They Create Anarchy To Impose Tyranny

[Brian4Liberty]

They Create Anarchy To Impose Tyranny
By Michael Shellenberger

For hundreds of years, liberals have been fierce opponents of authoritarianism. It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who fought against restrictions on free speech, defended the right to privacy from the government, and fought abuses of power by government agencies. In contrast, conservatives have placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding traditional moral hierarchies.

But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.

It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.

Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.

But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.

What’s more, the authoritarian measures imposed by these leaders were highly selective in nature. None of the four politicians named demanded censorship of the misinformation and hate speech that spread after the killing of George Floyd, which one could argue contributed to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots as much if not more than the ones over the last week in Britain. Nor have the politicians called for censorship to halt the sharp increase of illegal migration. And all of the politicians have adopted a different standard of policing of protests by BLM and other left-wing causes than for anti-immigration, Freedom Convoy truckers, and right-wing ones, which some have called “two-tier” policing.

In the case of gender, liberal politicians have pursued anarchy for medical professionals and tyranny for anyone who stands in the way of so-called “gender-affirming care.” On the one hand, liberal politicians like Walz and Newsom have championed the right of medical professionals to block puberty, prescribe cross-sex hormones, and perform surgeries. On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.

As such, liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?
...
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1821323860404531546

[PAF]

Commencement Address | Sandra Klein
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/commence...sandra-klein:e
{Mises Media | 03 August 2024}

“Rothbard always worked with great enthusiasm and joy despite the many obstacles he faced. The reason why his spirits never dampened is because he had optimism, which he said may be very long-range. He didn’t merely believe the possibility of eventual victory. but implied that given a fairly safe set of assumptions, the triumph of liberty was practically inevitable.”

Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on August 2, 2024.

https://youtu.be/RILDjo4EXV8

[ClaytonB]

The State, at its core, is the opposite of law and order: it is anarchy in the vernacular sense of systematic chaos. There are many ways to see this, but perhaps the easiest is by looking at the limitation of liability. LLCs, and all similar legal instruments, could not exist without a State. What is a liability limitation?? Either you're liable, or you're not. And if you're liable, then you're liable for all the actual (legally provable) damages. An LLC actually provides only very slight protections against legal liability for one's actions (or the actions of one's employees, etc.) but as you move up the ladder of "elite"-ness, the limitations on liability increase and increase. If you're a judge or the President, you have "absolute immunity" which is synonymous with saying you have zero liability -- you literally can't be sued or criminally charged (for anything related to doing "your job", howsoever that may be defined.) Thus, State-ism is ultimately idolatry of the most virulent kind... the ultimate goal of State-ism is to create a superman, an antichrist person who cannot be held accountable for his actions and, thus, literally becomes god-on-earth.

[NOTE: This is why Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:4: "[The man of sin] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." Of course he will, that is the entire end-goal of all State-ism and power-worship: to make a god-man and set him up as a god-in-the-flesh. This is why the Antichrist is inevitable. State-ism is the final religion and it will eventually wipe out all other religions, including Christianity as we know it (see 2 Thess 2:1ff, Rev. 11:7; 13:7,15)...]

[acptulsa]

The State, at its core, is the opposite of law and order: it is anarchy in the vernacular sense of systematic chaos. There are many ways to see this, but perhaps the easiest is by looking at the limitation of liability. LLCs, and all similar legal instruments, could not exist without a State.

All of that is true, but beside the point of this thread. It's talking about why they're importing criminals and punishing not violent criminals but only those who complain about them -- so Republicans will cheer Trump when he institutes unconstitutional stop and frisk nationwide. Those who trade liberty for security love red ball caps. And deserve neither, and will get neither, just as Ben Franklin said.

This is why Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:4: "[The man of sin] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything ...

Self-exaltations R Us.

[Occam's Banana]

[...]

But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. [...]

//

Tim Walz doesn’t believe in free speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvISCbx3Dcw
{Jack Hunter | 07 August 2024}

Kamala Harris's VP pick says "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech."

BULL. The First Amendment protects both.

Democrats just no longer believe in free speech.

[ClaytonB]

All of that is true, but beside the point of this thread.

It's "general context".

Self-exaltations R Us.

Trump's self-promotion habits are well-known and, while they can be annoying to some people, they come nowhere near saying "I am God", let alone sitting in the rebuilt temple and saying, "I am God", which is precisely what Scripture tells us the capital-A Antichrist will do. Trump may be a lot of things and your dislike of him may be justified or not, but he just doesn't meet the prophetic criteria to be the capital-A Antichrist.

[acptulsa]

...but he just doesn't meet the prophetic criteria to be the capital-A Antichrist.

Just acts almost just like whoever will be that guy.

Reassuring.

I don't suppose it's possible he will ramp his self-aggrandizing rhetoric up to that level before he's done? Nah, couldn't happen. Unpossible.

[osan]

For hundreds of years, liberals have been fierce opponents of authoritarianism.

c
This is or is not true depending on one's operating definition of "liberal". Therefore, this is a very poorly constructed sentence. Who is this Shellenberger who writes so

It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who fought against restrictions on free speech, defended the right to privacy from the government, and fought abuses of power by government agencies. In contrast, conservatives have placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding traditional moral hierarchies.

Blah blah... more loosey goosey semantics.

But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.

Perhaps I'm being too anal about things, but this brand of writing is a peeve of mine. "Liberal" was coopted by the left and its meaning perverted into what it has become today. So I will agree with the first sentence on the assumption he's not referring to 18th century liberals.

Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain.

About time those limey bastards got some self-respect. 1/2

But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems.

Problems? He see those events as problems?

It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.

Well thank you Captain Obvious.

On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.

And the parents do nothing to stop it.

Was there an actual, valid point to this article?

[osan]

The State, at its core, is the opposite of law and order: it is anarchy in the vernacular sense of systematic chaos. There are many ways to see this, but perhaps the easiest is by looking at the limitation of liability. LLCs, and all similar legal instruments, could not exist without a State. What is a liability limitation?? Either you're liable, or you're not. And if you're liable, then you're liable for all the actual (legally provable) damages. An LLC actually provides only very slight protections against legal liability for one's actions (or the actions of one's employees, etc.) but as you move up the ladder of "elite"-ness, the limitations on liability increase and increase. If you're a judge or the President, you have "absolute immunity" which is synonymous with saying you have zero liability -- you literally can't be sued or criminally charged (for anything related to doing "your job", howsoever that may be defined.) Thus, State-ism is ultimately idolatry of the most virulent kind... the ultimate goal of State-ism is to create a superman, an antichrist person who cannot be held accountable for his actions and, thus, literally becomes god-on-earth.

[NOTE: This is why Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:4: "[The man of sin] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." Of course he will, that is the entire end-goal of all State-ism and power-worship: to make a god-man and set him up as a god-in-the-flesh. This is why the Antichrist is inevitable. State-ism is the final religion and it will eventually wipe out all other religions, including Christianity as we know it (see 2 Thess 2:1ff, Rev. 11:7; 13:7,15)...]

That game has been playing for thousands of years. The Catholic church was hip-deep in it for 1500 years at least, for exampe. They forbade the common man from learning to read and speak Latin, while from the other sides of their crooked mouths they moaned about the "seeley and ignorant masses" as they justified their tyrannical reign upon the very conditions they established and maintained with iron fists.

We deserve what we get because we tolerate the intolerable. We should be out putting the varlets to their rightfully earned ends. But no, that's too much to ask, and so we live under ever more cancerous tyranny that grows by the minute.

[acptulsa]