin are guilty, or less “deserving,” without evidence, by virtue of being born with “white” skin, and assumes black farmers are victims, and thus “deserving,” by virtue of being born with black/dark skin. That is the very definition of legalized racial discrimination -- that is, Jim Crow.

The farm bill, currently halted by a federal court, is one of several unconstitutional discriminatory programs embedded in the Biden Democrats’ $1.9 trillion “Covid Relief” package. If it looks like Jim Crow, and walks like Jim Crow, and talks like Jim Crow, and sounds like Jim Crow, you’ve got yourself Jim Crow 2.0.


The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein 

There is No Parallel Between the Private Right to Discriminate Against Gays and Jim Crow Laws

Racism— by Ayn Rand

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: Oakland Reprises the Confederacy.

Related Viewing:

Why Leftists Still Get Away w/ Racism & Socialism... -- by Yaron Brook