Saturday, August 13, 2022

SCOTUS Attacks Religious Freedom

Joe Kennedy, a coach at Bremerton High School, began praying on the field during school events. The Washington State public school district warned him several times to stop the public prayers because it feared that Kennedy’s actions violated the Constitution’s ban on government Establishment of Religion. 


Eventually, Kennedy lost his job, and sued the district. The case, Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, ultimately went to the Supreme Court. In a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Kennedy.


The rationale for the SCOTUS ruling is that Kennedy’s actions are protected by freedom of speech. As Scott Shackford reports for Reason,


In a 6–3 decision, the Court determined that Joseph Kennedy, a former assistant coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state, was within his First Amendment rights and not acting in his capacity as a school official when he prayed on the 50-yard line at football games and permitted others (including students) to join him. As such, Kennedy was not causing the school to violate the Establishment Clause and endorse a particular religion.


The majority decision for Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, leans heavily on evidence and statements that no student was coerced or ever said they felt coerced to participate in these postgame prayers. Gorsuch observes that it doesn't appear that the method that Kennedy engaged in prayer caused anybody to feel as though he were pushing his religion on students as a coach


But Justice Sonya Sotomayor easily demolishes this argument. As The MORNING DISPATCH reported on 7/6/22


In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that context—much of which was absent from Gorsuch’s majority opinion—was necessary to reach the correct conclusion in the case. “Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work,” she wrote. “This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched.”


Sotomayor’s dissent also focused on the power dynamics at play in the situation at hand. “Students face immense social pressure,” she wrote, even if they aren’t pushed to join prayers or punished for skipping them. “Students look up to their teachers and coaches as role models and seek their approval. Students also depend on this approval for tangible benefits … from extra playing time to a stronger letter of recommendation to additional support in college athletic recruiting.”


[My emphasis]


I would add that, among those tangible benefits is grades. It’s easy to see that a student may fear lower grades if she doesn’t go along with her teacher’s religious exercise. Regardless of whether there is any overt evidence in this particular case of a student being punished for not participating, the power that teachers have over students’ educational outcomes can easily foster covert forms of punishment, or fear thereof.


Here are my FB comments that accompanied my share of Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on field raised church-state questions.  Quoting from the article, I wrote:


"The 6-3 decision is a victory for those who seek a larger role for prayer and religion in public schools."


And it is a terrible defeat for freedom of conscience and religious liberty.


For the 2nd time in a week, the SCOTUS shredded the Constitution*, demonstrating once again the Conservatives' willingness to ignore the clear language of the Constitution when it suits their purposes.


Unlike the recent decision which affirmed the right of a Maine parent acting as a private citizen to choose a private religious school with her child's allotted education tax dollars, this incident involved a government employee acting in his official capacity at a government school function of a government school.


This is not a freedom of religion or freedom of speech issue, as the Conservative majority imagines. It is neither. The Conservative majority flippantly brushed aside the very first line of the First Amendment, which explicitly protects us FROM religion—"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This coach didn't privately pray. He made it a public demonstration, at a public school event, as a public school employee, thus implying the imprimatur of the state and carrying the power of a law sanctioning an establishment of religion.


There is no conflict among the first 3 phrases of the First Amendment—"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . ."—when you draw a bright line between government and private function. Of course, the root of the problem is government schooling. These conflicts would vanish if we amended the First Amendment to add "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and privatized all public schools—the complete Separation of Education and State.


* [The first time being the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Here is my Facebook post on the ruling.]


Related Reading: 

Separation of Church (or Education) and State


Why We Need the Separation of Education and State


Freedom Of Religion Demands Freedom From Religion


On Religion, The First Amendment Works Both Ways


Freedom Of Religion Demands Freedom From Religion


My Commentary on Church-State Separation


Tuesday, August 9, 2022

QUORA: ‘Why should capitalists be allowed to continually reap the benefits of others' labor?’

 QUORA: ‘Why should capitalists be allowed to continually reap the benefits of others' labor?


I posted this answer:


The question implies that the capitalist—a label under which I include investors, businessmen, entrepreneurs—can profit only by permission, which the government should have the power to rescind, and thus outlaw and/or confiscate his profits at any time. 


The question ignores the fact that the employees accept and remain in the jobs created by the capitalist/businessman/entrepreneur by voluntary mutual consent, and that consumers willingly buy the businessman’s products. Therefore,  the profits are legitimately earned; meaning that the profits belong to the capitalist not by any authority’s permission but by moral right. It follows that there is only one moral way to “disallow” a capitalist’s profit—by consumers refusing to buy his product. Any other method, including governmental coercion, is criminal. 


That said, the creation of a product that is marketable at a price that is more than the total cost of production is not an easy task. It doesn’t just happen “somehow.” Yet the delusion persists that the labor of the individual workers, each performing a specific delimited task, magically integrates and coordinates into a final product. 


It does not. 


Capitalists reap the benefits of their own capital, ideas, managerial skills, production planning, market analysis, and the general work of running the enterprise and coordinating all of the myriad factors of production, including labor, when and if that work results in successfully creating a marketable product. The direct benefits labor contributes to the capitalist's goals goes to the workers in the form of wages, salaries, and fringe benefits. Certainly capitalists are not “reaping the benefits of others’ labor” if by “reaping” one means taking advantage of workers in the nature of Karl Marx’s absurd exploitation theory of capitalism. Capitalists benefit through their work as the Prime Movers of the business.


The benefits the capitalist receives results from his ability to plan and coordinate the productive contributions of different divisions of labor (and other factors of production) in a way that successfully culminates in the final marketable product, which the capitalist is solely responsible for making possible. It is the capitalist who gives value to the workers. A worker’s job has no value outside of the context as a contributor to the plans of the capitalist regarding the finished product. In this sense, it is actually labor that is reaping benefits—from the capitalists.


Related:


Jeff Bezos’s Beautiful Defense of American Entrepreneurialism


Good Answer  to this question by Saulius Muliolis


My answers to . . .


QUORA: ‘What are the practical proofs that the profits arise from labour which produces surplus value?'

Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’

QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'


Related Reading:


Marx and His Exploitation Theory BY GEORGE REISMAN 


Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand


To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?


Did Unions Create the Middle Class?


The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State by Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi, especially Chapter 24, The Enchaining of Human Action Reverts to a Labor Theory of Value.


George Reisman on Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Capitalism, interview with Jim Brown for The Objective Standard


On this Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor


The Moral Injustice of the Assault on the Space Billionaires


A NJ Letter-Writer’s Comic Book Economics


QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'


Capitalism by George Reisman


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein  


What is Capitalism? by Ayn Rand 


[Compare: What is Socialism?--Robert Heilbroner, 1982]

Friday, August 5, 2022

‘My Body, My Choice’: Daysi Calavia-Robertson Pathetically Weak Defense of Abortion Rights

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed, Daysi Calavia-Robertson (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com) asserts that people opposed to vaccine mandates—which she calls “anti-vaxxers”—have wrongly accused abortion rights advocates of hypocracy for simultaneously supporting vaccine mandates.


In Hey Anti-vaxxers, ready to march for abortion rights?, Robertson makes several meaningful errors in her argument. For starters, she writes:


One of my friends, an anti-vaxxer, snarkily asked why those losing their constitutional right to an abortion had been “so silent” when she and so many others were forced to get a COVID-19 vaccine.


“Where was this, ‘My body, My choice’ energy for the vaccine?” she asked. She said she would’ve lost her job had she “refused” to “get vaxxed.”


Robertson doesn’t think so. But her friend asks a valid question. But it comes with an apples-v.-oranges package-deal that needs to be cleared. There is a distinct difference between a government issuing a broad mandate across the population and a private entity like a business requiring vaccines for its employees. 


This is a critical distinction with individual rights implications. Properly understood, a vaccine mandate issued by the state violates individual rights. An employer “mandate”—which is really a condition of employment to work at that company—violates no one’s rights. When the government mandates vaccines, it means get a vaccine, period. A business can not mandate a vaccine for anyone. It can simply say if you’re not vaxxed, you can’t work here.


And there is an unjust assumption here also; Robertson’s equating of mandate opponents generally to vaccine opponents specifically. You can be pro vaccine and anti vaccine mandate. By equating anti-mandate with anti-vaxxers, Robertson is guilty of package-dealing


So right off the bat, Robertson mis-frames the issue. Beyond that, she writes:


I thought, she can’t be serious. But she was. And I thought, does she really think this is the same thing?


In fact, they’re not. A government outlawing abortion is not the same as an employer requiring vaccines. Unfortunately, Robertson doesn’t make that connection, which would have been a powerful point in her favor. Instead, she chooses trivia.


Anti-vaxxers, you see, have co-opted the “My Body, My Choice” slogan. They’ve made the slogan, that for nearly five decades has been synonymous with the abortion and reproductive rights movement, somehow now apply to their oh-so-unworthy plight to not get vaccinated for an infectious disease during a pandemic.


This is arrogant—and silly. The issue of a person being legally required to get a vaccine most certainly is a “My Body, My Choice” issue. She vehemently disagrees on superficial grounds:


What anti-vaxxers fail to understand is the two issues of body autonomy are not the same. The choice they want to preserve is a pinch on the arm that carries a minimal risk and is low cost for most people.


This is what happens when you abandon principles. 


Certainly, the degree of life disruption matters. And that should certainly be acknowledged. But on principle, there’s no difference. Both mandates—to get a vaccine and to carry a pregnancy to term—clearly violate the “My Body, My Choice” principle. If Robertson actually thought in principles, she would understand this. And it would add power to her position.


Moreover, the very idea that that slogan was “co-opted” by the “anti-vaxxers” ignores the fact that the principle behind it, if not the exact slogan, long predates the current pro-choice movement. “My Body, My Choice” is not the sole property of pro-choicers. The principle dates back at least to The Enlightenment, when John Locke, the leading influence on the Founding Fathers, proposed his theory of property rights, which begins with the idea that “. . . every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.”


This “Property in his own Person” was interpreted broadly, both by Locke and the Founding era generation. It included property in one’s conscience, labor, happiness, etc. It was also consistent with the legal issue of abortion in the Founding era, which was generally allowed by law until later in a pregnancy, specifically understood to be when “quickening”—movement is felt in the womb by the woman—occurs. This means abortion was generally legal until well into the 2nd trimester. 


Daysi Calavia-Robertson’s defense of abortion rights, if you can even call it a defense, is very poorly argued on many important fronts. As a supporter of abortion rights, rooted in the broader principles of inalienable individual rights, this is very frustrating to me. Pro-choicers like Robertson will never win the day with shallow, obviously flawed arguments like those presented here. You can’t win on abortion rights by sidestepping the fundamental moral, political, and Constitutional principles involved that lead to inalienable individual rights more broadly.


Related Reading:


Vaccine Mandates: What they Are, What They and Are Not, and Why Vaccines Should Not Be Mandated


Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment


In SCOTUS’ Draft Opinion Overturning Roe Abortion Ruling: Double Standards of Left and Right Exposed


Abortion and Individual Rights - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3


Defending Reproductive Rights Depends Upon Upholding All Rights


Right to Abortion vs. the "Right" to Abortion Services


Right to Abortion, Not Others' Wallets


Monday, August 1, 2022

Reply Responses to My Answer regarding QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 3

I received several comments on my QUORA answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? The following comment inspired a response from me:

 

From K Lauretti · 15h

I just was learning about echoism which is the opposite of narcissism. I believe having a purpose that helps us make up for the atoms that we are created from and our need to consume during life helps balance us and carry our spirit and makeup into the next generation. So it’s both filling our own needs now and then in the future. And ensuring that our community will be healthy for the next generation. So it’s healthy when you have a healthy amount of altruism just like it’s healthy when you have a healthy amount of narcissism. You have to care about yourself and others in order to have a safe society to live in and a healthy life for yourself.

 

My response, posted as a reply to Lauretti:


There is a common theme running through recent comments to the effect that the definition of altruism that Rand relies upon is “extreme” and therefore has no practical relevance to people’s lives. It’s true that, as I observed in my answer, people’s conception of altruism is mixed and contradictory. The so-called “middle” ground actually entails two opposites, non-sacrificial vs. self-sacrificial concern for others’ interest. This is logically untenable. To conceive of both forms of concern for others’ interest in a single concept—altruism—is to violate two of the three basic laws of logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. The issue at hand involves two distinct and logically opposing concepts, rational self-interest vs. altruism, each having their own objective—that is, “extreme”—definitions, and thus opposite practical effects. 


An “extreme” definition is an actual, proper definition. Any proper definition, by definition, is “extreme”, in the sense of being non-contradictory, unambiguous, and fact based, or it’s not a proper definition. A “non-extreme” definition never works logically, because a “non-extreme” definition is an attempt at obfuscation by approximation, vagueness, and inexactness. A “non-extreme” definition is no definition at all. Nothing is more destructive to human reason and communication than the approximate, the vague, the imprecise, the ambiguous, the non-objective, or the non-exact. Those who evade “extreme” definitions are condemned to logical and moral incoherence.


I maintain that the “extreme”—that is, accurate—definition of altruism has damaging real life practical consequences, not only in the more detached world of politics but also on a direct personal level. 


Which brings me to K Lauretti’s point about echoism. The practical value of Rand’s “extreme”—i.e., precise—understanding of altruism becomes plain in this comment.


The precise definition of altruism holds that the standard of moral action is self-sacrificial concern for others.* This is the definition generally accepted implicitly, even as some mistakenly conflate non-sacrificial acts of concern (including charity or helping out) for others’ interests with the self-sacrificial acts that altruism demands. Lauretti’s reference to echoism in fact proves Rand’s point, in the form of highlighting the inherently corrupting influence of altruism on the human soul. To see why, one must unpack the mushy, mixed understanding of “altruism” into its mutually exclusive opposites.


Echoism is a personality trait only recently identified by psychologists. Craig Malkin Ph.D., writing for Psychology Today, observes


Echoism is a trait that my colleagues and I have begun measuring, and like all traits, it exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone. People who score well above average in echoism qualify as echoists, and their defining characteristic is a fear of seeming narcissistic in any way


[my emphasis]

 

Narcissism, strictly speaking, is of course not a virtue. But here I take Lauretti’s use of the word narcissism to be a blanket reference to self-interest generally. A “fear of seeming narcissistic” amounts to, “I don’t want to be seen as thinking of myself.” If echoism “exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone,” then it is safe to say that my claim that Rand’s “impractical” understanding of altruism is in fact very practical is correct.


I hold that underlying this irrational “fear of seeming narcissistic” is altruism, precisely and properly (extremely) defined. 


This fear highlights how altruism, properly understood, has real-life consequences on the personal level. Since altruism ascribes a negative moral significance to prioritizing one’s self-interest, even though one cannot live without being substantially selfish, altruism's corrupting effect manifests in unearned guilt. If echoism “exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone”, we can readily see altruism’s widespread effects—the widespread infection of unearned guilt. The fear of seeming narcissistic is actually unearned guilt. Unearned guilt can have very damaging consequences for the individual, leading to damaged self-esteem and moral confidence.


As I said, the mushy, contradictory ways that altruism is used today violates the basic laws of logic—specifically, the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. Altruism cannot mean both sacrifice and non-sacrifice. It is either/or. People can hold mixed premises. But in any real life issue involving others, it’s either/or. It’s either a self-sacrifice to others, or rationally self-interested; altruism, or benevolence; unhealthy, or healthy. Altruism is what it is -- self-sacrificial service to others by moral duty, and nothing else. Altruism is not charitable; it is not benevolent; it is not respectful. 


I agree with Lauretti that “You have to care about yourself and others in order to have a safe society to live in and a healthy life for yourself.” But caring for yourself does not preclude caring for others. Certainly, charity and/or helping others can and often is consistent with promoting your own rationally selfish value hierarchy. And that concern for others, including strangers, needn’t, and shouldn’t, be self-sacrificial. Indeed, no respectful person would ever expect or demand of others self-sacrifice for their sake. A culture full of people demanding and expecting sacrifices from others for their own benefit is not a healthy culture. A healthy culture is a respectful culture, where people co-exist and interact by mutually beneficial relationships, neither sacrificing themselves to others nor expecting sacrifices from others. Concern for others can certainly be healthy. But there is no “healthy amount of altruism.”


Finally, observe how “selfish” is regularly used as a stand-alone criticism or accusation. “You’re selfish” is almost universally accepted as a pejorative, as if being selfish in and of itself is a vice. It’s intended to put the target on the defensive, sidestepping any judgment on what the accused is actually being selfish about. It implies that looking out for one's own interests is ipso-facto a bad thing. That is altruism just as Rand understands it. 


Far from being too “extreme” to have practical consequences in real life, altruism’s widespread corruption is evident everywhere across everyday life.


* [A sacrifice is the giving up of a value for a lesser value, or no value at all, as opposed to giving up a lesser value and receiving in return a value that is more important to you than that which you gave up.]


Related Reading:


QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'


Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness


QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'


QUORA: ‘Did Ayn Rand support the idea of giving to charity or donating your own money to help other people?’


QUORA: What does Ayn Rand think about vitrues [sic] such as charity, selflessness, and friendship?


QUORA: What do people misunderstand about Ayn Rand's ideas?


Understanding Ayn Rand’s Original Ethics Requires Original Thinking


Thursday, July 28, 2022

Tom Moran Warns of the Long Term Danger of a Presidential ‘Climate Emergency’ Declaration

In 2020, as America grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic, I worried that President Donald Trump’s invoking of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to cope with the the Health Emergency would be a dangerous precedent that could clear the way for a Democratic President to declare a “Climate Emergency,” giving the federal government totalitarian executive powers. 


Alas, President Joe Biden is getting pressure from Congressional Democrats to do just that — declare a Climate Emergency in order to impose draconian Leftist climate change policies that he can’t get through Congress.  


Fortunately, Biden is resisting the idea, so far. And pushback is developing, including from some on the Left. Tom Moran, editorial page editor for the New Jersey Star-Ledger, strongly condemned the idea in no uncertain terms. In No, don’t declare a climate emergency, Moran warned about a power that “could quickly spin out of control.” “The threat of authoritarian rule by unchecked presidents,” Moran presciently observes, “is easy to see.”


To be sure, Moran includes the obligatory Leftist Chicken Little panic mongering hyperbole about climate change. “the climate crisis is spinning out of control as Congress fiddles.” “The climate crisis is causing chaos and suffering across the globe and promises to get much worse.” And the like.


But, paradoxically, the fact that Moran is a card-carrying climate catastrophist gives his warning all the more credibility. He rightly sees the threat of American authoritarianism to be a much greater danger than anything climate change can throw at us. 


And as I viewed Trump’s DPA declaration as the crucial precedent, Moran reaches back further:


Three years ago, President Trump declared a state of emergency so he could use money from the defense budget to start building his wall along the Mexican border.


The reason was simple: He lost the political fight in Congress, so he used these powers as an end-run around our democracy. Another norm broken.


It was the first time the emergency laws were abused like that, historians say. The laws were intended to help a president cope with true emergencies that could not wait for Congress, like hurricanes, pandemics and invasions. Using it to defy the will of Congress was new.


Moran consults Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice:


“What Trump did with the emergency powers is exactly what Congress said he couldn’t do,” said Goitein.


Now, progressives want to break the same norm, and are pressing President Biden to declare an emergency over climate change, having lost the fight in Congress. It’s another end-run.


“I understand the temptation,” Moran says,


But Goitein, at Brennan, warns that this could quickly spin out of control, that if Biden declares an emergency over climate, a Republican president could declare an emergency over, say, abortion, and impose a nationwide ban.


“When Trump did this, you could argue it was an aberration, because he was an anomaly in every way imaginable,” she says. “But if Biden now uses it this way, to get around Congress, that would really shatter the norm.”


Philosophically, this is the kind of good political thinking that we rarely see any more. On this issue, Moran is channeling the same reverence for the importance of principles as the Founding Fathers.


The Founder' reverence for principle is demonstrated in these excerpts from James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". In his dramatic defense of religious liberty in opposition to Virginia's proposed tax to support the Christian Church, he said:


[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. (Emphasis added.)


The principle James Madison was referring to was the one underlying a Virginia law, known as “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion”. He understood that once any governmental “department of power overleap[s] the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people, . . . there is no way to contain that power, because . . . the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience . . . is held by the same tenure with all our other rights.” (Emphasis added.) Madison elaborates on this crucial point:


Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.


Notice the broad sweep of the rights that Madison saw threatened by a single religion-funding bill in a single state. The same can be said about a single climate change emergency declaration, whether at the federal or state level. The principle behind a climate emergency declaration threatens all of our rights.


I don’t want to be misunderstood. Tom Moran is no equal to the Founding Fathers. That said, keep Madison's wisdom in mind as you read this editorial, and you can appreciate the power of Moran’s warning.


Moran offers more examples of the consequences of the abuses of presidential emergency declarations, including George W. Bush’s broad violation of Muslim-Americans’ rights under a national security declaration following 9/11: 


But if this norm is broken, presidents of both parties could claim emergency powers that are more far-reaching, Goitein warns, especially when a president declares a national security emergency.


“The real scary ones give a president the power to shut down communications facilities in an emergency, and to freeze assets and block financial transactions,” she says.


Which, if Goitein is correct, was exactly what was done to Muslim Americans. 


If I read Goitein’s premise correctly, she is basically saying there are effectively no limits on what the executive branch can impose under emergency declarations. What can political authorities not do as justified under the alleged need to “fight climate change?” Sounds like totalitarian powers to me—or at least as close to totalitarian as a president can get away with. And if the recent COVID pandemic is any indication, politicians can get away with quite a lot of usurpations of our liberties. 


Perhaps that’s why, as Moran points out, “Congress is considering reforms, like imposing tight time limits on emergency powers unless Congress votes to extend them.” 


That’s encouraging. “In the end,” Moran concludes, 


the emergency declaration seems like a political stunt, a way for Democrats like Booker to signal their concern and militancy, to answer the frustration in the party.


But it wouldn’t help much in the climate fight, and it would weaken our democracy. That’s a bad deal.


It sure is a bad deal—and, I will add, for our republic.


Kudos to Moran for clarifying the immense dangers inherent in any climate emergency declaration. I hope Biden will heed it.


Related:


‘Climate Emergency’: A Nonsensical, and Dangerous, Misuse of Words


As We Endure Through COVID-19, Dems Gear Up for ‘Climate Crisis’ Authoritarianism


Did Trump’s Defense Production Act Invocation Clear the Way for the Democrats’ ‘Climate Crisis’ Authoritarianism?


‘Climate Crisis’: The Dem’s Path to Totalitarian Socialism


Rand Paul, Title 2, and the Importance of Principles